Still Attempting to Make the Abomination of Desolation “Reverent”

Although I was a full, active, and quite conscious participant in the efforts to “correct” “abuses” in the liturgical abuse par excellence, the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical abomination, in the 1980s until Karol Jozef Wojtyla/John Paul II granted permission for girl altar boys in April of 1994, I have paid very almost no attention since then to the occasional efforts on the part of Wojtyla and his successor as the universal public face of apostasy, Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI since that time.

The last battle that I fought in the Novus Ordo liturgy wars was undertaken in the middle of March in 1994 at the behest of Father John Anthony Hardon, S.J., who had heard from his contacts in the Vatican that “Pope John Paul” was going to give permission for girl altar boys despite having reaffirmed the prohibition of same in Iaestimabile Donum, April 24, 1980, that I used to wave in the face of priests/presbyters when they committed “abuses” of one sort or another during the staging of the Novus Ordo travesty.

Father Hardon said to me over the phone, “Tom, you must call Mother Teresa and ask her to call the pope to put a stop to this.”

By this time, you see, I had become somewhat prominent in the conciliarverse because of my commentaries and news reports in The Wanderer, which is one of the reasons that Father Hardon, whom I had first met in 1979 during a day of recollection at the Church of Saint Ignatius of Loyola on Park Avenue in the Borough of Manhattan, City of New York, New York, had asked me to contact Mother Teresa.

It took about five or six phone calls to track Mother Teresa (Incompatible With True Sanctity) down to a Missionary of Charities convent in Vietnam, but she took my call and listened intently to Father Hardon’s request, saying very clearly, “This will be a disaster for the Church. "This will be a disaster for the Church. They will be pushing for women priests next." She agreed to call Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II, reaching his omnipotent secretary, the then Monsignor Stanislaw Dziwisz, now the retired conciliar "cardinal" archbishop of Krakow, Poland, being told that the decision had been made. I was told by Father Hardon that Mother Teresa was flabbergasted by the turnaround. Boy, if only that "pope" had known, huh?

That was it for me.

Although I had been very active in my efforts to expose the agenda of the International Commission for English in the Liturgy (ICEL), including interviewing is executive director at the time, John Page, shortly before the translation wars at the 1993 meeting of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops/United States Catholic Conference, and working with a few “conservative” “bishops” behind the scenes before that meeting, the girl altar boys indult was the last straw for me. I had been going to the modernized version of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition since 1990 in various places on Long Island and in Manhattan but vowed then and there to avoid the Novus Ordo on Sundays, although it took another eight years from 1994 to stop going to the travesty altogether. “Let the dead bury the dead,” I said to myself while resisting coming to the proper conclusion that was staring me right in the face from the following canon of the Council of Trent:

CANON VII.--If any one saith, that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs, which the Catholic Church makes use of in the celebration of masses, are incentives to impiety, rather than offices of piety; let him be anathema. (Session Twenty-Two, Chapter IX, Canon VII, Council of Trent, September 17, 1562, CT022.)

I was not open to seeing or accepting this truth thirty-one years, seven months ago. However, it was there for me to see. The blinders came off about eleven years later as I did my due diligence in 2004 and 2005 before coming to the correct conclusion in April of 2006. Even before announcing that decision, however, I had begun the process of examining the General Instruction of the Roman Missal sequentially in the written pages of Christ or Chaos between 2000 and 2004 before publishing it in book form then and, after over fifteen years of additional study and writing, published a completely revised edition four years ago (G.I.R.M. Warfare: The Conciliar Church's Unremitting Warfare Against Catholic Faith and Worship).

Although Robert Francis Prevost/Leo XIV is of one mind and one heart with Jorge Mario Bergoglio on false ecumenism, “outreach” to those steeped in unspeakable sins of perversity (see Leo XIV meets with ‘married’ homosexuals at Vatican and 5 transgender activists will dine with Pope Leo at 'Jubilee of the Poor' event Sunday), globalism, open borders, the ever-expansive reach of the “consistent life ethic” (seamless garment), and the “synodal path,” there is one area in which he differs from his diabolically inspired predecessor, namely, the conduct of the Novus Ordo liturgical abomination.

Yes, while Robert Francis Prevost/Leo XIV is completely committed to the liturgical revolution and simply cannot understand why Catholics within the structures of his conciliar sect who devoted to the modernized version of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition refuse to be satisfied with the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic service offered in the Latin language, he has joined the great conciliar Sisyphuses of the past, Karol Jozef Wojtyla/John Paul II and Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XIV, in urging an adherence to “liturgical norms” as found, it should be supposed, in the General Instruction to the Roman Missal:

Finally, I would like to mention an essential aspect of the Cathedral’s mission: liturgy. The liturgy is “the summit toward which the activity of the Church is directed... the source from which all its power flows” (Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy Sacrosanctum Concilium, 10). In it, we find the same themes we have already mentioned: we are built up as God’s temple, as his dwelling place in the Spirit and we receive strength to preach Christ in the world (cf. ibid., 2). Therefore, care for the liturgy, especially here at the See of Peter, must be such that it can serve as an example for the whole people of God. It must comply with the established norms, be attentive to the different sensibilities of those participating and keep with the principle of wise inculturation (cf. ibid., 37-38). At the same time, it must remain faithful to the solemn sobriety typical of the Roman tradition, which can do so much good for the souls of those who actively participate in it (cf. ibid., 14). Every care should be taken to ensure that the simple beauty of the rites expresses the value of worship for the harmonious growth of the whole Body of the Lord. As Saint Augustine said, “beauty is nothing but love, and love is life” (Discourse 365, 1). This truth is realized in an eminent way within the liturgy, and I hope that those who approach the altar of Rome’s Cathedral go away filled with the grace that the Lord wishes to flood the world (cf. Ezek 47:1-2, 8-9, 12). (Feast of the Dedication of the Basilica of St John Lateran, 9 November 2025.)

Now, there are several points that need to be made at this juncture.

First, it is impossible to “correct” “abuses” in the staging of the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical travesty as it is, as noted above, the liturgical abomination of the ages from which Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ Himself told us to flee:

And many false prophets shall rise, and shall seduce many. 12 And because iniquity hath abounded, the charity of many shall grow cold. 13 But he that shall persevere to the end, he shall be saved. 14 And this gospel of the kingdom, shall be preached in the whole world, for a testimony to all nations, and then shall the consummation come. 15 When therefore you shall see the abomination of desolation, which was spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place: he that readeth let him understand.

16 Then they that are in Judea, let them flee to the mountains: 17 And he that is on the housetop, let him not come down to take any thing out of his house: 18 And he that is in the field, let him not go back to take his coat. 19 And woe to them that are with child, and that give suck in those days. 20 But pray that your flight be not in the winter, or on the sabbath.

21 For there shall be then great tribulation, such as hath not been from the beginning of the world until now, neither shall be. 22 And unless those days had been shortened, no flesh should be saved: but for the sake of the elect those days shall be shortened. 23 Then if any man shall say to you: Lo here is Christ, or there, do not believe him. 24 For there shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive (if possible) even the elect. 25 Behold I have told it to you, beforehand.

26 If therefore they shall say to you: Behold he is in the desert, go ye not out: Behold he is in the closets, believe it not. 27 For as lightning cometh out of the east, and appeareth even into the west: so shall the coming of the Son of man be. (Matthew 24: 11-27.)

Second, most, although not all, of the conciliar revolutionaries never speak of the liturgy in terms of the worship of the one, true God, the Most Holy Trinity, in spirit and in truth as the unbloody representation or perpetuation of God the Son’s offering of Himself in the very flesh to His Co-Equal, Co-Eternal God the Father in atonement for our sins.

Third, the emphasis within the Novus Ordo service is not on the worship of God but on the “community at prayer,” which is why the presbyter addresses the people, not God, at the beginning of the service after he makes the Sign of the Cross: “The Lord be with you.”

Fourth, there are so many legitimate options within the Novus Ordo liturgical rite that it is not unusual for there to be variations not only found in different places around the world but also within the same parish, which might offer a “youth liturgy,” a “migrant liturgy,” “a family liturgy,” a “folk liturgy,” a “gay liturgy,” etc. A liturgical rite is supposed to reflect the permanence and transcendence of God Himself, not the instability represented by cultural trendiness.

Fifth, as noted above, Karol Jozef Wojtyla/John Paul II tried to rein in “liturgical abuses” twice within the space of twenty-three years.

Karol Jozef Wojtyla/John Paul II decried "unauthorized" liturgical practices by using almost the exact language in two documents, Dominicae Cenae, February 24, 1980, and Ecclesia de Eucharistia, April 17, 1983, while at the same time championing the "freedom" given in the "renewed liturgy" to give expression to certain needs:

Furthermore we should follow the directives issued by the various departments of the Holy See in this field: be it in liturgical matters, in the rules established by the liturgical books in what concerns the Eucharistic Mystery,(67) and in the Instructions devoted to this mystery, be it with regard to communication in sacris, in the norms of the Directorium de re oecumenica(68) and in the Instructio de peculiaribus casibus admittendi alios christianos ad communionem eucharisticam in Ecclesia catholica.(69) And although at this stage of renewal the possibility of a certain "creative" freedom has been permitted, nevertheless this freedom must strictly respect the requirements of substantial unity. We can follow the path of this pluralism (which arises in part from the introduction itself of the various languages into the liturgy) only as long as the essential characteristics of the celebration of the Eucharist are preserved, and the norms prescribed by the recent liturgical reform are respected.

Indispensable effort is required everywhere to ensure that within the pluralism of eucharistic worship envisioned by the Second Vatican Council the unity of which the Eucharist is the sign and cause is clearly manifested.

This task, over which in the nature of things the Apostolic See must keep careful watch, should be assumed not only by each episcopal conference but by every minister of the Eucharist, without exception. Each one should also remember that he is responsible for the common good of the whole Church. The priest as minister, as celebrant, as the one who presides over the eucharistic assembly of the faithful, should have a special sense of the common good of the Church, which he represents through his ministry, but to which he must also be subordinate, according to a correct discipline of faith. He cannot consider himself a "proprietor" who can make free use of the liturgical text and of the sacred rite as if it were his own property, in such a way as to stamp it with his own arbitrary personal style. At times this latter might seem more effective, and it may better correspond to subjective piety; nevertheless, objectively it is always a betrayal of that union which should find its proper expression in the sacrament of unity.

Every priest who offers the holy Sacrifice should recall that during this Sacrifice it is not only he with his community that is praying but the whole Church, which is thus expressing in this sacrament her spiritual unity, among other ways by the use of the approved liturgical text. To call this position "mere insistence on uniformity" would only show ignorance of the objective requirements of authentic unity, and would be a symptom of harmful individualism. (Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II, Dominicae Cenae, February 24, 1980.)

2. All of this makes clear the great responsibility which belongs to priests in particular for the celebration of the Eucharist. It is their responsibility to preside at the Eucharist in persona Christi and to provide a witness to and a service of communion not only for the community directly taking part in the celebration, but also for the universal Church, which is a part of every Eucharist. It must be lamented that, especially in the years following the post-conciliar liturgical reform, as a result of a misguided sense of creativity and adaptation there have been a number of abuses which have been a source of suffering for many. A certain reaction against “formalism” has led some, especially in certain regions, to consider the “forms” chosen by the Church's great liturgical tradition and her Magisterium as non-binding and to introduce unauthorized innovations which are often completely inappropriate.

I consider it my duty, therefore to appeal urgently that the liturgical norms for the celebration of the Eucharist be observed with great fidelity. These norms are a concrete expression of the authentically ecclesial nature of the Eucharist; this is their deepest meaning. Liturgy is never anyone's private property, be it of the celebrant or of the community in which the mysteries are celebrated. The Apostle Paul had to address fiery words to the community of Corinth because of grave shortcomings in their celebration of the Eucharist resulting in divisions (schismata) and the emergence of factions (haireseis) (cf. 1 Cor 11:17-34). Our time, too, calls for a renewed awareness and appreciation of liturgical norms as a reflection of, and a witness to, the one universal Church made present in every celebration of the Eucharist. Priests who faithfully celebrate Mass according to the liturgical norms, and communities which conform to those norms, quietly but eloquently demonstrate their love for the Church. Precisely to bring out more clearly this deeper meaning of liturgical norms, I have asked the competent offices of the Roman Curia to prepare a more specific document, including prescriptions of a juridical nature, on this very important subject. No one is permitted to undervalue the mystery entrusted to our hands: it is too great for anyone to feel free to treat it lightly and with disregard for its sacredness and its universality. (Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II, Ecclesia de Eucharistia, April 17, 2003.)

Even though Wojtyla/John Paul II decried abuses at the same time he exalted liturgical "pluralism" within the text of Dominicae Cenae, he made it clear that there was no turning back from the "liturgical renewal" as envisioned by Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria Montini’s January 13, 1965, general audience address:

May Christ Himself help us to follow the path of true renewal towards that fullness of life and of eucharistic worship whereby the Church is built up in that unity that she already possesses, and which she desires to bring to ever greater perfection for the glory of the living God and for the salvation of all humanity.

Permit me, venerable and dear brothers, to end these reflections of mine, which have been restricted to a detailed examination of only a few questions. In undertaking these reflections, I have had before my eyes all the work carried out by the Second Vatican Council, and have kept in mind Montini/Paul VI's Encyclical Mysterium Fidei, promulgated during that Council, and all the documents issued after the same Council for the purpose of implementing the post-conciliar liturgical renewal. A very close and organic bond exists between the renewal of the liturgy and the renewal of the whole life of the Church.

The Church not only acts but also expresses herself in the liturgy, lives by the liturgy and draws from the liturgy the strength for her life. For this reason liturgical renewal carried out correctly in the spirit of the Second Vatican Council is, in a certain sense, the measure and the condition for putting into effect the teaching of that Council which we wish to accept with profound faith, convinced as we are that by means of this Council the Holy Spirit "has spoken to the Church" the truths and given the indications for carrying out her mission among the people of today and tomorrow.

We shall continue in the future to take special care to promote and follow the renewal of the Church according to the teaching of the Second Vatican Council, in the spirit of an ever living Tradition. In fact, to the substance of Tradition properly understood belongs also a correct re-reading of the "signs of the times," which require us to draw from the rich treasure of Revelation "things both new and old."Acting in this spirit, in accordance with this counsel of the Gospel, the Second Vatican Council carried out a providential effort to renew the face of the Church in the sacred liturgy, most often having recourse to what is "ancient," what comes from the heritage of the Fathers and is the expression of the faith and doctrine of a Church which has remained united for so many centuries. (Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II, Dominicae Cenae, February 24, 1980.)

Karol Jozef Wojtyla/John Paul II was, quite contrary to my own delusional hopes in 1980, propagandizing in behalf of the same kind of "ever-living tradition" as he claimed that the "substance of Tradition properly understood belongs also to a correct re-reading of the 'signs of the times,' which require us to draw the rich treasure of Revelation 'things both new and old.'" It is this "spirit," John Paul II asserted, that must guide a proper implementation of the "liturgical renewal" that has given such great offense to God and has harmed so many souls. Karol Jozef Wojtyla/John Paul II and his successor as the head of the counterfeit church of conciliarism, Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, were joined at the hip in believing in the Modernist concept of a "living tradition"/hermeneutic of continuity that must be read according to "the signs of the times" that has been anathematized by the Catholic Church.

The late Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, who had written as "Cardinal" Ratzinger that there had indeed been a "rupture" between the Immemorial Mass of Tradition and the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service (see Appendix B below) contended during his nearly eight years as "Pope" Benedict XVI that no such "rupture" had taken place and that "tradition" must be seen as "living," which is why he helped to engineer "changes" into the staging of the Missal of Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII as reflected in its 2013 editio typica that gave concrete form to the recommendations he made in the explanatory letter he sent to the conciliar "bishops" to accompany Summorum Pontificum, July 7, 2007:

It is true that there have been exaggerations and at times social aspects unduly linked to the attitude of the faithful attached to the ancient Latin liturgical tradition. Your charity and pastoral prudence will be an incentive and guide for improving these. For that matter, the two Forms of the usage of the Roman Rite can be mutually enriching: new Saints and some of the new Prefaces can and should be inserted in the old Missal. The “Ecclesia Dei” Commission, in contact with various bodies devoted to the usus antiquior, will study the practical possibilities in this regard. The celebration of the Mass according to the Missal of Montini/Paul VI will be able to demonstrate, more powerfully than has been the case hitherto, the sacrality which attracts many people to the former usage. The most sure guarantee that the Missal of Montini/Paul VI can unite parish communities and be loved by them consists in its being celebrated with great reverence in harmony with the liturgical directives. This will bring out the spiritual richness and the theological depth of this Missal. (Letter to the "Bishops" that accompanies the Motu Proprio Summorum.)

Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI's belief in a "reform of the reform" that was designed to merge the "ordinary" and "extraordinary" forms of the "one Roman Rite" into one synthetic whole over the course of time (see Appendix C below), is now a thing of the past. Gone.

Let it not be said that the conciliar revolutionaries did not tell us exactly what they had planned to do, and same on those of us who were too busy with "other things" or too blind to the truth at the time to have refused to understood what Montini/Paul VI signified on January 13, 1965, would occur or who, worse yet, tried to justify such rantings as his as well as the oft-quoted ones that follow below:

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." (Annibale Bugnini, L'Osservatore Romano, March 19, 1965.)

Let it be candidly said: the Roman Rite which we have known hitherto no longer exists. It is destroyed. (Father Joseph Gelineau, who worked with Annibale Bugnini's Consilium, Quoted and footnoted in the work of a Father John Mole, who believed that the Mass of the Roman Rite had been "truncated," not destroyed. Assault on the Roman Rite)

Certainly we will preserve the basic elements, the bread, the wine, but all else will be changed according to local tradition: words, gestures, colors, vestments, chants, architecture, decor. The problem of liturgical reform is immense. (Archbishop Karol Wojtyla, 1965, Quoted and footnoted in Assault on the Roman Rite. This has also been noted on this site in the past, having been provided me by a reader who had access to the 1980 French book in which the quote is found.)

"[T]he intention of Pope Montini/Paul VI with regard to what is commonly called the Mass, was to reform the Catholic liturgy in such a way that it should coincide with the Protestant liturgy.... [T]here was with Pope Montini/Paul VI an ecumenical intention to remove, or at least to correct, or at least to relax, what was too Catholic in the traditional sense, in the Mass, and I, repeat, to get the Catholic Mass closer to the Calvinist mass" (Dec. 19, 1993), Apropos, #17, pp. 8f; quoted in Christian Order, October, 1994. (Jean Guitton, a close friend of Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria/Montini/Paul VI/Montini/Paul VI.)

Sixth, Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria/Montini/Paul VI made it clear on January 13, 1965, that the “liturgical renewal” authorized by the fathers of the “Second” Vatican Council in Sacrosanctum Concilium, December 4, 1963, was going to be a specific and categorical rejection of the glories of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition in order to accommodate the “needs” of “man” as he is “today,” not the honor and glory of God, Who is without beginning and end:

We must all modify the mental habits we have formed concerning the sacred ceremony and religious practices, especially if we have believed that ceremony to be a performance of outward rites and that in practice no more was required than a passive and distracted attendance.

One must make oneself aware that a new spiritual pedagogy has been born of the Council. That is what is novel about it, and we must not hesitate to make ourselves, first of all, disciples and then upholders of the school of prayer that has begun.

We may not relish this, but we must be docile and trust. The religious and spiritual plan unfolded before us by the new liturgical constitution is a stupendous one for depth and authenticity of doctrine, for rationality of Christian logic, for purity and riches of culture and art. It corresponds to the interior being and needs of modern man. . . . [the liturgical reform] affects habits that are dear to us, habits respectable enough maybe. . . . [and it might also be true that the reform] requires of us some effort.

It is well that this should be so, as one of the goals of the reform was the sharing of the faithful in the rites the priest directs and personifies. And it is good that it is actually the authority of the Church that wills, promotes and kindles the desire for this new manner of praying, thus giving greater increase to her spiritual mission.

It was and is, the Church's first care to safeguard the orthodoxy of prayer. Her subsequent care is to make the expression of worship stable and uniform, a great work from which the spiritual life of the Church has derived immense benefits. Now this care of hers is still further extended, modifying aspects of ancient rituals which are inadequate today.

The Church is aiming with courage and thoughtfulness to deepen th essential significance of community needs and the supernatural value of ecclesiastical worship. Above all, she is making more evident the part played by the word of God, whether of Sacred Scripture or that taught through the Church in the catechism and the homily, thus giving to the celebration its pure and, at the same time, its heart and center. (Giovanni Battiista Enrico Antonio Maria Montini/Paul VI, as quoted in "Be 'Docile' To Liturgy Changes, Pope Says," The Catholic Courier, January 21, 1965, p. 1. Be 'Docile' to Liturgy. See the appendix below for a rough translation from the Italian language original of the general audience remarks, which were divided into parts, the latter part of which reflects the Religious News Service wire report that was published in The Catholic Courier of the Diocese of Rochester. The then universal public face of apostasy, Montini/Paul VI, addressed the theme of false ecumenism on January 20, 1965, just in case you'd like to know what this egregious little man did for an encore seven days later.)

Well, ladies and gentleman, to quote a former colleague of mine, "There you have it."

Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria Montini/Paul VI provided a perfect description of the spirit of the counterfeit church of conciliarism's liturgical revolution that touched almost every theme that has been repeated by its apologists for the past sixty years now. Some of us have heard these themes over and over again, whether from the lecterns at which priests or presbyters gave their "homilies" or, in the case of those who us who spent time in seminary, in formal classroom settings.

Every revolutionary prescription imaginable is to be found in this gold mine of propaganda that has been preserved in the archives of the Diocese of Rochester, New York, which itself is a bastion of apostasy and of the lavender collective.

First, Montini/Paul VI noted that it was necessary to "modify mental habits," meaning that Catholics had to be "open" to accept a revolutionary program of liturgical change.

Second, Montini/Paul VI disparaged the Immemorial Mass of Tradition as something that required no more than a "passive and distracted" attendance on the part of the lay faithful. Montini/Paul VI had to do this as the very ordinary and collects of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition were reproaches to his own immersion in the "mentality" of the mythical entity known as "modern man" and because they contained references to a God Who judges and the necessity of reforming one's life that made his own conscience quite uncomfortable as a result of his proclivities (see "Blessed" Montini/Paul VI and In Death As In Life: The Antithesis Of Christ The King).

This is a lie and a categorical rejection of authentic Catholic teaching as summarized by Pope Pius XII in Mediator Dei, November 20, 1947:

But the chief element of divine worship must be interior. For we must always live in Christ and give ourselves to Him completely, so that in Him, with Him and through Him the heavenly Father may be duly glorified. The sacred liturgy requires, however, that both of these elements be intimately linked with each another. This recommendation the liturgy itself is careful to repeat, as often as it prescribes an exterior act of worship. Thus we are urged, when there is question of fasting, for example, “to give interior effect to our outward observance.”[28] Otherwise religion clearly amounts to mere formalism, without meaning and without content. You recall, Venerable Brethren, how the divine Master expels from the sacred temple, as unworthily to worship there, people who pretend to honor God with nothing but neat and wellturned phrases, like actors in a theater, and think themselves perfectly capable of working out their eternal salvation without plucking their inveterate vices from their hearts.[29] It is, therefore, the keen desire of the Church that all of the faithful kneel at the feet of the Redeemer to tell Him how much they venerate and love Him. She wants them present in crowds — like the children whose joyous cries accompanied His entry into Jerusalem — to sing their hymns and chant their song of praise and thanksgiving to Him who is King of Kings and Source of every blessing. She would have them move their lips in prayer, sometimes in petition, sometimes in joy and gratitude, and in this way experience His merciful aid and power like the apostles at the lakeside of Tiberias, or abandon themselves totally, like Peter on Mount Tabor, to mystic union with the eternal God in contemplation.

25. It is an error, consequently, and a mistake to think of the sacred liturgy as merely the outward or visible part of divine worship or as an ornamental ceremonial. No less erroneous is the notion that it consists solely in a list of laws and prescriptions according to which the ecclesiastical hierarchy orders the sacred rites to be performed.

26. It should be clear to all, then, that God cannot be honored worthily unless the mind and heart turn to Him in quest of the perfect life, and that the worship rendered to God by the Church in union with her divine Head is the most efficacious means of achieving sanctity.

27. This efficacy, where there is question of the eucharistic sacrifice and the sacraments, derives first of all and principally from the act itself (ex opere operato). But if one considers the part which the Immaculate Spouse of Jesus Christ takes in the action, embellishing the sacrifice and sacraments with prayer and sacred ceremonies, or if one refers to the “sacramentals” and the other rites instituted by the hierarchy of the Church, then its effectiveness is due rather to the action of the church (ex opere operantis Ecclesiae), inasmuch as she is holy and acts always in closest union with her Head.

28. In this connection, Venerable Brethren, We desire to direct your attention to certain recent theories touching a so-called “objective” piety. While these theories attempt, it is true, to throw light on the mystery of the Mystical Body, on the effective reality of sanctifying grace, on the action of God in the sacraments and in the Mass, it is nonetheless apparent that they tend to belittle, or pass over in silence, what they call “subjective,” or “personal” piety.

29. It is an unquestionable fact that the work of our redemption is continued, and that its fruits are imparted to us, during the celebration of the liturgy, notable in the august sacrifice of the altar. Christ acts each day to save us, in the sacraments and in His holy sacrifice. By means of them He is constantly atoning for the sins of mankind, constantly consecrating it to God. Sacraments and sacrifice do, then, possess that “objective” power to make us really and personally sharers in the divine life of Jesus Christ. Not from any ability of our own, but by the power of God, are they endowed with the capacity to unite the piety of members with that of the head, and to make this, in a sense, the action of the whole community. From these profund considerations some are led to conclude that all Christian piety must be centered in the mystery of the Mystical Body of Christ, with no regard for what is “personal” or “subjective, as they would have it. As a result they feel that all other religious exercises not directly connected with the sacred liturgy, and performed outside public worship should be omitted.

30. But though the principles set forth above are excellent, it must be plain to everyone that the conclusions drawn from them respecting two sorts of piety are false, insidious and quite pernicious.

31. Very truly, the sacraments and the sacrifice of the altar, being Christ’s own actions, must be held to be capable in themselves of conveying and dispensing grace from the divine Head to the members of the Mystical Body. But if they are to produce their proper effect, it is absolutely necessary that our hearts be properly disposed to receive them. Hence the warning of Paul the Apostle with reference to holy communion, “But let a man first prove himself; and then let him eat of this bread and drink of the chalice.”[30] This explains why the Church in a brief and significant phrase calls the various acts of mortification, especially those practiced during the season of Lent, “the Christian army’s defenses.”[31] They represent, in fact, the personal effort and activity of members who desire, as grace urges and aids them, to join forces with their Captain — “that we may discover . . . in our Captain,” to borrow St. Augustine’s words, “the fountain of grace itself.”[32] But observe that these members are alive, endowed and equipped with an intelligence and will of their own. It follows that they are strictly required to put their own lips to the fountain, imbibe and absorb for themselves the life-giving water, and rid themselves personally of anything that might hinder its nutritive effect in their souls. Emphatically, therefore, the work of redemption, which in itself is independent of our will, requires a serious interior effort on our part if we are to achieve eternal salvation. (Pope Pius XII, Mediator Dei, November 20, 1947.)

Third, Montini/Paul VI demanded complete adherence to the revolutionary liturgical agenda that had begun to unfold and which, quite indeed, had made its "transitional" appearance on Sunday, November 29, 1964, the First Sunday of Advent, as his Ordo Missae of 1965 went into effect, replacing the 1961/1962 Missal of Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII that had been in effect for all of three years at that point and, once "revived" to satisfy the poor Catholics "who feel attached to some previous liturgical and disciplinary forms of the Latin tradition" (Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II's Ecclesia Dei adflicta, July 2, 1988) has become a means to incorporate various aspects of the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service into its staging.

Fourth, Montini/Paul VI, having emphasized that the liturgical revolution had to be adapted to the "needs" of "modern man, further disparaged the Immemorial Mass of Tradition by claiming that its ceremonies and rites were "respectable enough maybe," thus helping to inaugurate a global campaign in the counterfeit church of conciliarism to create a false memory of the past as "bad," something that is being continued to this present day by Robert Francis Prevost/Leo XIV.

Fifth, Montini/Paul VI appealed to the "people" and the role envisioned for them in the new liturgical rites that conform to their needs and emphasized "community needs," paving the way for the "inculturation of the Gospel" that one of Annibale Bugnini's acolytes, "Monsignor" Piero Marini, who served as liturgical master of ceremonies from 1987 to 2007, used to plan the "papal" extravaganza liturgical services, which were billed as "Masses," during the false "pontificate" of Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II, as the means to provide "papal" precedents for us at the local diocesan level. Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis has taken full advantage of this "inculturation of the Gospel" as envisioned by Montini and Bugnini and later prescribed in Paragraph 395 of the General Instruction to the Roman Missal:

395. Finally, if the participation of the faithful and their spiritual welfare requires variations and more thoroughgoing adaptations in order that the sacred celebration respond to the culture and traditions of the different peoples, then Bishops' Conferences may propose such to the Apostolic See in accordance with article 40 of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy for introduction with the latter's consent, especially in the case of peoples to whom the Gospel has been more recently proclaimed. The special norms given in the Instruction On the Roman Liturgy and Inculturation should be carefully observed.

Regarding procedures to be followed in this matter, the following should be followed:

In the first place, a detailed preliminary proposal should be set before the Apostolic See, so that, after the necessary faculty has been granted, the detailed working out of the individual points of adaptation may proceed.

Once these proposals have been duly approved by the Apostolic See, experiments should be carried out for specified periods and at specified places. If need be, once the period of experimentation is concluded, the Bishops' Conference shall decide upon pursuing the adaptations and shall propose a mature formulation of the matter to the Apostolic See for its decision. (Paragraph 395, General Instruction to the Roman Missal.)

"Cardinal" Bergoglio presided over all manner of liturgical travesties during his time as the conciliar "archbishop" of Buenos Aires, Argentina, from February 28, 1998, to March 13, 2013. He was doing so in perfect compliance with the sentiments expressed on January 13, 1965, by Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria Montini/Montini/Paul VI.

Sixth, Montini/Paul VI's belief that his liturgical revolution would usher in a period of stability and doctrinal orthodoxy was the product of the sort of self-delusion that inspires both social and theological revolutionaries to march forward with their schemes that can do only one thing: produce instability as the means to accustom the faithful a steady regime of doctrinal deviations and a ceaseless wave of liturgical changes.

The progenitor of the Protestant Revolution, Martin Luther, decried the degeneration produced by his "reforms" but was powerless to stop it as he did not realize that those very "reforms" were the brainchild of the devils himself that of their very nature had to produce instability, novelty and ceaseless change to the point today where many "mainline" Protestants, particularly Anglicans, Presbyterians and Methodists, no longer believe in the Sacred Divinity of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

Similarly, even though Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria/Montini/Paul VI at times in the 1970s decried certain aspects of his vaunted "renewal" of the Church that, according to the translation of his January 13, 1965, general audience address, was supposed to produce what he called "the vision of the new spiritual springtime," he was powerless to stop what he had put into motion as it was a revolution against the very integrity of the Sacred Liturgy that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ had taught the Apostles between the time of His Resurrection on Easter Sunday and that of his Ascension forty days thereafter.

The promulgation of the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical travesty by means of Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria Montini/Paul VI’s very misnamed Missale Romanum on April 3, 1969, resulted in a regime of ceaseless, unremitting, mind-numbing changes. These changes and variations are so numerous that it is not uncommon for “conservative” Catholics within the conciliar structures to encounter stagings of this abomination of desolation that vary so widely from one place to another—and even within a single parish—as the “options” permitting such idiosyncratic differences are all permitted and are to be found in the General Instruction to the Roman Missal. (For an excellent history on how the liturgical revolution, which hijacked the Liturgical Movement that began with Dom Prosper Gueranger, O.S.B., in the Nineteenth Century, made substantial inroads during the last decade of Pope Pius XII's pontificate, please see a series of articles written by Dr. Carol A. Byrne, who is very much opposed to sedevacantism, at The Start of The New Liturgical Movement. One can follow the “Continued” links at the end of this article—and each subsequent one, numbering forty-five in total, to read the entire series, which is well worth reading.)

The teleology of error is such that one falsehood must multiply into many other falsehoods over the course of time, and the counterfeit church of conciliarism so replete with error as to make whatever decisions its officials take at one time subject to the same kind of “reevaluation” and “adjustment” with which they have dismissed the dogmatic decrees of Holy Mother Church’s twenty legitimate general councils and the defense of dogmatic truth by our true popes. What one conciliar “pope” does can be undone by the next conciliar “pope,” and no conciliar “pope” was more intent on undoing anything approximating Catholicism that had been maintained prior to his “election” on March 13, 2013, than the late and thoroughly non-lamented Jorge Mario Bergoglio.

As discussed above with respect to the infamous section on “inculturation of the liturgy,” the liturgical revolution was meant to serve as vessel of perdition by which the people, having become so accustomed to ceaseless liturgical changes, would come to view matters of Faith and Morals as subject to ceaseless, change, instability and unpredictability, which is why so many, if not most, ordinary Catholics who take the time and trouble to go the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical travesty on a regular basis are not in the least bit fazed by such things as changing the very nature of what they believe is the Catholic Church from its monarchical, hierarchical nature as founded by Christ the King upon the Rock of Peter, the Pope, into a “democratic” and “consultative” body that makes decisions of doctrine and morality on the basis the ability of the “people” to accept and to live in accordance with them.

After all, the “weekend liturgy” is “planned” in all too many cases within the counterfeit church of conciliarism by diocesan and/or parish “liturgy committees,” which of which exercise plenary power to decide which hymns will be sung, which “eucharistic prayer” will be used, which “prayers of the faithful” will be said, who will participate in the “offertory procession,” the number of “eucharistic ministers” to be used at each putative liturgy, and in several cases that I knew about recently in the past, approve or disapprove of a presbyter’s draft “homily” for the “weekend” services, and all of this is exactly what Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria/Paul VI desired fifty-six years ago:

We wish to draw your attention to an event about to occur in the Latin Catholic Church: the introduction of the liturgy of the new rite of the Mass. . . . This change has something astonishing about it, something extraordinary. This is because the Mass is regarded as the traditional and untouchable expression of our religious worship and the authenticity of our faith. We ask ourselves, how could such a change be made? What effect will be given to these questions and to others like them, arising from the innovation. (Giovanni Montini, November 18, 1969, General Audience address, quoted in Christopher A. Ferrara and Thomas E. Woods, Jr., The Great Facade: Vatican II and the Regime of Novelty in the Roman Catholic Church, Remnant Press, 2002, p. 163.)

We ask you to turn your minds once more to the liturgical innovation of the new rite of the Mass. . . . A new rite of the Mass: a change in a venerable tradition that has gone on for centuries. This is something that affects our hereditary religious patrimony, which seemed to enjoy the privilege of being untouchable and settled. . . . We must prepare for this many-sided inconvenience. It is the kind of upset caused by every novelty that breaks in on our habits. . . . So what is to be done on this special and historical occasion? First of all, we must prepare ourselves.This novelty is no small thing. We should not let ourselves be surprised by the nature, or even the nuisance, of its exterior forms. As intelligent persons and conscientious faithful we should find out as much as we can about this innovation. . . .

It is here that the greatest newness is going to be noticed, the newness of language. No longer Latin, but the spoken language will be the principal language of the Mass. The introduction of the vernacular will certainly be a great sacrifice for those who know the beauty, the power and the expressive sacrality of Latin. We are parting with the speech of the Christian centuries; we are becoming like profane intruders in the literary preserve of sacred utterance. We will lose a great part of that stupendous and incomparable artistic and spiritual thing, the Gregorian chant. We have reason indeed for regret, reason almost for bewilderment. What can we put in the place of that language of the angels? We are giving up something of priceless worth. But why? What is more precious than those loftiest of our Church's values?

The answer will seem banal, prosaic. Yet it is a good answer, because it is human, because it is apostolic. Understanding of prayer is worth more than silken garments in which it is royally dressed. Participation by the people is worth more--particularly participation by modern people, so fond of plain language which is easily understood and converted into everyday speech. (Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria Montini/Paul VI General Audience address, November 26, 1969, quoted in The Great Facade, pp. 163-164.)

In other words, a true understanding of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is the very antithesis of the false theological precepts upon which the ever-evolving and thus perpetually unstable Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical travesty was meant to be from its very inceptions.

The Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service is indecent of its very false nature.

Pope Pius XII’s Mediator Dei condemned almost everything that was part of the anti-liturgical agenda of the conciliar revolutionaries even though he would later accept the false representations made to him by Fathers Annibale Bugnini, C.M., and Ferdinando Antonelli, O.F.M., about the various liturgical changes that His Holiness authorized in the 1950. Mediator Dei spoke specifically about concelebration:

95. Some in fact disapprove altogether of those Masses which are offered privately and without any congregation, on the ground that they are a departure from the ancient way of offering the sacrifice; moreover, there are some who assert that priests cannot offer Mass at different altars at the same time, because, by doing so, they separate the community of the faithful and imperil its unity; while some go so far as to hold that the people must confirm and ratify the sacrifice if it is to have its proper force and value.

96. They are mistaken in appealing in this matter to the social character of the eucharistic sacrifice, for as often as a priest repeats what the divine Redeemer did at the Last Supper, the sacrifice is really completed. Moreover, this sacrifice, necessarily and of its very nature, has always and everywhere the character of a public and social act, inasmuch as he who offers it acts in the name of Christ and of the faithful, whose Head is the divine Redeemer, and he offers it to God for the holy Catholic Church, and for the living and the dead.[88] This is undoubtedly so, whether the faithful are present — as we desire and commend them to be in great numbers and with devotion — or are not present, since it is in no wise required that the people ratify what the sacred minister has done.

97. Still, though it is clear from what We have said that the Mass is offered in the name of Christ and of the Church and that it is not robbed of its social effects though it be celebrated by a priest without a server, nonetheless, on account of the dignity of such an august mystery, it is our earnest desire — as Mother Church has always commanded — that no priest should say Mass unless a server is at hand to answer the prayers, as canon 813 prescribes.

98. In order that the oblation by which the faithful offer the divine Victim in this sacrifice to the heavenly Father may have its full effect, it is necessary that the people add something else, namely, the offering of themselves as a victim. (Pope Pius XII, Mediator Dei, November 20, 1947.)

It should go without saying that the Jacobin/Bolshevik conciliar revolutionaries believe in not word of what Pope Pius XII wrote seventy-eight years ago this month. Indeed, theirs is an anti-liturgical revolution against everything contained in Mediator Dei.

Try as he might, Robert Francis Prevost/Leo XIV will never correct “abuses” in that which is abusive of the honor and glory of God and of the entirely of Catholic Faith, Worship, and Morals. The Immemorial Mass of Tradition expresses with a permanence, beauty, structure and orderliness that can never be replicated in the Novus Ordo, a point that Monsignor Klaus Gamber, who was himself not a traditionalist and was in favor of liturgical reforms, was honest enough to make in The Reform of the Roman Liturgy:

Not only is the Novus Ordo Missae of 1969 a change of the liturgical rite, but that change also involved a rearrangement of the liturgical year, including changes in the assignment of feast days for the saints. To add or drop one or the other of these feast days, as had been done before, certainly does not constitute a change of the rite, per se. But the countless innovations introduced as part of liturgical reform have left hardly any of the traditional liturgical forms intact . . .

At this critical juncture, the traditional Roman rite, more than one thousand years old and until now the heart of the Church, was destroyed. A closer examination reveals that the Roman rite was not perfect, and that some elements of value had atrophied over the centuries. Yet, through all the periods of the unrest that again and again shook the Church to her foundations, the Roman rite always remained the rock, the secure home of faith and piety. . . .

Was all this really done because of a pastoral concern about the souls of the faithful, or did it not rather represent a radical breach with the traditional rite, to prevent the further use of traditional liturgical texts and thus to make the celebration of the "Tridentime Mass" impossible--because it no loner reflected the new spirit moving through the Church?

Indeed, it should come as no surprise to anyone that the prohibition of the traditional rite was announced at the same time as the introduction of the new liturgical texts; and that a dispensation to continue celebrating the Mass according to the traditional rite was granted only to older priests.

Obviously, the reformers wanted a completely new liturgy, a liturgy that differed from the traditional one in spirit as well as in form; and in no way a liturgy that represented what the Council Fathers had envisioned, i.e., a liturgy that would meet the pastoral needs of the faithful.

Liturgy and faith are interdependent. That is why a new rite was created, a rite that in many ways reflects the bias of the new (modernist) theology. The traditional liturgy simply could not be allowed to exist in its established form because it was permeated with the truths of the traditional faith and the ancient forms of piety. For this reason alone, much was abolished and new rites, prayers and hymns were introduced, as were the new readings from Scripture, which conveniently left out those passages that did not square with the teachings of modern theology--for example, references to a God who judges and punishes.

At the same time, the priests and the faithful are told that the new liturgy created after the Second Vatican Council is identical in essence with the liturgy that has been in use in the Catholic Church up to this point, and that the only changes introduced involved reviving some earlier liturgical forms and removing a few duplications, but above all getting rid of elements of no particular interest.

Most priests accepted these assurances about the continuity of liturgical forms of worship and accepted the new rite with the same unquestioning obedience with which they had accepted the minor ritual changes introduced by Rome from time to time in the past, changes beginning with the reform of the Divine Office and of the liturgical chant introduced by Pope St. Pius X.

Following this strategy, the groups pushing for reform were able to take advantage of and at the same time abuse the sense of obedience among the older priests, and the common good will of the majority of the faithful, while, in many cases, they themselves refused to obey. . . .

The real destruction of the traditional Mass, of the traditional Roman rite with a history of more than one thousand years, is the wholesale destruction of the faith on which it was based, a faith that had been the source of our piety and of our courage to bear witness to Christ and His Church, the inspiration of countless Catholics over many centuries. Will someone, some day, be able to say the same thing about the new Mass? (Monsignor Klaus Gamber, The Reform of the Roman Liturgy, p. 39, p. 99, pp. 100-102.)

Yeah, the Novus Ordo abomination of desolation is so "human" and "understandable" that the freestyle liturgist himself, the late Jorge Mario Bergoglio, had to warn "bishops" and priests/presbyters in the conciliar structures not to use their cellular phones during what purports to be Holy Mass. We can see full well what has happened as a result of making a faux Catholic liturgy more "accessible" as the glories of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition that remained in the truncated Ordo Missae of 1965 were thrown out in favor of the "prosaic."

Thus, the conciliar liturgy has served as a prototype for the so-called “synodal path” of decentralization, inculturation, and participation that Jorge Mario Bergoglio let loose upon all aspects of the Catholic Faith (and that Robert Francis Prevost/Leo XIV has said he desires to continue) as prophesied by Pope Saint Pius in the passage cited at the beginning of this comment that I find it useful to repeat once again:

It remains for Us now to say a few words about the Modernist as reformer. From all that has preceded, it is abundantly clear how great and how eager is the passion of such men for innovation. In all Catholicism there is absolutely nothing on which it does not fasten. They wish philosophy to be reformed, especially in the ecclesiastical seminaries. They wish the scholastic philosophy to be relegated to the history of philosophy and to be classed among absolute systems, and the young men to be taught modern philosophy which alone is true and suited to the times in which we live. They desire the reform of theology: rational theology is to have modern philosophy for its foundation, and positive theology is to be founded on the history of dogma. As for history, it must be written and taught only according to their methods and modern principles. Dogmas and their evolution, they affirm, are to be harmonized with science and history. In the Catechism no dogmas are to be inserted except those that have been reformed and are within the capacity of the people. Regarding worship, they say, the number of external devotions is to be reduced, and steps must be taken to prevent their further increase, though, indeed, some of the admirers of symbolism are disposed to be more indulgent on this head. They cry out that ecclesiastical government requires to be reformed in all its branches, but especially in its disciplinary and dogmatic departments They insist that both outwardly and inwardly it must be brought into harmony with the modern conscience which now wholly tends towards democracy; a share in ecclesiastical government should therefore be given to the lower ranks of the clergy and even to the laity and authority which is too much concentrated should be decentralized The Roman Congregations and especially the index and the Holy Office, must be likewise modified The ecclesiastical authority must alter its line of conduct in the social and political world; while keeping outside political organizations it must adapt itself to them in order to penetrate them with its spirit. With regard to morals, they adopt the principle of the Americanists, that the active virtues are more important than the passive, and are to be more encouraged in practice. They ask that the clergy should return to their primitive humility and poverty, and that in their ideas and action they should admit the principles of Modernism; and there are some who, gladly listening to the teaching of their Protestant masters, would desire the suppression of the celibacy of the clergy. What is there left in the Church which is not to be reformed by them and according to their principles? (Pascendi Dominici Gregis, No. 38)

A Few Concluding Observations

By way of conclusion, therefore, it should be noted that the remaining numbers of Catholics who bother to attend Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical travesty are unaware that the doctrinal and liturgical revolutionaries of conciliarism who planned a synthetic liturgy intended to destroy the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church to appeal to Protestants so as to make what presented itself, albeit falsely, as Catholicism, "less threatening" to them.

How do we know this to be so?

They told us, that is how:

Let it be candidly said: the Roman Rite which we have known hitherto no longer exists. It is destroyed. (Father Joseph Gelineau, an associate of Annibale Bugnini on the Consilium, 1uoted and footnoted in the work of a John Mole, who believed that the Mass of the Roman Rite had been "truncated," not destroyed. Assault on the Roman Rite)

Douglas Horton, a Protestant observer at the "Second" Vatican Council who wrote a four-volume diary of that council's sessions, explained his hope for a Catholic liturgy that was able to speak to the times, a goal that has worked so well in "mainstream" Protestant sects that most of them on the verge of absolute extinction, something that is practically the case with the false religion of conciliarism in once proudly Catholic Europe. Here is an excerpt from Mr. Horton's diaries:

Some of the fathers are grandly radical. "Reformation is not only desirable but necessary." Today's mind is not that of the sixteenth century, and therefore a liturgy to reach the people with the unchanging truth of Christ should not be exactly like that of the sixteenth century." Uniformity when not needed contradicts the the very nature of the church." We have pomp and ceremony: we should take out the pomp--and the ceremonies should be made made understandable." "Better say one word in a known language than a thousand words in an unknown one--a sentiment which suggested that the council should be at least as radical as St. Paul. . . .

It has just come over me that the most striking and memorable rite of all to be seen here in St. Peter's would be the celebration of the Lord's Supper as we know it in our local village church in New Hampshire, and as it is well known in hundreds of thousands of Protestant communities where Puritan simplicity is the norm. Imagine, at the head of the nave in the mighty cathedral, a table such as might be found in any home in the neighborhood, a minister inviting to it the entire Christian community gathered at the church, the same and bread and cup being used (whether wine or grape juice) as are used in everyday life, the words of the service being in the mother tongue of the worshipers, the living Christ present, his Spirit pervading all--this, in my mind, would be an exciting event for the old basilica. (But I should add that I expect to wait a few generations before the sons of Rome agree with me.) (Douglas Horton, Vatican Diary: 1962: A Protestant Observes the First Session of Vatican Council II, pp: 45; 118.)

Mr. Horton did not have to wait generations for his "dream" to come true. His dream was shared by the man who became the conciliar "pontiff" on June 21,1963, Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria Montini/Paul VI:

"[T]he intention of Pope Paul VI with regard to what is commonly called the Mass, was to reform the Catholic liturgy in such a way that it should coincide with the Protestant liturgy.... [T]here was with Pope Paul VI an ecumenical intention to remove, or at least to correct, or at least to relax, what was too Catholic in the traditional sense, in the Mass, and I, repeat, to get the Catholic Mass closer to the Calvinist mass" (Dec. 19, 1993), Apropos, #17, pp. 8f; quoted in Christian Order, October, 1994. (Jean Guitton, a close friend of Giovanni Montini/Paul VI. The quotation and citations are found in Christopher A. Ferrara and Thomas E. Woods, Jr., The Great Facade, The Remnant Publishing Company, 2002, p. 317.)

Behold the wreckage of Mr. Horton's "dream," which has become a nightmare that was unimaginable sixty-two and one-half years ago upon the death of Pope Pius XII.

The Novus Ordo has bred disbelief in the Real Presence of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ in the Most Blessed Sacrament and has countenanced disrespect and familiarity with what purports to be His Eucharistic Species as part and parcel of its very perverse nature.

Contempt for the sacrificial nature of the priesthood and the Mass has been bred by having the celebrant, whether validly ordained or not, of the Novus Ordo service face the people, a novelty that was introduced by Protestantism and made its appearance in any number of "Mass of the Future" celebrations that took place here and there prior to the altars being turned around in the 1960s as the focus of Catholics was no longer on the priest as an alter Christus but as a "presider" who gawked at them as they gawked at him and noted his own "individual" style of "presiding" during the "liturgy."

Contempt for the distinctive nature of the ordained priest as a sacerdos, not the "presider" of a service, has been bred by the removal of the altar rail in most conciliar-occupied Catholic churches, thereby obliterating the distinction between the sacerdotal nature of the ordained priest and the common priesthood of the faithful that each Catholic has by virtue of his Baptism.

The removal of the altar rail has also obliterated the distinction between time and eternity that is supposed to be represented, respectively, by the nave of a Catholic church and the sanctuary. Holy Mass, although at a particular time and in a particular place by a particular priest, is the unbloody re-presentation of the one Sacrifice of the Son to the Father in Spirit and in Truth on the wood of the Holy Cross. It is at one and the same time Calvary and a foretaste of the eternal glories of Heaven. The very architecture of a Catholic church is supposed to signify this distinction. The removal of the altar rail--and the introduction of the time-bound vernacular languages, which are subject to change and ideological manipulation--have combined to make of what purports to be the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass a culture-conditioned "celebration" that celebrates the here-and-now, not the transcendent mystery of the Sacrifice of the Cross.

The invasion of the sanctuary by lay people to fulfill all manner of roles has further obliterated the distinction between the sacerdotal priesthood of the ordained priest and the common priesthood of the faithful by which we, by means of our prayers and sacrifices and sufferings and mortifications and penances, help to sanctify our own daily life and the world by uniting our prayers and offerings to those of the alter Christus in the Mass. The priest has thus been reduced to a mere (and apparent) "sacramental machine" who is to sit during most the "Mass" as the lay people read and sing and serve at the altar.

Disbelief in the Real Presence of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ in the Eucharist has been bred by mandating, at least in most instances in most places around the conciliar world, that the faithful stand for the reception of what purports to be Holy Communion, signaling that they are but the equal of the One they believe they are receiving in "Holy Communion."

This disbelief in the Real Presence of Our Lord in the Eucharist has been hastened further by the "permission" granted by Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria Montini/Paul VI in 1977 for the reception of what purports to be "Holy Communion" in the hand, thereby making it appear once again as though we are not dumb sheep who need to be fed on the tongue by our shepherds, that we are capable of "feeding ourselves" with our unconsecrated hands.

The proliferation of "Extraordinary Ministers of the Eucharist" (otherwise known as "Eucharistic Ministers") has added to the confusion of roles between the laity and the putative clergy while it has led to numerous, repeated instances of allegedly consecrated "hosts" falling to the ground and spillage of what purports to be the Most Precious Blood of the Divine Redeemer onto clothing and the floor.

A now retired pastor one parish wrote in his bulletin many years ago now that what he believed to consecrated hosts were the “Body, Blood, Soul, Divinity of Jesus Christ” after he had been informed that his parishioners were finding presumably consecrated hosts on the windshields of cars in the parking lot as well as in the pews of the church in question. The pastor in question was understandably concerned about what would have been sacrileges if the hosts had been consecrated, although I should note that there are some instances in some conciliar settings where there is a co-mingling of ciboria containing consecrated and unconsecrated hosts if a true priest is either in residence at a parish or offers the “Extraordinary Form” (aka the modernized version of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition) and deposits hosts from his true offering of Holy Mass into a ciborium that is placed into the tabernacle. What a mess.

Little needs to be mentioned concerning the decorum of many of the faithful, the immodesty of attire, the endless talking in church before, during and after the "service," the banal and sometimes most offensive "music" that enshrines the false spirit of the world and reaffirms the faithful in their essential "goodness" (which coincides with the General Instruction to the Roman Missal's contention in Paragraph 15 that "outward signs of penance belong to another age in the history of the Church"), and the disgraceful conduct of many of the "presiders" during Novus Ordo services.

Alas, it would be useful to note once again that of all of the egregious elements of the "liturgical reform" effected by the "Second" Vatican Council and its aftermath, the elimination of the universal language of the Church, Latin, has resulted not in a "greater understanding" of the Mass, as was expected by the fathers of the "council," but in a contempt for the Mass and a loss of the sacred, the mysterious and the transcendent. Latin expresses the universality and immutability of the Faith, lifting our spirits above the time bound constraints of the moment to God, Who lives outside of time and space. The incredible arrogance of "modern man," which asserted that Latin made the Mass "inaccessible" to the people, helped to create a false "memory" of the past that sought to wipe out the truth that hundreds of millions of illiterate peasants over the centuries knew the Mass very well, being immersed in its glories from the time that they were in their mothers' wombs. One can behold the rotten fruit of such arrogance in a local conciliar parish, where very few people even care to genuflect as they dress immodestly and congregate to speak loudly right in front of where the Blessed Sacrament is supposed to be reposed, no less in such spectacles that have taken place at the theatrical farces represented by the outdoor "liturgies" of Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II, Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, and Jorge Mario Bergoglio.

A true offering of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass can ever disturb our peace.

A true offering of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, which is, of course, the unbloody re-presentation of God the Son's Sacrifice of Himself to His Co-Equal and Co-Eternal Father on the wood of the Holy Cross in atonement for our sins.

The path to Heaven can be trod only by those who are willing to bear the Cross and to lift it high in their daily lives. considering it our privilege to bear witness to the truth of the state of the Church Militant in this time of papal vacancy and, if possible where one lives, to hear the Immemorial Mass of Tradition offered at the hands of true bishops and priests who reject conciliarism, seeking only to live in such a way that we will be ready at all times to die in a state of Sanctifying Grace as a member of the Catholic Church, outside of which there is no salvation and without which there can be no true social order.

On the Feast of Saint Gertrude the Great

Saint Gertrude the Great is one of the greatest lights of the Order of Saint Benedict who was blessed with numerous mystical experiences that made her an Apostle of the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus four centuries before Our Lord asked Saint Margaret Mary Alacoque to promote devotion to His Most Sacred Heart publicly and with a solemn liturgical feast to combat the coldness of Jansenism that had dried up the wellsprings of mercy and Christian compassion in the hearts of so many Catholics, especially in France and Ireland.

Dom Prosper Gueranger, O.S.B., summarized Saint Gertrude of Helfta’s life as follows in The Liturgical Year:

The school which is founded upon the rule of the great Patriarch of the Monks of the West began with St. Gregory the Great. Such was the independent action of the Holy Spirit who guided it that in it women have prophesied as well as men. It is enough to mention St. Hildegarde and St. Gertrude, with whom we may fitly associate St. Mechtilde and St. Frances of Rome. Anyone who has tried modern methods will find, on making acquaintance with these ancient writers, that he is breathing another atmosphere, and is urged onward by a gentle authority which is never felt but which allows no rest. He will not find that subtlety, that keen and learned analysis, he has met with elsewhere, and which rather weary than aid the soul.

The pious and learned Father Faber has brought out, with his characteristic sagacity, the advantages of that form of spirituality which gives the soul breadth and liberty, and so produces in many persons effects which some modern methods fail of producing: “No one,” says he, “can be at all acquainted with the old-fashioned Benedictine school of spiritual writers without perceiving and admiring the beautiful liberty of spirit which pervades and possesses their whole mind. It is just what we should expect from an order of such matured traditions. St. Gertrude is a fair specimen of them. She is thoroughly Benedictine … a spirit of breadth, a spirit of liberty, that is, the Catholic spirit; and it was eminently the badge of the old Benedictine ascetics. Modern writers for the most part have tightened things, and have lost by it instead of gaining. By frightening people, they have lessened devotion in extent; and by overstraining it, they have lowered it in degree.” (Faber, 1855, All for Jesus)

In any case, there are many ways, and every way is good which brings men back to God by a thorough conversion of heart. But we are sure that those who may be led to commit themselves to the guidance of a saint of the old school will not lose their time; and that if they meet with less philosophy and less psychology on their way, they will be subdued by the simplicity and authority of her language, and be moved and melted as they contrast their own souls with that of their saintly guide. And this blessed revolution will take place in almost every soul that follows St. Gertrude in the week of Exercises she proposes to them, if only they really desire to draw yet more closely the ties which unite them to God, if their intention be fixed aright, and their souls truly recollected in God. We may almost venture to assure such persons that they will come forth from these Exercises transformed in their whole being. They will return to them again and again with ever increasing pleasure; for they will have no discouraging memory of fatigue, nor of the slightest constraint laid upon their liberty of spirit. They will feel confounded, indeed, to be admitted so near the inmost heart of so great a saint; but they will also feel that they have been created for the same end as that saint, and that they must bestir themselves, and quit all easy, dangerous ways, which lead to perdition.

And if we be asked whence comes that wonderful influence which our Saint exercises over all who listen to her, our answer would be: from her surpassing holiness. She does not prove the possibility of spiritual movement and advance; she moves and advances. A blessed soul, sent down from heaven to dwell awhile with men, and speaking the language of the heavenly country in this land of exile, would doubtless utterly transform those who heard its speech. Now St. Gertrude was admitted to such familiar converse with the Son of God, that her words have just the accent of such a soul; and this is why they have been and are like winged arrows, which pierce and wound all within their range. The understanding is enlarged and enlightened by her pure and elevated doctrine, and yet St. Gertrude never lectures or preaches; the heart is touched and melted, and yet St. Gertrude speaks only to God; the soul judges itself, condemns itself, renews itself by compunction, and yet St. Gertrude has made no effort to move or convict it.

And if we ask what is the source of the special blessing attached to the language of St. Gertrude, the answer is that it blesses because it is so impregnated with the divine Word, not only with the revelations which St. Gertrude received from her heavenly Spouse, but with the sacred Scriptures and the liturgy of the Church. This holy daughter of the cloister drank in light and life day by day from the sources of all true contemplation, from the very fountain of living waters which gushes forth from the psalms and the inspired words of the divine Office. Her every sentence shows how exclusively her soul was nourished with this heavenly food. She so lived into the liturgy of the Church that we continually find in her revelations that the Savior discloses to her the mysteries of heaven, and the Mother of God and the saints hold converse with her on some Antiphon, or Response, or Introit, which the Saint is singing with delight, and of which she is striving to feel all the force and the sweetness.

Hence that unceasing flow of unaffected poetry which seems to have become quite natural to her, and that hallowed enthusiasm which raises the literary beauty of her writings almost to the height of mystical inspiration. This child of the thirteenth century, buried in a monastery of Suabia, preceded Dante in the paths of spiritual poetry. Sometimes her soul breaks forth into tender and touching elegy; sometimes the fire which consumes her bursts forth in transports of fervor; sometimes her feelings clothe themselves quite instinctively in a dramatic form; sometimes she stops short in her sublimest flights, and she who almost rivals the seraphim, descends to earth, but only to prepare herself for a still higher flight. It is as though there had been an unending struggle between the humility which held her prostrate in the dust and the aspirations of her soul, panting after Jesus, who was drawing her, and who had lavished on her such exceeding love.

In our opinion the writings of St. Gertrude lose nothing of their indescribable beauty, even when placed beside those of St. Teresa. Nay, we think that the saint of Germany is not unfrequently superior to her sister of Spain. The latter, full of impetuous ardor, has not, it is true, the tinge of pensive melancholy which colors the writings of the former; but St. Gertrude knew Latin so well, and was so profoundly versed in the letter and the spirit of the holy Scriptures, that we do not hesitate to pronounce her style superior in richness and in force to that of St. Theresa.

Still we pray the reader not to be frightened at the thought of being placed under the guidance of a seraph, when his conscience tells him that he has still so much to do in the purgative way, before he can venture to enter upon paths which may never open to him on earth. Let him simply listen to St. Gertrude, let him fix his eye upon her, and have faith in the end she proposes to him. When the holy Church puts in our mouths the language of the Psalms, she knows full well that that language is often far beyond the feelings of our soul; but if we wish to bring ourselves up to the level of these divine hymns, our best method is certainly to repeat them frequently in faith and humility, and await the transformation they will assuredly effect. St. Gertrude detaches us gently from ourselves, and brings us to Jesus by going before us herself, and by drawing us after her, though at a great distance. She goes straight to the heart of her divine Spouse, and she might well do so; but will it not be an inestimable blessing if she bring us to his feet like Magdalen, penitent and transformed by love?

Even when she writes for her sisters alone, let us not suppose that these exquisite pages are useless to those of us who are living in the midst of the world. The religious life, when expounded by such an interpreter, is a spectacle as instructive as it is striking. Need we say that the practice of the precepts of the Gospel becomes more easy to those who have well pondered and admired the practice of its counsels? What is the Imitation of Christ but a book written by a monk for the use of monks; and yet who is not familiar with its teaching? How many seculars delight in the writings of St. Teresa; and yet the holy Carmelitess makes the religious life the one theme of her teaching.

We will not now speak of her wonderful style of expression. We are so unused to the decided and elevated language of the ages of faith that some readers, accustomed to modern books alone, may be startled, and even pained, by St. Gertrude. But what is the remedy for this inconvenience? If we have unlearned the language of that antique piety which fashioned saints, surely our best way is to learn it again as soon as we can; and St. Gertrude will give us wonderful help in doing so.

The list of the devoted admirers of her writings would be long and imposing. But there is an authority far higher still—that of the Church herself. That mother of the faithful, ever guided by the Holy Ghost, has in her holy liturgy set her seal upon St. Gertrude. The Saint herself, and the spirit which animated her, are there forever recommended and glorified in the eyes of all Christians, in virtue of the solemn judgment contained in the Office of her festival. (Gueranger, Exercises of St Gertrude (1865), Preface.)

The life of Gertrude the Great, as she has merited to be distinguished among the Saints of the same name, was humble and obscure. (1256-1302). At five years of age she entered the Abbey of Helfta near Eisleben, and there she remained hidden in the secret of God’s face. (Psalm 30:21) For several centuries, by an error which has also found its way into the Legend of the feast, she was confounded with the Abbess Gertrude of Hackeborn, who governed the monastery during our Saint’s lifetime, and was herself favored with divine gifts. It was not until Gertrude’s sublime Revelations, contained in the five books of the Legatus divinæ pietatis, or Legate of divine love, had at length been published, that in 1677 her name was inscribed in the Roman Martyrology. In the following century (1738) Clement XII ordered her feast to be celebrated, as a Double, by the whole Church. The West Indies chose her as patroness; and a town in New Mexico bears her name. (Dom Prosper Gueranger, O.S.B., The Liturgical Year, Time After Pentecost, Book IV, Volume 15, pp. 274-279.)

The Divine Office for the Feast of Saint Gertrude the Great contains a summary her life and incomparable work:

Gertrude was born of a noble family at Eisleben, in Saxony, (about the year of our Lord 1264.) At five years of age she offered her virginity and herself to Jesus Christ, in the Benedictine nunnery at Rodalsdorf. From that time forth she was utterly estranged from earthly things, ever striving for things higher, and began to lead a kind of heavenly life. To learning in human letters she added knowledge of the things of God. In the thought thereof she earnestly desired, and soon reached, the perfection of a Christian soul. Of Christ, and of the things in His life, she spoke oftentimes with movings of spirit. The glory of God was the one end of all her thoughts, and to that her every longing and her every act were given. Though God had crowned her with so many and so noble gifts both of nature and of grace, her belief regarding herself was so humble that she was used to number as among the greatest of the wonders of His goodness that He had always in His mercy borne with one who was so utterly unworthy.

In the thirtieth year of her age she was elected Abbess of Rodalsdorf, where she had professed herself in the religious life, and afterwards of Heldelfs. This office she bore for forty years in love, wisdom, and zeal for strict observance, so that the house seemed like an ideal example of a sisterhood of perfect nuns. To each one she was a mother and a teacher, and yet would be as the least of all, being in sooth in all lowliness among them as she that served. That she might be more utterly God's only, she tormented her body with sleeplessness, hunger, and other afflictions, but withal ever true to herself, stood forth a pattern of innocency, gentleness, and long-suffering. The salvation of her neighbours was her constant earnest endeavour, and her godly toil bore abundant fruit. The love of God oftentimes threw her into trances, and she was given the grace of the deepest contemplation, even to union of spirit with God.

Christ Himself, to show what such a bride was to Him, revealed that He had in the heart of Gertrude a pleasant dwelling-place. The Virgin Mother of God she ever sought with deep reverence as a mother and warden whom she had received from Jesus Himself, and from her she had many benefits. Toward the most Divine Sacrament of the Eucharist, and the sufferings of the Lord, her soul was moved with love and gratitude, so that she sometimes wept abundantly. She helped with daily gifts and prayers the souls of the just condemned to the purifying fire. She wrote much for the fostering of godliness. She was glorified also by revelations from God, and by the gift of prophecy. Her last illness was rather the wasting of a home-sickness to be with God than a decay of the flesh, and she left this life (to live the undying life in Him, upon the 17th day of November,) in the year of our Lord 1292. God made her bright with miracles both during her life and after her death. (Matins, The Divine Office, Feast of Saint Gertrude the Great.)

Father Andrew Prevot explained Saint Gertrude the Great’s intimacy with her Divine Spouse by recounting an exchange Our Lord had with her during one of her mystical experiences:

Now, as the end of time approaches, He says to us what He once announced by the beloved Apostle of His Sacred Heart [Saint Gertrude the Great]: "Let him who thirsts for happiness, grace, and peace, come to My Divine Heart, their source, and draw from it 'gratis' whatsoever he will. My merciful Heart, which desires before the end of time to glorify itself by a supreme manifestation, and to love men to the utmost bounds of affection, has arranged all for this end.

"Let these languid souls come only to Me, confide in My goodness, and abandon themselves to My love. Let them be at rest in the meekness of My Heart, unite themselves to My humility and obedience, and they will no longer feel the weight of My yoke through the abundant consolation with which I will favor them. Come, then, without fear or delay, and abandon yourselves lovingly and for ever unto Me." (Father Andre Prevot, Love, Peace and Joy: Devotion to the Sacred Heart According to St. Gertrude, published originally in 1911.)

Let us repose in the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus as we approach this Font of Mercy and of Love through the Heart out of which It was formed, the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary. Let us accept the chastisement of the moment, a chastisement each of us deserves most richly because of our sins, and use it as a means of making reparation for our sins and those of the whole world by defending the Catholic Faith without any compromises with the naturalists of the false opposites of the "left" or of the "right."

Let us proclaim Catholicism as the one and only foundation of personal and social order as we pray as many Rosaries each day as our states-in-life permit, seeking only to plant a few seeds as we give honor and glory to the Most Holy Trinity through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary.

Saint Gertrude the Great will teach us humility as we approach the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus.

She will teach us to have gratitude for the graces that we have received as seek to imitate the meekness with which the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus bears with our offenses, our ingratitude, our lukewarmness, our inconstancy.

She will teach us to imitate the mercy of the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus as we extend to others the same forgiveness that is given to us so freely in the Sacred Tribunal of Penance by an alter Christus acting in persona Christi.

Although we see dimly here in this life because of our fallen estate and the damage that we have done to our souls by means of our sins, our goal in life to see God clearly in Heaven. Saint Gertrude the Great will help us to see Him more clearly in this life if we place our trust in the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus that beats in unison with the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

Saint Gertrude will teach us most especially to spend time with Our Beloved in His Real Presence in the Most Blessed Sacrament. We receive infused graces from spending time with Our Eucharistic King. These infused graces will enlighten the mind and strengthen the will as our hearts are purified more and more to desire only the possession of the Most Blessed Trinity for all eternity in Heaven. Eucharistic piety is, of course, a very foretaste of the glories of Heaven itself.

Saint Gertrude adored Our Lord in His Real Presence in these words:

Hail, Most Glorious Body, a most precious Blood of my Lord Jesus Christ, here truly present beneath these sacramental species; I adore Thee with all that devotion and awe wherewith the nine choirs of angels worship and adore thee. I prostrate myself before Thee in the spirit of humility, believing and professing that Thou, my Lord and my God, are herein most truly contained.

Hail, most glorious Body of Jesus Christ my Saviour, true Victim immolated upon the cross. I adore Thee in union with that adoration with which Thy Humanity adored Thy Godhead, and I give Thee thanks with all the love of all thy creatures, that Thou dost deign to remain hidden in this tabernacle for our salvation.

Hail, compassionate Jesus, Word of the Father, Brightness of His glory, Ocean of pity, Salvation of the world, most august and sacred Victim. Hail, Jesus Christ, Splendour of the Father, Prince of Peace, Gate of Heaven, True Bread, Son of the Virgin, Shrine of the Godhead.

I most firmly believe that Thou, my God, are here present, and that Thou are looking out upon me from behind the veil of the sacrament, and dost behold all the most secret recesses of my heart. I believe that under this species of bread are contained not only Thy Flesh and Thy Blood, but also Thy Divinity and Thy Humanity. And although this mystery surpasses my understanding, I nevertheless believe it so firmly that I am ready to give my life and my blood in defense of its truth.

"For what fault have you suffered most?" He replied: "For self-will and self-opinionatedness; for when I did any kindness for others, I would not do as they wished, but as I wished myself; and so much do I suffer for this, that if the mental agonies of all mankind were united in one person, he would not endure more than I do at present." She replied: "And what remedy will be the most efficacious for you?" He answered: "To perform acts of the contrary virtue, and to avoid committing the same fault." "But, in the meantime," inquired Gertrude, "what will afford you the greatest relief?" He replied: "The fidelity which I practiced toward others when on earth consoles me most. The prayers which are offered continually for me by many friends solace me as good news would solace a person in affliction. Each tone of the chant at Mass, or in the vigils which are said for me, seem to me as a most delicious reflection. All that is done for me by others, with a pure intention for God's glory, such as working, and even sleeping or eating, affords me great relief and shortens my sufferings, on account of the fidelity with which I labored for others." (The Life and Revelations of Saint Gertrude the Great, republished by TAN Books and Publishers in 1987, p. 341.)

One of the great tragedies of the conciliar era is that the lives of such mystics as Saint Gertrude the Great have been obscured entirely and/or misrepresented and distorted to make them appear to be veritable prophets of the conciliar apostasies. Such efforts are hideous in the sight of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, which is why it is important for us to make reparation for our own many sins by pleading with Saint Gertrude the Great to help us remain ever steadfast in the true Faith by placing our own trust in the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus Which confided to her Its innermost secrets of love for us erring men.

Dom Prosper Gueranger’s prayer to Saint Gertrude the Great summarizes our need to rely upon the heavenly assistance of the holy Abbess of Helfta every day of our lives:

O revealer of the Sacred Heart, what better prayer could we offer in thine honor than to say with thee to the Son of the Blessed Virgin:

O thou my soul’s calm untroubled Light! O dawn of morning, soft-gleaming with thy beauteous light, become in me the perfect day. O my Love, who dost not only enlighten but deify, come unto me in all thy might; come and gently melt my whole being. May all that is of me be destroyed utterly; may I wholly pass into thee, so that I may no more find myself in time, but may be already and most intimately united to thee for all eternity.

Thou hast first loved me; it is thou who hast chosen me, and not I who have first chosen thee. Thou art he who of his own accord runneth towards his thirsting creature; and on thy kingly brow gleams the fair splendor of the everlasting light. Show me thy countenance, and let me gaze upon thy beauty. How mild and full of charms is that face, all radiant with the rosy light of the dawn of the divine Sun! How can the spark live and glow far from the fire that gave it being? Or how can the drop of water abide far from the spring from whence it was taken? O compassionate Love, why hast thou loved a creature so defiled and so covered with shame, but that thou hast willed to render it all fair in thee? O thou delicate flower of the Virgin Mary, thy goodness and thy tender mercy have won and ravished my heart. O Love, my glorious noontide, to take my rest in thee, gladly would I die a thousand deaths.

O Charity, O Love, at the hour of my death thou wilt sustain me with thy words, more gladdening far than choicest wine. Thou wilt then be my way, my unobstructed way, that I may wander no more nor stray. Thou wilt aid me then, O love, thou queen of heaven; thou wilt clear my way before me to those fair and fertile pastures hidden in the divine wilderness, and my soul shall be inebriate with bliss; for there shall I see the face of the Lamb, my Spouse and my God. O Love, who art God, thou art my best beloved possession. Without thee neither earth nor heaven could excite in me one hope, nor draw forth one desire: vouchsafe to effect and perfect within me that union which thou thyself desirest: may it be the end, the crown, and consummation of my being. In the countenance of my God thy light beameth soft and fair as the evening star. O thou fair and solemn Evening, let me see thy ray when my eve shall close in death.

O Love, thou much-loved Evening-tide, at that dread moment let the sacred flame, which burneth evermore in thy divine essence, consume all the stains of my mortal life. O thou my calm and peaceful Evening, when the evening-tide of my life shall come, give me to sleep in thee in tranquil sleep, and to taste that blissful rest which thou hast prepared in thyself for them that love thee. With thy serene, enchanting look vouchsafe to order all things and prepare all things for my everlasting espousal. O Love, be thou unto me an eventide so bright and calm that my ravished soul may bid a loving farewell to its body, and return to God who gave it, and rest in peace beneath thy beloved shadow!” (Gueranger, Exercises of St Gertrude, Ex. V, “To enkindle in the soul the love of God.”) (Dom Prosper Gueranger, O.S.B., The Liturgical Year, Time After Pentecost, Book IV, Volume 15, pp. 274-279.)

May we beg Our Lady in these waning days of the liturgical year to help us to realize that the mysteries of the Sacred Heart of Jesus that were revealed to Saint Gertrude the Great can provide us with much food for meditation every day as we pray her Most Holy Rosary, a fidelity to which, after all, is a sign of predestination to Heaven itself. This is why Catholics must, as consecrated slaves of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ through Our Lady’s Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart, always offer up everything they suffer and whatever good works they are able to do by means of the graces won for us by Our Lord and that flow into our hearts and souls through her own loving hands as the Mediatrix of All Graces.

Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for us.

Saint Joseph, pray for us.

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.

Saints Caspar, Melchior, and Balthasar, pray for us.

Saint Gertrude the Great, pray for us.

Appendix A

A Summary of Some of the Principal Problems with the Novus Ordo service

Permit me to provide you yet again with a summary of some of the principal defects found in the Protestant and Novus Ordo service. This will be followed by a longer explication that is taken from Chapter Two of G.I.R.M. Warfare. Perhaps this will be of help to some of those who read this site and for the friends of those who read this site.

First, the Novus Ordo service is the synthetic product of an unprecedented exercise in liturgical manufacturing that was designed to enshrine false ecumenism. The Immemorial Mass of Tradition was not invented by a committee, no less one that was headed by a man, Father Annibale Bugnini, C.M., the Secretary of the Committee, which was called the Consilium, that planned the "new Mass." Bugnini was suspected of being a Freemason and advised by six liberal Protestant observers (who made their "observations" in coffee breaks so that those comments could be read into the record by Consilium's bishop-members). The Immemorial Mass of Tradition was taught in all of its essential elements by Our Lord to the Apostles before He Ascended to the Father's right hand in glory on Ascension Thursday.

Father Adrian Fortescue explained in the early part of the Twentieth Century that the Immemorial Mass of Tradition, which was not "written" by the Council of Trent as some conciliar apologists continued to assert falsely, is the oldest of the liturgical rites in the Roman Catholic Church:

Essentially, the Missal of Pius V is the Gregorian Sacramentary; that again is formed from the Gelasian book, which depends upon the Leonine collection. We find prayers of our Canon in the treatise de Sacramentis and allusions to it in the [Fourth] Century. So the Mass goes back, without essential change, to the age when it first developed out of the oldest Liturgy of all. It is still redolent of that Liturgy, of the days when Caesar ruled the world, and thought he could stamp out the Faith of Christ, when our fathers met together before dawn and sang a hymn to Christ as God. The final result of our enquiry is that, in spite of some unresolved problems, in spite of later changes there is not in Christendom another rite so venerable as ours. (Michael Davies, ed., The Wisdom of Adrian Fortescue)

Second, as the offering of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is indeed the unbloody re-presentation of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ's Redemptive Act on the wood of the Holy Cross and is at the same time a foretaste of Heavenly glories, its rubrics are meant to reflect the immutability of God and not the passing currents of any individual age. A true and valid offering of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, although it takes place at a particular time in a particular place, is meant to reflect the timelessness of eternity and the unchanging nature of God as it reflects the differences between the hierarchical priesthood of the ordained priest and the common priesthood of the lay faithful by means of their baptism in various ways, including the separation of the sanctuary from the nave of a Catholic Church by an altar rail.

Third, abject lies were told by Bugnini and company about where the various constituent elements of the Novus Ordo originated. Far from being the "recapturing" of some allegedly simpler liturgy in the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church, a claim that was itself an exercise in the antiquarianism condemned by Pope Pius XII in Mediator Dei, November 20, 1947, the Novus Ordo service borrowed heavily from the now defunct Gallican Rite, from various Oriental Rites, from various strains of Protestantism, and even from the "table prayers" of Talmudic Judaism, which were inserted at the personal behest of Giovanni Montini/Paul VI and replaced the traditional Offertory of the Mass that clearly denotes the sacrificial nature of Mass, something that is not reflected clearly in the Novus Ordo service.

Fourth, while ignoring all of the mistranslations of the Latin editio typica of the Novus Ordo service into vernacular languages, the editio typica itself contains a less full expression of the Catholic Faith than is found in the Immemorial Mass of Tradition. References to the miracles of various saints have been changed, if not eliminated altogether. Various parts of the Ordinary of the Mass, including the Confiteor, have been watered down. All references to a God Who judges, to the possibility of the loss of one's immortal soul for all eternity, and to the need of doing penance for one's sins have been changed or eradicated (see Paragraph 15 of the General Instruction to the Roman Missal and my analysis of same as found in G.I.R.M. Warfare that I have repeated on this site numerous times, including in Blind to Truth, Blind to the Horror of Personal Sin (see Appendix B).

Fifth, the "Eucharistic Prayers" that have been added since 1969--and the changes made to the Roman Canon itself--do not make clear the sacrificial nature of the Mass. Others, who are much more learned than I am, have provided solid evidence concerning the invalidity of these "Eucharistic Prayers." (See Invalidity of the Novus Ordo Missae, Matter and Form of the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist, Article on the Eucharistic Form of Consecration.)

Sixth, the General Instruction to the Roman Missal requires the novelty of laity in the sanctuary during what purports to be a valid offering of Holy Mass. Young boys and adult males are permitted by the special permission of the Church to enter the sanctuary as altar servers in the Mass, serving as the extension of the hands of the priest, who is a male. No other personage, male or female, is permitted in the sanctuary. This is not so in the Novus Ordo service, where the priest sits at almost every Mass as a proliferation of laity "participates" in reading and singing. This blurs the distinction between the sacerdotal, hierarchical priesthood of the ordained priest and the common priesthood of the lay faithful. This is yet another fact about the Novus Ordo service that obliterates the sacrosanct nature of the sanctuary during Mass, thereby eliminating the sense of the timelessness of the unbloody re-presentation of the Son's one Sacrifice to the Father in Spirit and in Truth on the wood of the Holy Cross.

Seventh, the hands of the non-ordained are permitted to distribute what purports, albeit falsely, to be Holy Communion at a putative offering of Holy Mass. This has taught Catholics that they can touch what they believe to be the Sacred Species by with their own hands and that they can have arrogated unto themselves certain of the functions reserved solely to validly ordained priests.

Eighth, the distribution of what purports to be Holy Communion in the hand, which has been sanctioned officially since 1977 (after years of this sacrilege being permitted at the parish and diocesan levels without Roman approbation), has made sacrilege an accepted part of almost every staging of the Novus Ordo service in the world. The hands of the non-ordained must never touch, no less distribute, the Sacred Species. The number of allegedly consecrated Hosts dropped (or placed into pockets or purses or books, some of which have been used in purported black Masses) and the amount of what is said to be Most Precious Blood of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ that has been spilled is known only to God, Who is deeply offended by the callous manner in which Catholics have been taught to receive what they believe is His Real Presence in the counterfeit church of conciliarism. (See Michael Davies on Communion in the hand and my own Missing the Real Culprit Once Again, which was written about three hundred seventy-nine days before the first article on this site was published that explore the possibility of the truth of the canonical doctrine of sedevacantism and that it may apply in our own days).

Ninth, the General Instruction to the Roman Missal's penchant for endless options in the offering of the Novus Ordo service make any discussion of a a fixed rite laughable and absurd. A liturgical rite must convey the permanence and immutability of God and the permanence and immutability of man's need for Him as He has revealed Himself solely through His true Church, the Catholic Church. A liturgical rite that admits of ceaseless changes and endless options, some undertaken in the name of the ideology of "inculturation" of the Gospel, produces instability in the souls of the faithful, leading them to believe that God and His truths are mutable. Paragraph 395 of the General Instruction to the Roman Missal makes it almost impossible to distinguish "approved" liturgical experimentations from "unapproved" improvisations.

Tenth, the 2002 edition of the General Instruction to the Roman Missal's support for the "free-standing" altar and for Mass facing the people continues to undermine the Christocentricity of the Mass and the fact a priest's personality and celebratory "style" are utterly unimportant in the context of offering Holy Mass. A priest is an alter Christus who acts in persona Christi. Our focus is on a priest's actions as Christ, the Chief Priest and Victim of every Mass, not on his own personality. No liturgical rite of the Catholic Church featured this harmful Protestant novelty prior to the 1960s.

Eleventh, the calendar of the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo service, completing the revolution that began in 1951, offends God by eliminating the feasts of a great number of saints, some of whose sacrifices in defense of the Faith have been disparaged as never having taken place! The number of Octaves, which served to extend the celebrations of important feasts, were reduced from fifteen to three in 1956, and from three to two in the Novus Ordo calendar. The nomenclature used to describe the Sundays of the year was changed after nearly two millennia of usage. The words of Pope Saint Pius V, which warned against any changes to the Missal he propagated in 1570, have been ignored with impunity, resulting in a loss of the sense of the sacred, a loss of belief in the Real Presence, and a loss of devotion to the great saints of the first centuries of the Church. (See Pre-Vatican II Liturgical Changes: Road to the New Mass, The Pius X and John XXIII Missals Compared, Liturgical Revolution.)

In short, as can be seen from this brief and far from exhaustive list of problems with the Novus Ordo service, this liturgical fabrication, which is itself an abuse against God and the souls for whom He shed every single drop of His Most Precious Blood, generates one abuse after another as the Faith is undermined at every turn.

Take it from one who used to think that we could "fight" scenes such as the one above: such scenes are the logical, inexorable result of the very false foundations of the Novus Ordo service. No priest or presbyter who stages the Novus Ordo service can take refuge or comfort by saying, "Well, I don't do such things." There is no difference between offering God prayers that do not fully communicate the truths of the Catholic Faith--prayers that do not communicate fully the sacrificial nature of the Mass—and the more “liberated” forms of the conciliar liturgy, which is as displeasing to God and as invalid as an “Anglo-Catholic” service.

Appendix B

Material Concerning Paragraph Fifteen of the General Instruction to the Roman Missal

(As found in Blind to Truth, Blind to the Horror of Personal Sin)

This is all very reflective of the spirit of conciliarism that is reflected in the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo service itself, which deemphasizes the horror of personal sin and thus our need as sinners for Holy Mother Church to impose upon us external penances to discipline our frequently disordered and unruly bodies and souls:

The same awareness of the present state of the world also influenced the use of texts from very ancient tradition. It seemed that this cherished treasure would not be harmed if some phrases were changed so that the style of language would be more in accord with the language of modern theology and would faithfully reflect the actual state of the Church's discipline. Thus there have been changes of some expressions bearing on the evaluation and use of the good things of the earth and of allusions to a particular form of outward penance belonging to another age in the history of the Church. (Paragraph Fifteen, General Instruction to the Roman Missal, 1997.)

Who says that forms of "outward penance" belong to "another age in the history of the Church? Revolutionaries, that's who. Revolutionaries whose hatred for the need to do personal penance for one's sins is indicative of their lack of appreciation for the horror of personal sin (see Having No Regard for the Horror of Sin and Just A Matter of Forgiveness ?). Revolutionaries who, although they would be loath to see the analogy, are just as much in league with the adversary, who hates the Holy Cross and the fact that believing Catholics, despite their own sins and failings, embrace It and love It as they attempt to lift It high with joy and gratitude in their own daily lives, as the social revolutionaries who make no pretense at all of their open hatred for Christ the King and the very instrument upon which He redeemed sinful human beings.

Appendix C

A Matter of the Faith, Not of Any Kind of "Personal Preference"

(Adapted from G.I.R.M. Warfare)

The wreckage wrought by the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo service is truly mind-boggling.

A synthetic liturgy, which was the product of men who believed that a "new age of energy" had dawned upon man, continues to demonstrate its inherent degeneracy as time progresses. We have, as I have noted on so many occasions in the past, become a congregational church. Each parish has its own distinctive ways of "doing" liturgy. The Mass varies widely from priest to priest even in the same parish. Sadly, the Novus Ordo contains enough approved options within it to make it the plaything of a particular priest, who feels free to give himself a little bit of "variety" now and then by using the options available to him most arbitrarily. There is nothing of a permanent nature which is beyond the ability of national episcopal conferences, diocesan liturgical commissions, parish liturgy committees, or individual celebrants to tamper with as circumstances dictate. The result is impermanence and instability, the exact opposite of what a liturgical rite is supposed to produce.

Although many presbyters who have been installed (the conciliar rites of episcopal consecration and priestly ordination are as bogus as the Novus Ordo itself) since 1969 have come to appreciate the beauty and the permanence of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition, some of these men have been coopted by the new order of things into professing publicly that the Mass of the Roman Rite, the Mass of our glorious, living liturgical tradition in the West, is merely a matter of preference, not an exercise of the worship of the Blessed Trinity which is inherently more perfect, more beautiful, more glorious, more befitting the dignity of God than the banality offered by the Novus Ordo. One such priest, who was known once (and not so long ago) for his stirring defense of the importance of the restoration of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition for exactly these reasons, has let the allure of a pastoral appointment and the careerism engendered thereby to lead him to state that the "same Lord" is present in both Masses, that a preference for the "old" is a personal matter which ought not to detract from the objective good found in the new Mass. This is all so reminiscent of what a fictional character once told a blackmail victim of his as to why it was so easy to stoop to the use of whatever means deemed necessary to achieve a particular end: "Once you lose integrity, the rest is easy." And the Novus Ordo makes it easy for men once known for their courage to lose their integrity and to try to use positivism to convince others that what is a matter of objective truth is simply a matter of personal preference, which is nothing other than the method used by liberals to attempt to reduce all matters of worship and doctrine to the level of subject preference rather than objective truth.

Adoration

The principal end of the Mass is the worship of the Blessed Trinity. The nature of God demands that we, His creatures, worship Him. However, the worship we are to offer the Father through the Son in Spirit and in Truth must befit His dignity as God. It must of its nature be an expression of beauty. We are creatures who have bodies and souls. Our bodies contain within them the senses which are affected by the environments in which we find ourselves. Even the smallest detail of the environment in which we find ourselves affects our senses, whether or not we realize it. Thus, a Catholic is called to recognize the fact that every aspect of his home life, for example, is to reflect beauty and order. We are to remind ourselves that we, although sinners who have marred the beauty of our sins by the stain of our sins, are meant to live for all eternity in the glory of beauty Himself, the very Beatific Vision of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. If this is so in the right ordering of our domestic lives, how much more is it to be the case with respect to the Sacrifice of the Mass?

As a work of beauty, the Mass must reflect permanence and stability. The infinite perfection of God is of its very nature permanent and stable. As far as is possible, therefore, the Sacred Mysteries must convey the Infinity, Permanence, Transcendence, and Stability of the Blessed Trinity. This is why the various Eastern liturgies are rich in symbolism (melodious chant, icons, grails signifying the "holy of holies" beyond which the laity are not to pass). A solemn High Latin Mass conveys this symbolism different than do the Eastern liturgies. However, the glory of Gregorian chant, the waft of incense, the fixed, prescribed rituals (such as the thirty-three Signs of the Cross which are made by a priest during the celebration of Mass in the Traditional Latin Rite), the singing of the Asperges me, Introit, Kyrie, Gloria, Collect, Epistle, Gradual, Lesser Alleluia, Gospel, Offertory, Preface, Pater Noster, Communion, Postcommunion, and Ite, Missa est, and the dignity of the priest acting in persona Christi convey collectively a beauty and order reflective of the organic nature of its development over the first centuries of the Church. No human being could have created such beauty and order synthetically. Its development over time itself is expressive of how Catholics began to appreciate and understand the nature of the Mass and the beauty and reverence due God in His Infinity as God.

As I have noted in the past, there are those who have justified the Novus Ordo on the basis of an appeal to antiquarianism, the exaltation of what is alleged to have been the simpler rites of the first three centuries of the Church. As Monsignor Klaus Gamber pointed out in The Reform of the Roman Liturgy, the efforts of early Twentieth Century liturgists such as Pius Parsch to discover the "roots" of the liturgy were based on false assumptions and bad history. Indeed, as Pope Pius XII noted in Mediator Dei, November 20, 1947, said antiquarianism was really little else than an effort to project back onto the past a reality which never existed in order to justify "reforms" which were at odds with the whole history of authentic liturgical development and destructive of the ends of the Mass.

To the extent, however, that the rites were simpler in the first few centuries of the Church, there are two very simple explanations as to why this was so. First, the Church was underground in most of the world until the Edict of Milan was issued by Emperor Constantine in 313 A.D. Yes, there were churches and basilicas which had been erected prior to that time. However, given the fact that various Roman emperors engaged in periodic, episodic persecution of the first Catholics between 67 A.D. and 313 A.D., a good deal of the reason why the earlier rites were simpler in form and rubric was that the Mass was said "on the run" a good deal of the time. This is why priests celebrated Mass in their street clothing (a chasuble was garb worn by ordinary Roman citizens) so that they would not be suspected of "anti-state" activities while walking above ground-and so that they could escape readily if they had to flee the place where they were celebrating Mass. Interestingly, this vitiates one of the arguments made by supporters of women's ordination to the priesthood. The fact that women wore chasubles during Mass did not mean they were priestesses or deaconesses. Chasubles were simply street garments. Period. Thus, part of the reason the rites were simpler in the first few centuries than they later became is explained by the necessity of the times. When the period of persecutions ended with the Edict of Milan, Catholics came to realize over time the beauty which was due God. It was then that huge cathedrals and basilicas began to be built. It was then that the rites began the steady process of growing in their ornateness and beauty.

Second, as the late Dr. Adrian Fortesque noted so ably in his works, the Mass of the Roman Rite underwent few changes (principally effected by Pope Gregory the Great) from the fifth century forward. And the changes which did manifest themselves occurred slowly, organically, imperceptibly. Indeed, the Missale Romanum promulgated by Pope Saint Pius V in 1570 so perfectly reflected the grandeur of tradition that it was adopted universally in one diocese after another even though the Holy Father had permitted places which had rites of their own dating back more than 200 years to keep those rites. With several exceptions, including the Ambrosian Rite in Milan, Italy, and the Mozarabic Rite in Toledo, Spain, the Missale Romanum was embraced everywhere as a fitting expression of what had developed into a fixed rite over a thousand years before.

In addition to the splendor of the rites, the beauty which is owed God in the celebration of the Sacred Mysteries concerns the appearance of a church itself. The High Altar, positioned in the back of the sanctuary so that the priest is in conversation with God, is of utmost importance. The altar conveys the sacrificial nature of the Mass, in contradistinction with the use of a table (almost a requirement by many diocesan liturgical commissions today for the building of new churches and the wreckovation of older ones), which conveys a mere meal or banquet.

The steps leading to the altar convey the fact that we must make an effort to approach God, that we need His ineffable grace to climb the stages of spiritual perfection so as to offer our own lives right readily in a sacrificial manner in union with the Sacrifice offered in an unbloody manner at the hands of a priest. The Communion railing signifies several things, including the distinction between the priesthood of the ordained priest (which is different both in degree and in kind from that possessed by the lay faithful as a result of their baptism) and that we possess by virtue of our baptism. Thus, the communion rail also signifies that the holy of holies is reserved for those who are themselves consecrated to handle the Sacred Species as well as for those chosen to assist them during the unbloody representation of Calvary. The communion rail also signifies the distance which separates us in this vale of tears from eternity. Although we desire Heaven-and are given a foretaste of Heavenly glories in the celebration of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition (as well as in the Eastern Divine Liturgies), we are still in this vale of tears. There is a distance which separates us from eternity.

Additionally, the beauty befitting God in a Catholic church, which is meant to provide a fitting ambiance for the celebration of the Sacred Mysteries, requires that there be a Crucifix to orient us to the fact that there is no other path to Heaven than by embracing our own individual crosses on a daily basis. There must be images of the Sacred Heart, the font of Divine Mercy formed out of the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary. Statues of the Blessed Mother, who made possible our salvation by her perfect acceptance of the will of the Father at the Annunciation, must be visible to remind us that she stood so valiantly by the foot of the Cross. Representations of Saint Joseph, the head of the Holy Family and the Patron of the Universal Church, must be present, as well as statues of the individual patron saints of the church and/or diocese. We, the faithful, must not be positioned in the "round." As our participation in the Mass is principally interior (requiring an active effort on the part of the intellect and the will), our attention and reverence will be affected necessarily by our being positioned in direct view of the High Altar, which is the focus of our attention during Mass, and upon which is placed the tabernacle where the Eucharistic King awaits our worship before and after Mass.

The music, therefore, which is sung or played during the Mass must uplift our souls to God, not reflect the banality of this world. It is meant to reflect the beauty, solemnity, reverence, permanence, stability, honor, dignity, and glory that are due God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Though, as Pope Pius XII noted in Mediator Dei, new musical compositions are not to be excluded from the celebration of the Mass just because they are new, any composition which proposes itself to be played in Mass must of its nature reflect the elements noted above. What we have seen in the counterfeit church of conciliarism is the canonization of the profane to such an extent that the music played in stagings of the Novus Ordo service is meant to reflect the spirit of the world rather than to reflect the permanence and beauty and solemnity of the Sacred Mysteries. There is simply no substitute for Gregorian Chant in the Roman Rite. It is more than a little telling that the various Eastern rites have never permitted profane compositions to be included in their ancient chants. The destruction of order, reverence, nay, even belief in the Real Presence, in the Latin rite has been made all the more possible by the profane music introduced in the past fifty-two years.

Finally, and so very importantly, we must present souls to the Blessed Trinity which are as beautiful as they can be. Though we may have much to do to make reparation for our forgiven mortal sins and for our unforgiven venial sins (as well as for our general attachment to sin), we are to be minimally in a state of sanctifying grace in order to receive Holy Communion worthily. The inherent nature of the Mass does not depend upon the beauty of our souls. However, its efficacy in our own lives depends upon the extent to which we prepare to root out all that is ugly, selfish and thus displeasing to the Blessed Trinity. An important symbolic representation of this is the attire we choose to wear when hearing Holy Mass. An outward display is frequently a pretty good sign of an interior disposition (or lack thereof).

A second constituent element of the end of Adoration is solemnity. Calvary was no joke. It was not a gabfest. Our Blessed Mother did not say to Saint Mary Magdalene, "Hey, Mary! You look great today." The Mass does not need endless improvisation or adaptation. It is what it is. Our Lord embraced the will of the Father in His Agony in the Garden. He offered Himself up on the wood of the Cross to pay back in His own Sacred Humanity what was owed to Him in His Infinity as God, that which we could not pay back on our own with our finite bodies. Our Lord paid back to Himself the blood debt of our own sins. Our puny, finite little minds cannot possibly even begin to fathom the horror and the pain Our Lord experienced as He effected our redemption on the heights of Golgotha. Our Lord fulfilled the Father's will so that His Infinite Mercy could be extended to us sinful creatures, who do not merit that mercy but who are the beneficiaries of this gratuitous, unforced gift of gifts. There were silence and tears among the several faithful souls who stood by the wood of the Cross. They were not distracted by the flies and the heat and the noise of the crowd busily jeering Our Lord. Our comportment must be exactly that which was demonstrated by the Blessed Mother, Saint John the Evangelist, Saint Mary Magdalene, and the handful of others who were at the foot of the Cross on the first Good Friday.

Every aspect of the Mass demands solemnity, sobriety, reverence. The priest in the Immemorial Mass of Tradition did not come out to greet the people (quite a significant change in all liturgical tradition, both in the East and in the West). He came out to pray at the foot of the steps leading to the High Altar, preparing himself and the faithful gathered (if any) for the perfect prayer which is the Mass. He is in conversation with God. We unite our prayers with those of the priest. However, the focus of a priest in the Immemorial Mass of Tradition is not the people. It is Christ, the King.

Although there are responses that the choir sings in a Solemn High Mass, the priest addresses us as a priest, not as an entertainer who has to add something of his personality or his own wordiness to "make" the Mass a more "complete" experience for us. The entirety of the Mass must convey solemnity, especially at that sublime moment when the priest utters the glorious words, Hoc est enim Corpus Meum. . . . Hic est enim Calix Sanguinis mei, novi et aerteni testamenti: mysterium fidei, qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum. The very solemn nature of the Roman Rite did this. No priest had to exaggerate the elevation in order to convey that which is lacking in the essence of the Mass (as some do in the Novus Ordo). No priest had to improvise words to emphasize that the words of consecration are indeed the most important part of the Mass (as some do quite idiosyncratically in the Novus Ordo). Every aspect of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition conveyed reverence and solemnity.

Solemnity is also conveyed in the Immemorial Mass of Tradition by the very positioning of the priest in conversation with God (or ad orientem, in the case of the actual, Eastward orientation of the High Altar of a particular church). As I have noted on other occasions, the first person to celebrate a "liturgy" facing the people was Martin Luther. Father Joseph Jungmann, who was a supporter of "liturgical reform" but was intellectually honest about some points despite the questionable nature of much of his other research, noted, "The claim that the altar of the early Church was always designed to celebrate facing the people, a claim made often and repeatedly, turns out to be nothing but a fairy tale." We do not need to look at the priest and he does not need to look at us. Both priest and people are called to focus their attention on God, not on each other. While a particular priest celebrating a particular Mass is important in that there would be no Mass celebrated at that time without his having been ordained to the sacerdotal priesthood of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, his individual personality is unimportant, totally irrelevant. We need to focus on the work he is doing in persona Christi by virtue of the powers given him by God at the moment of his priestly ordination. The orientation of the priest toward the High Altar of Sacrifice is an important constituent element of the solemnity befitting the Adoration of the God the Father through the God the Son in Spirit and in Truth.

Permanence and Transcendence are two other constituent elements related to the end of Adoration found in the Mass. A rite is meant of its nature to be fixed, not ever changing. Rapid change bewilders the faithful. Constant, unremitting change (and the variations that exist within parishes, among parishes, and among priests/presbyters) leads people to conclude that doctrine itself must be subject to the sort of change and evolution evidenced in the liturgy. Everything is up for grabs, including the nature of God Himself. Nothing is fixed in the nature of things or in the Deposit of Faith Our Lord entrusted to the Church through the Apostles. That this is one of the chief goals of the liturgical revolutionaries is plain for all to see and is something that has been the fodder of much discussion over the past fifty-two years.

A liturgical rite is meant to reflect permanence. God is unchanging. Our need for Him is unchanging. His truths are unchanging. As the liturgy is meant to provide us with a sense of same sort of security we find in our earthly dwellings, our homes, as a foretaste of the security we will know in our Heavenly dwelling if we persist until our dying breaths in states of sanctifying grace, it is obviously the case that it should reflect the permanence and transcendence of God and of the nature of His revelation. The Immemorial Mass of Tradition conveys this sense of permanence by virtue of the fixed nature of the rites (the gestures, the stability of the liturgical calendar, the annual cycle of readings, the repetition of the readings of a Sunday Mass during the following week if no feast days or votive Masses are celebrated on a particular day). It also conveys the sense of permanence and transcendence by its use of Latin, a dead language.

As Dr. Adrian Fortesque pointed out in his works, Latin is by no means a necessity for the celebration of the Mass. The various Eastern rites are offered in different idioms. And Latin itself was once the language of the people. (Indeed, one of the ways to rebut the charge made so sloganistically by Protestants that Catholics desired to "hide" the Bible from the people prior to the Protestant Revolt is to point out that when Saint Jerome translated the Bible from the Hebrew and the Greek into the Latin Vulgate, he did so to make it accessible to the people. Latin was the language of the people at that time.) The fall of the Roman Empire in the West, however, led to Latin's falling into disuse as the vernacular of the people. This was an "accident" of history, admitting, obviously, that all things happen in the Providence of God. This "accident," however, wound up serving to convey the sense of permanence and transcendence which is so essential to the Adoration of the Blessed Trinity in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

As Latin is now a dead language, it is no longer subject to the sort of ideological manipulation and deconstructionism found in a living language. A dead language is what it is. Its words have a permanent meaning. This "accident" of history, which, of course, has occurred within the Divine Providence of God, has helped to convey the sense that God is permanent, His truths are permanent, our need for Him is permanent, and our worship of Him must reflect this permanence. Furthermore, Latin conveys the universality of the Faith. A dead language is beyond the ability of anyone, including a priest, to manipulate. Thus, the Mass of the Roman Rite is the same everywhere. It is the same in New York as it is Spain. It is the same in the United Kingdom as it is in Japan. It is the same in Nigeria as it is in Argentina. It is the same in its essence in 2010 as it was 1571. This furthers the sense of permanence as a constituent element of the end of Adoration.

Latin also conveys the sense of the Mysterium Tremendum.

Although it is possible to pray the Mass with a priest by the use of a good Missal (such as the Father Lasance Missal), even those who are fluent in ecclesiastical and scholastic Latin understand that Latin conveys of its nature a sense of mystery. The Mass after all contains within it the mysteries of salvation. We know intellectually what the Mass is and what takes place therein. However, not even the greatest theologian in the history of the Church understands fully how these mysteries take place. We accept them as having been given us by Our Lord through Holy Mother Church. We want to plumb their depths by means of assiduous prayer and study. No human being, however, can possibly claim to understand the mystery of God's love for His sinful creatures, no less His desire to reconcile us to Himself through the shedding of His own Most Precious Blood on the wood of the Holy Cross. Latin conveys the sense of the tremendous mystery which is the Mass.

Again, it is not an incomprehensible language, as some defenders of the new order of things contend so arrogantly. Even illiterate peasants in the Middle Ages understood the Mass as a result of their being immersed into it week after week after week. Indeed, they had a better understood of the nature of the Mass (and of its ends) than do the lion's share of Catholics today, immersed as they have been in almost forty years of vernacular and banality. Nevertheless, Latin conveys the beauty and the glory and the honor and the permanence and the transcendence and the mystery associated with God and His Revelation.

To be sure, Latin is not an absolute guarantor of such qualities. The constituent prayers of the Mass must express the fullness of the Holy Faith, something which is not done in the Latin editio typica of the Novus Ordo. A simple comparison of the prayers found in the Missale Romanum promulgated by Pope Saint Pius V and the Novus Ordo of Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria Montini/Paul VI demonstrates that the expression of the faith has been changed quite radically. This is especially the case with feasts of the Blessed Mother. That those responsible the current synthetic liturgy felt free to tamper with the expression of the faith indicates that it is not simply Latin in se which is the guarantor of the permanence associated with the Adoration of God in the Mass. It is the use of Latin and the prayers which most fully express within themselves the Deposit of Faith which convey such permanence and universality. And, naturally, as Latin is the Mass of the Missale Romanum of Pope Saint Pius V, it does not need to be translated into a living language for its celebration by the priest, who thereby is simply an agent to whom has been entrusted our glorious liturgical tradition, to be celebrated in all of its beauty and splendor.

Reparation

The second end of the Mass we need to examine is that of reparation. The Mass is a propitiatory sacrifice offered by a sacerdos, that is, one who is able to offer a sacrifice. By its perpetuation in an unbloody manner of the Sacrifice offered by God Son to His Co-Equal, Co-Eternal God the Father in Spirit and in Truth, each celebration of the Mass adds honor and glory to God and grace to the world. Satisfaction is thereby given to God for the sins of men. The fruits of this satisfaction may be applied to a specific soul presumed to be in the Church Suffering in Purgatory (which is one of the principal reasons for having Masses said for the dead).

Additionally, however, the faithful are to remind themselves that they have an opportunity in each Mass to make reparation for their own forgiven mortal sins, their unforgiven venial sins and their general attachment to sin. Almost all the prayers contained within the Immemorial Mass of Tradition reflect man's duty to do penance for his sins and to be aware of a God Who, though merciful, is also just. The prayers at the foot of the altar, the Confiteor, and the Kyrie do this in a very specific way at the beginning of Mass. Many of the Collects and Offertories and Secrets and Communions and Postcommunions also do this.

Consider, for example, the following, said by a priest as he ascends the steps to the High Altar following the prayers at the foot of the altar:

Aufer a nobis, quaesumus Domine, iniquitates nostras: ut ad Sancta Sanctorum, puris mereamur mentibus introire. Per Christum Dominum nostrum. Amen. "Take away from us our iniquities, we beseech Thee, O Lord; that, being made pure in heart we may be worthy to enter into the Holy of Holies. Through Christ Our Lord. Amen."

Consider also, the Collect for Septuagesima Sunday:

Preces populi tui, quaesumus Domine, clementer exaudi: ut, qui juste pro pecatis nostris affligimur, pro tui nominis gloria misericorditer liberemur. Per Dominium. "Do Thou, we beseech Thee, O Lord, graciously hear the prayers of Thy people, that we, who are justly afflicted for our sins, may be mercifully delivered for the glory of Thy name. Through Our Lord." Also, Quinquagesima Sunday, which fell on February 10, 2002: Preces nostras, quaesumus, Domine clementer exaudi: atque a peccatorum vinculis absolutos, ab omni nos adversitate custodi. Per Dominum. "Of thy clemency harken unto our prayers, O Lord, loose us from the bonds of sin, and keep us from all adversity. Through Our Lord."

Consider also the prayers at the blessing of the ashes on Ash Wednesday: Oremus, Deus, qui non mortem, sed penitentiam desideas peccatorum: fragilitatem conditionis humanae benignissima respice; et hos cineres, quos causa proferendae humilitatis, atque promerandae veniae, capitibus nostris imponi decernimus, benedicere pro tua pietate, dignare: ut, qui cinerem esse, et ob pravitatis nostrae demeritum in pulverem reversuroscognoscimus; peccatorum omnium veniam, et praenia paenitentibus repromissa, misericorditer consequi meramur. Per Christum Dominum nostrum. Amen." O God, Who desirest not the death of sinners, but their repentance, most graciously regard the frailty of human nature; and, of Thy loving-kindness, deign to bless these ashes, which we intend to put upon our heads to express our lowliness and win Thy pardon, that we, who know that we are but ashes and for the guilt of our fall shall return to dust, may be worthy to obtain, through Thy mercy, the forgiveness of all our sins and the rewards promised to the penitent. Through Christ Our Lord. Amen."

Finally, consider one of the Collects to be said in Votive Masses in honor of the Seven Dolors of Our Lady:

Cordibus nostris, quaesumus, Domine, gratiam tuam beningus infude: ut peccata nostra catsitgatione voluntaria cohibentes, temporaliter, potius maceremur, quam supplicis deputemur aeternis. Per Dominum. "Of Thy goodness pour Thy grace into our hearts, we beseech Thee, O Lord, that, bridling our sinful appetites with voluntary discipline, we may suffer temporal mortifications rather than be condemned to eternal punishments. Through Our Lord."

There are no such expressions in the Novus Ordo whatsoever. It is an expression of a different faith, of, the belief that the force of the energy unleashed by "the general will" can effect a new spirit in man and thus in the Church.

These are clear expressions of the Reparation as one of the four ends of the Mass. And it is this spirit of reparation which is supposed to uppermost in our minds and our hearts as we hear Mass, mindful of our own need to make reparation for our own sins by cooperating with the graces we receive in Holy Communion, as well as the actual graces which flow out in the world as a result of the offering of each Holy Mass. As penitents who are aware of the debt we owe but cannot pay back on our own, we are supposed to be reminded by the very spirit of the Mass that we are to called to be co-redeemers of Our Lord by our patient and loving embrace of whatever crosses (physical, emotional, spiritual) we are asked to bear to make satisfaction for our own sins, to say nothing of offering the merits we earn for the Poor Souls in Purgatory and for the conversion to repentance and the true Faith of all erring, unrepentant sinners. Indeed, black was required as a liturgical color in Masses offered for the dead to remind us that physical death is a punishment for Original Sin. We are to grieve over what sin has done to the order of God's creation while at the same time we give thanks to Him for His ineffable mercy. The Mass, therefore, is supposed to remind us of the great mercy extended to us by God in permitting us to endure redemptive suffering for our own sake and for the sake of the salvation of the whole world.

As the unbloody perpetuation of the Sacrifice of the Cross, the Mass teaches us that there is no other path to an unending Easter Sunday of glory in Paradise than the Cross. That is why, you see, the replacement of the Crucifix in churches with representations of the "Resurrected Jesus" or of barren crosses coincide with an expression of the faith which no longer stresses a spirit of interior penance or of a need for external acts of penance. Souls which grow to love God with a fever pitch voluntarily take unto themselves whatever sufferings and humiliations which come their way without complaint, understanding that their sins deserve far worse than they are asked to bear in this vale of tears. None of us suffers as his sins deserve. Our Lord is infinitely merciful. He only permits us to bear what we have the capacity to bear by means of the graces He won for us on Calvary, and which are extended to us in each and every celebration of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. One who loves God understands his need at all times to make reparation. Those who are totally consecrated to Our Lady give her, who is our Co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix, and Advocate, all of their sufferings and merits to be used as she sees fit for the honor and glory of the Blessed Trinity and for the salvation of souls. What a tremendous trust in our Blessed Mother and a surrender of our attachment to our merits to give to the one who stood at the foot of the Cross as her Immaculate Heart was pierced with a sword of sorrow all of our merits gained by our acts of penance and mortification. Such a spirit can develop only when the Mass emphasizes our need for reparation, which is why its solemn and reverent celebration is so essential to the right ordering of individual souls.

The Confiteor found in the Immemorial Mass of Tradition expresses the desire on the part of both the priest and the faithful to express sorrow and contrition for sins:

Confiteor Deo omnipotenti, beatae Mariae semper virgini, beato Michaeli archangelo, beato Joanni Baptistate, anctis Apostolis Petro et Paulo, omnibus Sanctis et vobis fratres, quia peccavi nimis cogitatione, verbo, et opere: mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. Ideo precor beatam Mariam semper virgenem, beatum Michaelem archangelum, beatum Joannem Baptistam, sanctos Apostolos Petrum et Pualm, omnes Sanctos, et vos fratres, orare pro me ad Dominum Deum nostrum. "I confess to almighty God, to blessed Mary ever virgin, to blessed Michael the archangel, to blessed John the Baptist, to the holy apostles Peter and Paul, to all the saints, and to you, brethren, that I have sinned exceedingly in thought, word, and deed; through my fault, through my fault, through my most grievous fault. Therefore I beseech the blessed Mary ever virgin, blessed Michael the archangel, blessed John the Baptist, the holy apostles Peter and Paul, all the saints, and you, brethren, to pray to the Lord our God for me." It is no accident that the Confiteor found in the editio typica of the Novus Ordo has been much simplified. Although it does contain the triple mea culpa, there are no references to Saint Michael the Archangel or to Saint John the Baptist or to Saints Peter and Paul. There are reasons for this, and they relate to de-emphasizing the end of Reparation in the Mass.

The Confiteor found in the Immemorial Mass of Tradition has the priest and the server (praying for the people) confession sorrow for sins to almighty God and to the Blessed Mother, Saint Michael, Saint John the Baptist and to Saints Peter and Paul.

Why?

Well, the Blessed Mother was conceived immaculately without any stain of sin on her soul. Sin is what caused her to undergo her Seven Dolors. It grieves her now, which is why she has visited us sinful, ungrateful men on so many occasions in the past 470 years.

Saint Michael is the one who won the victory over Lucifer when he rebelled against God in Heaven.

Saint John the Baptist was freed from Original Sin at the Visitation when he leapt for joy in his mother's womb as he heard the voice of the Mother of the One Whose precursor he was meant to be pierce his ears. He lived a life of austere penance and mortification, calling sinners to a symbolic baptism of repentance to prepare the way for his Lord and Savior.

Saints Peter and Paul were sinners. Saint Peter denied Our Lord three times. Saint Paul persecuted the infant Church, presiding over the stoning of Saint Stephen, the first Christian martyr. However, their fidelity to the spread of the Gospel brought them to Rome, the seat of the most powerful empire in the history of the world. They were willing to shed their blood for Our Lord, thereby planting the seeds for the growth of the Church which itself would be headquartered from thereon out in Rome. They were purified by their martyrdom, giving us an example of how we must be willing to die to all things, especially to the influence of sin in our lives, in order to be prepared to die a martyr's death on behalf of the Faith. We need their intercession to help us avoid sin and to embrace a spirit of mortification and penance in our daily lives. Thus, you see, there is no place for such expressions in a synthetic liturgy created by men who no longer believed that there was a need for penance and mortification, no less the invocation of those who lived sinless lives-or were purified of sin by means of their willingness to die for the Faith.

Alas, the most telling expression of the end of Reparation found in the Mass is in the words of the Consecration of the Chalice: Hic est enim Calix Sanguinis mei, novi et aeterni testamenti: mysterium fidei, qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum. "For this is the Chalice of My Blood, of the new and everlasting testament, which for you and for many shall be shed unto the remission of sins." ". . . . Which for you and for many shall be shed unto the remission of sins." Although we cannot offer of ourselves the propitiatory sacrifice offered once by Our Lord to the Father on the wood of the Cross-and although we in the laity cannot do so by uttering the words of Consecration, we can and must nevertheless be inspired by the Mass and fortified by the graces received therein to make a sacrifice of our lives in reparation for our sins and those of the whole world. There is no other path to Heaven than by doing so, which is why it is so essential for the Mass to communicate its end of Reparation clearly and unequivocally.

Petition

The third end of the Mass to be discussed is that of Petition. Petitions are made for the forgiveness of sins, as well as to help us to cooperate with the graces we receive in the Mass. Many of the Collects and Offertories and Secrets and Communions and Postcommunions found in the Immemorial Mass of Tradition make very direct petition to God for our needs, especially as they relate to the salvation of our immortal souls. Indeed, the Offertory Prayers recited at the Offering of the Host and the Offering of the Chalice petition God in a most beautiful way that we might have the right disposition to enter deep into the sublime moment of the Consecration.

All of that being true, however, it is in the Roman Canon (and in the Prefaces) that we find the most perfect expression of this end of petition in the Mass.

The priests asks first of all the Father to bless "these gifts, these presents, these holy unspotted sacrifices, which we offer up to Thee, in the first place, for Thy holy Catholic Church, that it may please Thee to grant her peace, to guard, unite, and guide her, throughout the world; as also for [there is, of course, no true pope at this time] our Bishop, and for all who are orthodox in belief and who profess the Catholic and apostolic faith."

You see, there is no need for the silly, inane, often ideologically laden "petitions" which are offered in the Novus Ordo during what is now called the General Intercessions. All of the petitions and needs of the Church and the world are contained in the very structure of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition, especially as they are expressed in the Roman Canon.

The first part of the Roman Canon asks God to bless the gifts and sacrifices which are about to be offered up to Him, in the first place for the Church, the holy Catholic Church, as well as for the Sovereign Pontiff, the local Ordinary, and for those who "are orthodox in belief and who profess the Catholic and apostolic faith." Words count. Words matter. We do not ask God's blessing on heretics, apostates, schismatics, or dissenters. We ask for God's blessing on those who are true believers in the Deposit of Faith. The Roman Canon is not an exercise in religious indifferentism (can the same be said of the recently composed "Eucharistic Prayers"of the Novus Ordo?). This is a very important petition.

"Be mindful, O Lord, of Thy servants (here the priest and the faithful remember interiorly those in the Church Militant they desire to pray for; there will be more concern This is a beautiful summary of the true needs of others, starting first with the salvation of their immortal souls. None of us is guaranteed to persevere until the point of our dying breaths in states of sanctifying grace. No one is so guaranteed, including our closest friends and relatives. We must pray ceaselessly for our-and their-spiritual well-being, both now and at the hour of our deaths, which not even a terminally ill person knows. There is thus no need for people to pray out loud in church during Mass about this sick relative or that sick relative, thus descending into endless displays of narcissism and sometimes even false piety. The Canon expresses all our needs so perfectly. Isn't it a petition of our prayers to pray for all of the needs of the faithful?

"Having communion with and venerating the memory first, of the glorious Mary, ever a vigin, mother of Jesus Christ, our God and Our Lord: likewise of Thy blessed apostles and martyrs Peter and Paul, Andrew, James, John, Thomas, James, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Simon and Thaddeus; of Linus, Cletus, Clement, Sixtus, Cornelius, Cyprian, Lawrence, Chrysogonus, John and Paul, Cosmas and Damian, and of all Thy saints; for the sake of whose merits and prayers do Thou grant that in all things we may be defended by the help of Thy Protection. Through the same Christ Our Lord. Amen."

Again, it is no accident that a priest or a presbyter in the Novus Ordo has the option of omitting almost all the saints listed in what is now called Eucharistic Prayer I (The Roman Canon). There is a need to "rush" through the Canon after what is usually an excessively long "Liturgy of the Word" (including the General Intercessions). If the Roman Canon is used at all, long lists of saints should be omitted. Their absolute inclusion in the Immemorial Mass of Tradition, however, indicates that we are to be grateful to them for their fidelity, and to offer our petitions to them, who have gained the crown of eternal glory, for our protection and help by the grace of God. We need the help of the saints to become saints ourselves.

"Wherefore, we beseech Thee, O Lord, graciously to receive this oblation which we Thy servants, and with us Thy whole family, offer up to Thee: dispose our days in Thy peace; command that we be saved from eternal damnation and numbered among the flock of Thine elect. Through Christ Our Lord Amen."

Asking God to receive the oblation which is being offered up by the priest and the people (who unite their prayers with his by their interior participation in the Mass), the priest asks God to dispose our days in His peace, not the peace of this passing world, and to command that we be saved from eternal damnation in order to be numbered among the flock of His elect. We are not assured of our salvation. We must work out our salvation in fear and in trembling. We are reminded of this in no uncertain terms in this part of the Roman Canon, the Hanc Igitur.

Following the Consecration of the Host and the Chalice, thanks are given in the second part of the Canon as the priest asks God to look upon the gifts just offered "with a gracious and tranquil countenance." In the Supplices te rogamus the priest asks that God's holy angel will take the offerings to His altar on high, "that as many of us as shall receive the most sacred Body and Blood of Thy Son by partaking thereof from this altar may be filled with every heavenly blessing and grace." After this point, though, the Canon petitions God directly for the needs of particular souls of the dead for whom he and the faithful pause to pray as well as for all of the souls of the faithful departed. Memento etiam Domine, famulorum famuliarumque tuarum (name of deceased) qui nos praecesserunt cum signo fidei, et dorminunt in somno pacis. Ipsis Domine, et omnibus in Christo quiestcentibus, locum refrigerii lcuis et pacis, ut indulgeas, deprecamur, per eumdem Christum Dominum nostrum. Amen. "Be mindful also, O Lord, of Thy Servants (name of deceased), who have gone before us with the sign of peace and who sleep the sleep of peace. To these, O Lord, and to all who rest in Christ, grant, we beseech Thee, a place of refreshment, light, and peace. Through the same Christ Our Lord. Amen." No need for maudlin displays of sentimentality or pompous expressions of concern for the decease. Everything is included in the Canon.

The Nobis quoque peccatoribus continues with a petition that:

"To us sinners also, Thy servants, who put our trust in the multitude of Thy mercies, vouchsafe to grant some part and fellowship with Thy holy apostles and martyrs; with John, Stephen, Matthias, Barnabas, Ignatius, Alexander, Marcelinus, Peter, Felicitas, Perpetua, Agatha, Lucy, Agnes, Cecilia, Anastasia, and will all Thy saints. Into their company do Thou, we beseech Thee, admit us, not weighing our merits, but freely pardoning our offense: through Christ Our Lord."

Obviously, the Pater Noster itself is a prayer of petition offered by the Divine Redeemer Himself. However, the Immemorial Mass of Tradition does not contain the Protestant doxology which has found its way into the Novus Ordo. The prayer as uttered by Our Lord Himself is recited by the priest. Each of the individual petitions found in the Pater Noster has been the subject of extensive exegesis by sound theologians over the centuries (including entire chapters dedicated to the subject in the Catechism of the Council of Trent.

Each petition provides food for meditation, summarizing, if you will, the entirety of a Catholic's interior life of prayer. Although the prayer is recited by the priest, the faithful do not remain inert and inactive. They pray the prayer to themselves, meditating on our constant need for God's help, mindful, especially, of the fact that we who have been forgiven much are called to offer that forgiveness right readily. People who are about to partake of the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity made Man must understand that the Lord they receive in Holy Communion means to conform them to Himself in all aspects of their lives. This prayer of petition summarizes the Catholic Faith and the Mass itself.

The prayers said by the priest after the Pater Noster and the Agnus Dei are his own personal petitions for the needs of the Church and to prepare himself for the reception of Holy Communion. Once again, the faithful are called to read those prayers silently, understanding how succinctly the truths of the Mass are summarized just prior to the priest's completion of the sacrifice by his partaking of the Sacred Species. The Novus Ordo simplifies all of this, leading in most instances directly from the Agnus Dei to the priest's and to the faithful's reception of Holy Communion, thus de-emphasizing our need to petition God just prior to our encounter with our Eucharistic King.

While it is the ordained priest acting in persona Christi who perpetuates the Sacrifice of the Cross in and unbloody manner, the faithful do offer their petitions in union with those offered by the priest in the name of the entire Church. It is in this way that the laity exercise the common priesthood they have by virtue of their baptism. The common priesthood of the lay faithful is exercised in the context of Holy Mass by means of fervent, interior prayer of the heart, mind, and soul, which is offered up to the Father in Spirit and in Truth as they are sanctified by the worthy reception of Holy Communion and by the fruits which flow forth from the Mass. No member of the laity needs to have a "role" in order to feel "involved" in the Mass. The laity do not belong in the sanctuary as readers or extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist (the proliferation of which has resulted in what the revolutionaries desired: a blurring of the distinction of the priesthood of the ordained priest and the common priesthood each Catholic has by virtue of his baptism). They do not have to engage in elaborate processions bearing various gifts to the altar, where they are greeted invariably by a "presider" who tells them a little joke or two before sending them back to their pews. They do not have to be "ministers of hospitality" or "ministers of greeting." The mania for activity, a total rejection of the true concept of active participation found in Pope Pius XII's Mediator Dei, has resulted in the replacement of true interior participation with mindless activity and verbosity, all of which detract from the nature of the Mass, turning what purports, albeit falsely, to be the Sacred Mysteries into an anthropocentric, communitarian exercise of mutual self-congratulations.

The participation of the lay faithful in the end of Petition found in the Mass requires them to be recollect before Mass, to spend time in prayer before the Blessed Sacrament, to pray some of the wonderful prayers found in the various Latin-English hand missals, many of which have been reprinted in recent years. True participation in the Mass requires us to follow the Mass carefully, meditating upon the beauty of the prayers, some of which have been cited in this commentary. The Mass is ever ancient, ever new. Its fixed nature conveys the inestimable treasures contained in all its rites and prayers.

There is constant food for thought, no matter how many times we have celebrated a particular feast day or have heard a particular reading. And just as it is the case that honor and glory are added to God and grace is added to the world each time a priest celebrates Holy Mass, so is it also the case that our prayerful, interior participation in Mass (and the prayers we offer therein, as well as those we offer before and afterward) helps to build up the Mystical Body of Christ. Each ligament in the Mystical Body helps to support each other, as Saint Paul noted. None of us in the laity knows the efficacy of our prayers here in this vale of tears. But we are called to be faithful to our prayers, both the formulaic prayers found in the Mass and in Our Lady's Most Holy Rosary and our own mental prayer, the development of which is an important part of passing through the stages of spiritual perfection. It is the Mass which provides us the perfect framework to become more perfect lovers of the Blessed Trinity who are ever eager to serve Him in all aspects of our daily lives. Indeed, our very lives are meant to be offerings of praise and petition to God. That is why we are to be prepared for Holy Mass. For it is in the Mass that we are reminded day in and day out to conform everything about our very being to the standard of the Sacrifice of the Cross, which is re-presented before our very eyes in the greatest miracle we can ever behold in this mortal life.

As I noted throughout my own analysis of the General Instruction of the Roman Missal in G.I.R.M. Warfare, the Mass is complete and valid even when offered by a priest without a congregation, something which has been under attack by liturgical revolutionaries for some time now. No member of the laity needs to be present to make a Mass "valid." A priest celebrating Mass by himself without a congregation is praying in the name of the whole Church. And, as noted earlier, an entire company of witnesses is with him mystically as he offers Holy Mass. While it is good for the faithful to attend Mass during the week to receive the spiritual fortification, they need to do battle with the forces of the world, the flesh, and the Devil, the petitions offered by the priest for the entire Church, including the faithful, are all that are necessary for the good of Holy Mother Church. The rubrics and the prayers of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition convey this throughout.

The Eastern liturgies contain numerous, sometimes even repetitive, prayers of petition to the Blessed Trinity. As is the case with the Immemorial Mass of Tradition, the Eastern liturgies emphasize man's dependence upon God in all its prayers. However, "modern" man, who believes in his own essential goodness, wants to reduce expressions of petition found in the prayers of tradition and to replace them with ever-changing prayers of topicality, which are to be prayed aloud by people seeking narcissistically to be noticed in the context of the production called "the weekly liturgy." It is the Immemorial Mass of Tradition in the Latin Rite which orients man properly in his petitions to God, respecting the hierarchy Our Lord Himself established for the offering of those petitions.

Thanksgiving

The final end of the Mass is Thanksgiving. As each of us knows, the word "Eucharist" means Thanksgiving. It is in the Mass where the priest and the laity (if any are assembled) give thanks to God for all He has given them, starting with the great gift of our Catholic Faith and all of the treasures contained therein.

Quid retribuam Domino pro omnibus quae retribuit mihi? Calicem salutaris accipiam et nomen Domini invocabo. Laudans invocabo Dominum, et ab inimicis meis salvus ero. "What shall I render unto the Lord for all the things that He hath rendered unto me? I will take the chalice of salvation and call upon the name of the Lord. With high praises will I call upon the Lord, and I shall be saved from all mine enemies."

The rubrics and the prayers found in the Missale Romanum are found with expressions of gratitude. "Is there no one else to return thanks but this foreigner?" We, who are adopted sons and daughters of the living God by virtue of Our Lord's Redemptive Act, are called to be ever thankful to God, understanding that it is in the context of Holy Mass that we are to give such thanks as we are given the privilege of transcending time at the unbloody re-presentation of Calvary.

We are to give God thanks for everything. We thank Him for his many blessings to us, especially having the privilege of being fed by Holy Communion. We thank Him for the crosses and humiliations He sends us to make us more dependent upon Him and detached from our pride and selfish desires. We thank Him for the unmerited gift of His Divine Mercy, extended to us so freely in the baptismal font and in the confessional. We thank Him for not treating us as our sins deserve. We thank Him for the Deposit of Faith entrusted to Holy Mother Church. We even thank Him for living in these difficult times. We are to thank Him for living in these difficult times as He has known from all eternity that we would be living in them and that the graces won for us on Calvary are more than sufficient for us to deal with the difficulties we face. We thank Him for the gift of our families and friends. We thank Him for keeping us close to Him. For, as Saint Paul notes in his Epistle to the Romans, it is only God Who can prompt us to love Him more fully an to keep close to Him at every moment of our lives. And we thank Him for giving us our Blessed Mother to be our intercessor and true Heavenly mother, as well as for giving us all of the angels and saints who desire to assist us as we walk the rocky road that leads to the narrow gate of Life Himself.

Part of the way we express our Thanksgiving to God in the Immemorial Mass of Tradition is in the very beauty of the sacred rites. The beauty of the rites and the care taken to appoint a particular church demonstrate not only our desire to adore God but also our desire to thank Him for enlightening our intellects and strengthening our wills by means of the true Faith. God is due honor and glory. He is also due ceaseless acts of Thanksgiving. Gratias agamus Domino Deo nostro. Dignum et justum est. "Let us give thanks to the Lord our God. It is meet and just." Indeed, every single one of the sixteen prefaces found in the Immemorial Mass of Tradition begins with an expression of thanks: Vere dignum et justum est, aequem et saltuare, nos tibi semper, et ubique gratias agere: Domine sancte, Pater omnipotens, aeterne Deus. "It is truly meet and just, right and profitable, for us, at all times, and in all places to give thanks to Thee, O Lord, the holy One, the Father almighty, the everlasting God." (The Preface for Sundays, Missale Romanum).

As is the case with each of the ends of the Mass, the end of Thanksgiving is meant to flow out of the Mass. The beauty and solemnity of even a low Immemorial Mass of Tradition convey a sense of security and stability conducive to urging the faithful to stay after the conclusion of the Prayers after Low Mas added by Pope Leo XIII. As the Mass is a foretaste of Heaven, which is our true home, it is right and fitting that we should desire to stay after Mass for more than a token period of time to express our thanks for the sublime privilege of having been kept alive for one more day to hear Holy Mass one more time and to receive Our Lord in Holy Communion. None of us knows whether the Mass he has just attended will be his last. None of us knows when he is going to die. Each of us needs to pause in order to give thanks to the Father through the Son in Spirit and in Truth. And one of the fruits of the end of Thanksgiving found in the Mass is our desire to spend extended times in prayer before the Blessed Sacrament outside of Mass. Although I have written about Eucharistic piety extensively in these pages, suffice it to say that our love of the Mass should impel us to offer our own adoration and thanks to God before the Prisoner of the Tabernacle. Eucharistic piety is the key to developing a more intimate love of God and a greater appreciation of the mysteries contained within Holy Mass.

As Pope Pius XII noted in Mediator Dei, November 20, 1947:

"The fact that the sacred function, liturgically considered, has come to an end does not dispense him who has communicated from making his thanksgiving. On the contrary it is most seemly that after he has received Holy Communion and after the Mass is over he should collect his thoughts and, in close union with his Divine Master, pass such time as circumstances allow in devout and salutary converse with Him. It is therefore an error, due to paying more heed to the sound of words than to their meaning, to say that such thanksgiving out not to be prolonged after the ending of Mass, on the ground that the Mass itself is a thanksgiving, and also that it comes under the category of private devotions and is not directed to the benefit of the community.

"On the contrary, the very nature of the Sacrament require that Christians should become holier by receiving it. The congregation has been dismissed, it is true, but the individual members of it, united with Christ, ought to continue to sing in their souls a hymn of praise, 'giving thanks always for all to God and the Father in the name of Our Lord Jesus Christ.' The liturgy of the Mass itself recommends this, when it bids us recite the following prayer: 'Grant, we beseech Thee, that we may remain for ever in thanksgiving . . . and never cease from praising Thee.' And so, if at all times we must thank God and never cease from praising Him, who shall dare to find fault with the Church for urging her priests and the faithful to remain for some time after Communion in converse with the Divine Redeemer, and for having inserted in the liturgical books special indulgenced prayers for priests to recite in preparation for Mass and Communion and in thanksgiving afterwards?

"Far from discouraging the interior sentiments of individual Christians, the liturgy fosters and stimulates them in order to increase their likeness to Christ and through Him to guide them to the heavenly Father. And this is why it requires those who have communicated at the altar to render due thanks to God. The Divine Redeemer loves to listen to our entreaties, to speak with us familiarly, and to give us a refuge in His Heart which burns with love for us. (Pope Pius XII, Mediator Dei, November 20, 1947.)

"Indeed, these acts of private devotion are quite necessary, if we are to receive in abundance the supernatural treasures in which the Eucharist is so rich, and to pour them out upon others according to our powers, in order that Christ Our Lord may reach the fullness of His power in the souls of all."

As the Immemorial Mass of Tradition is Christocentric of its nature, its very sense of reverence and beauty and splendor and mystery impel the faithful to say a while longer after Mass in a prayerful thanksgiving.

Can the same be said of the Novus Ordo service, wherein the cacophonous noise and activity and "simplicity," which appeal so much to those who have a limited span of attention and whose faith has been attenuated by the banality found in the context of a bogus liturgical service?

Are the faithful prone to make a good thanksgiving after their service in the Novus Ordo world? And is their tendency to bolt right out of the pew not related to the inherent invalidity and other flaws and inadequacies contained within the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo service.

Concluding Remarks

No right-thinking priest who has to do all of the work involved in the celebration of the Missale Romanum can contend that the Novus Ordo communicates the ends of the Mass as beautifully, splendidly, permanently, reverently, solemnly, and universally as the Immemorial Mass of Tradition. Indeed, no right-thinking priest who has celebrated the Immemorial Mass of Tradition cannot come to recognize over the course of time the inherent harm contained within the Novus Ordo precisely because of its being a synthetic product of revolutionaries bent on changing the expression of faith (which has resulted by and large in a destruction of the faith and a loss of belief in the Real Presence and of the sacerdotal and propitiatory nature of the Mass itself).

A mere matter of preference?

All one needs to do is to look at the heritage of the preceding 1500 years prior to the unprecedented changes wrought by the Novus Ordo to see the fruit produced in souls by the Immemorial Mass of Tradition. Indeed, it was the Immemorial Mass of Tradition which served as the bulwark of the Faith when it was under siege by the Protestant Revolutionaries and, in due course, by the various ideological revolutionaries in Europe and here in the United States. Even though the life of the Faith was indeed being attacked violently in Europe and Latin America in the Nineteenth Century and undermined more subtly in the United States in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries, those many Catholics who remained in the one sheepfold of Peter were true believers. It was the Mass which kept them from having their faith entirely eclipsed by the forces set loose in the world during the Renaissance and have been permutating ever since. Once the Mass was replaced with a synthetic concoction, however, the bulwark was gone. The Novus Ordo service that represents itself falsely as a Catholic Mass became a place to canonize the profane and to glorify the spirit of the day. Gone was the need for personal penance and mortification. In were endless efforts to sin against the supernatural virtue of Hope by presumption. Gone was reverence. In came showmanship and spectacles to tickle the ear and to delight the eye. A mere matter of preference? Not at all.

You are here

Still Attempting to Make the Abomination of Desolation “Reverent”

Support Christ or Chaos