There are a number of very specific reasons for this, including, but not limited to, the infallible Papal Bull of Pope Paul IV, Gian Pietro Carafa [Monday, May 23, 1555 - Tuesday, August 18, 1559], CUM EX APOSTOLATUS OFFICIO, promulgated on Sunday, March 15, 1559.

Perhaps Pope JP-2 had this infallible Papal Bull in his mind, IF it is true that he said that the Pope right after him would not only be "the final Pope", but also an "anti-Pope".

Here are a few extracts from this infallible Papal Bull most Catholics do not know exists:

Pope Paul IV
Gian Pietro Carafa
[Monday, May 23, 1555 - Tuesday, August 18, 1559]
Infallible Papal Bull - CUM EX APOSTOLATUS OFFICIO
Promulgated on Sunday, March 15, 1559

"4.  Should at any moment it happen that a bishop...a cardinal or a legate, or even the Roman Pontiff had deviated from the Catholic Faith or had fallen into some heresy BEFORE his nomination as bishop, cardinal or pope, the following dispositions are compulsory:  The promotion or election, even if the cardinals have consented to this of common accord [i.e. unanimously], are null and void."

"5 They cannot acquire validity by the fact of the subject’s entry into function or by the fact of the consecration or subsequent exercise of authority, nor-in the case of a pope-by the fact of intronisation, of the act of veneration or of subsequent general obedience...."

"6 Persons promoted or called, in this way lose, by that very fact and without any further declaration, their dignity, position, honor, title, authority, function and power all at the same time."

Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger with his Brother, Father Georg Ratzinger

When the new Pope, Benedict XVI, was still a Cardinal
Did he fall into Heresy and, IF so, does this Automatically
Invalidate his Papal Election so that he is NOT Really a Pope?!

Please remember that IF the new Pope, Benedict XIV, the former Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, fell into heresy BEFORE he was elected the Pope, then his Papal Election is null and void, even if ALL of the Cardinals in the Papal Conclave voted for him - it makes no difference - because, as you read the above, it says in part:

"Should at any moment it happen that a bishop...a cardinal or a legate, or even the Roman Pontiff had deviated from the Catholic Faith or had fallen into some heresy BEFORE his nomination as bishop, cardinal or pope, the following dispositions are compulsory:  The promotion or election, even if the cardinals have consented to this of common accord [i.e. unanimously], are null and void."

The Letter to Bishops on "Communion"
Written by the then Cardinal Ratzinger
Who is Now the Newly-Elected Pope, Benedict XVI

Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger issued an “official” statement from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in June 1992 which the Pope of the Satanic Vatican 2 church, JP-2, promptly sent out as a "letter" to his Bishops on "Communion" with other churches and religions.

Ecclesial Communion

To analyze part of what he wrote, let us first begin with paragraph four where you will find Cardinal Ratzinger simply somewhat subtly reworks JP-2’s HERETICAL theology:

“Ecclesial communion is at the same time both invisible and visible. As an invisible reality, it is the communion of each human being with the Father through Christ in the Holy Spirit...”

“Ecclesial communion is... the communion of each human being.”   This statement indicates that the ENTIRE human race, irregardless of state in which each soul happens to be, is in invisible communion with God the Father through God the Son, Jesus Christ, in the unity of God the Holy Ghost.

IF you stop at this point, you already have the HERESY of Indifferentism - all religions are just as good as any individual religion.  This is also indicative of the HERESY of JP-2 with his skewered theology of the Incarnation which is an example, not only of HERESY, but of APOSTASY!

JP-2 must have been proud of his "clone", Cardinal Ratzinger, and apparently could not have agreed more with him where he wrote:   "The one, holy, Catholic, and apostolic Church is present, in all its essential elements, in non-Catholic sects."  In the same heretical "Letter" he says: "The Catholic Church is in communion with non-Catholic sects."

So, then, here is more than the sufficient proof required to realized that Pope Paul IV’s infallible Papal Bull, CUM EX APOSTOLATUS OFFICIO [Sunday, March 15, 1559] has automatically disqualified HERETIC Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger from every being legally and validly elected a Pope of the Roman Catholic Church!!

Why?  At least as far back as 1992 A.D., Cardinal Ratzinger, “that.. cardinal... had deviated from the Catholic Faith or had fallen into some heresy BEFORE his nomination as... pope, the following dispositions are compulsory:  The promotion or election, even if the cardinals have consented to this of common accord [i.e. unanimously], are null and void."

However, some Readers will, not doubt, be the proverbial “doubting Thomas” and want even more than the above sufficient proof before they are ready to agree that Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger triggered the compulsory requirements of the infallible Papal Bull, CUM EX APOSTOLATUS OFFICIO, just in case perhaps Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger simply got "confused"?

But how could an alleged Roman Catholic Cardinal, in charge of the "Holy Office" no less, now renamed to the "Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith", the "watchdog" of Roman Catholic Church doctrine, fall into such egregious heresy, letting everything go to the dogs?!

Hence you need to search to see if Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger did more than simply mis-speak in the above selected instances!  So then, together, let us review a little more of what he wrote lest some might feel this is thus far indicative, but not 100% conclusive.

Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, still in this same document, writes in part: “...and with the others who are fellow bearers in the divine nature, in the passion of Christ, in the same faith, in the same spirit.”

What does this fancy talk mean to the average Catholic?  Probably not much!?

Theologically, it means that ALL MEN “are fellow bearers in the divine nature”!  This is an heretically heinous mistranslation of divinæ consortes naturæ as found in the Scriptures where you read in part:  “By whom He hath given us most great and precious promises: that by these you may be made partakers of the Divine nature: flying the corruption of that concupiscence which is in the world” (2 Peter 1:4; emphasis added.)

This also means that ALL MEN participate in the effects of “the passion of Christ”, having “the same faith”, as well as also having “the same spirit.”

WHERE have you heard this business about ALL MEN before?  Do this term sound at all familiar to you?

Oh, Yes!  It is in the Paul 6 NOR (Novus Ordo Rite)!  Here is the OFFICIAL ICEL English translation in the ROMAN MISSAL of Paul 6:

"Take this, all of you, and drink from it: this is the cup of my blood, the blood of the new and everlasting covenant.  It will be shed for you and for ALL MEN so that sins may be forgiven.  Do this in memory of me."

But the Form for the Consecration of the Precious Blood has been mutilated.  In the Ancient Roman Rite of the Catholic Mass, it is:

"FOR THIS IS THE CHALICE OF MY BLOOD OF THE NEW AND ETERNAL TESTAMENT:  THE MYSTERY OF FAITH:  WHICH SHALL BE SHED FOR YOU AND FOR MANY UNTO THE REMISSION OF SINS."

It is clear that "for ALL MEN" does NOT mean the same thing as "FOR MANY".  On the contrary, the "for all men" is a blatant heresy!  Proof for this is found in the official Catechism of the Council of Trent which, contrary to the heresy that "all men" are saved, teaches:

“With reason, therefore, were the words FOR ALL NOT used, as in this place the fruits of the Passion are alone spoken of, and to the elect only did His Passion bring the fruit of salvation.  And this is the purport of the Apostle when he says:  CHRIST WAS OFFERED ONCE TO EXHAUST THE SINS OF MANY [Heb. 9:28]; and also of the words of our Lord in John:  I PRAY FOR THEM; I PRAY NOT FOR THE WORLD, BUT FOR THEM WHOM THOU HAST GIVEN ME, BECAUSE THEY ARE THINE [John 17:9].” (THE ROMAN CATECHISM, The Eucharist, # 64.)

Thus, but one more of various heresies for HERETIC Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger to notch on his gun butt of heresy and apostasy as a reminder and trophy of his diabolical ingenuity!

Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger then continues, as if this double-talk was not enough for you, writing how the Church is the “link between the invisible and visible elements of ecclesial communion.”

You are forced to conclude from this, using the laws of logic, that such pronouncements claim that the proper role for the Church is to make the INVISIBLE communion with the Blessed Trinity which the entire human race is already imputed to have, a VISIBLE communion by solidifying itself into one united organization - a one world new order - novus ordo - of things!

In other words, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger does NOT tell you that the proper business of the Roman Catholic Church is to go out into the entire world and convert all peoples, does NOT tell you the Roman Catholic Church is supposed to sanctify a sinful race estranged from God by Original Sin and by Actual Sins.

Oh, no, not HERETIC Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger!  Heaven forbid!  Oops, I forgot, Pope JP-2 infallibly teaches that Heaven is only a STATE!!!  SURE!!  Why, JP-2's “Heaven” is really nothing more than the Teilhardian black hole of Cartesianism - the nothingness of nowhere!!

Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger’s HERETICAL teaching, in the acme of his emulation of JP-2 (In plain English Ratzinger is nothing more than a JP-2 clone - no wonder he was elected “pope” so fast!), simply means he sees the Church as the one and only organization to collect within itself all of the peoples of this world - after all, they are already “invisibly” united, via an “INVISIBLE communion”, to God - at least according to HERETIC Ratzinger, now “pope” Benedict XVI, a.k.a. B-16.

In plain Anglo-Saxon English, all of this high-falutin, gibber-jabber by HERETIC Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger simply means that the Church only has to do ONE THING!  What is it?!  The Church ONLY needs to “announce” this already existing actuality of this union.  Just like people send out various types of announcements, e.g. for a birth, engagement, wedding, address and telephone number for a new house, etc.

HERETIC Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger outright says as much where he writes:  “...she [the Roman Catholic Church] is permanently open to missionary and ecumenical endeavour, for she is sent to the world to ANNOUNCE and witness, to make present and spread the mystery of communion which is essential to her, and to gather together all people and all things into Christ, so as to be for all an INSEPARABLE SACRAMENT OF UNITY.” (Emphasis added.)

HERETIC Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger herewith informs you that there are no longer SEVEN Sacraments, but apparently EIGHT SACRAMENTS? Which Son of an anti-Christ instituted this False Ecumenical ‘INSEPARABLE SACRAMENT OF UNITY’??!!

HERETIC Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger gives you all his definition of the Church in paragraph 7 of this same document, writing: “The Church of Christ, which we profess in the Creed to be one, holy, catholic, and apostolic, is the universal Church, that is, the world wide community of the disciples of the Lord, which is present and active amid the particular characteristics and the diversity of persons, groups, times, and places.”

HERETIC Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, the future Pope B-16, herewith identifies “the universal Church”, which is none else but “The Church of Christ” is “the world wide community of the disciples of the Lord”.

You most certainly noticed, dare I say - immediately! - that there is NO mention of: 1) the unity of the Catholic Faith; 2) of Catholic Liturgical Worship; 3) of Catholic Ecclesiastical Government; 4) of even the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church; or, 5) of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy!!!

HERETIC Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, and thus Pope B-16, is wont to say: “Where the eucharist is, there is the church” (Ubi eucharistia, ibi ecclesia.)

Just in case Ratzinger’s cannibalization of “Wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church” (Saint Ignatius of Antioch [b. Syria c. 50 A.D. - d. Rome 107 A.D.], Patriarch of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyraeans, Chapter VIII, Let Nothing Be Done Without the Bishop.) whizzed over your head, he tries to explain away his heresy, saying:

“It [i.e. communion - a.k.a. union - between the individual churches and the church universal] is rooted in the Eucharist because the Eucharistic sacrifice, while always offered in a particular community, is never a celebration of that community alone. In fact, the community, in receiving the Eucharistic presence of the Lord, receives the entire gift of salvation and shows, even in its lasting visible particular form, that it is the image and true presence of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.” (Op. Cit., # 11).

Although Traditional Roman Catholic Theology holds that Jesus Christ is the principal Priest (Saint Thomas Aquinas, O.P., [b. 1225 A.D. in Rocca Secca, Naples, Italy - d. Wednesday, March 7, 1274 A.D. in Fossa Nuova, Italy], Doctor of the Church, SUMMA THEOLOGICA  III, Question 22, Article 6.) at every valid Mass, it is a blatant heresy to take the position that the utilization of a non-Catholic liturgical rite which anyone uses has the power, ex opere operato, to confect the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist.

It is also a HERESY to claim that “the Eucharistic sacrifice...is the image and true presence of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church” for a number of reasons, including the fact that today there are many Protestant Supper Memorial Meals which all claim to be the “mass” but are only FAKE "masses", a.k.a. "the Lord's Supper", etc.!

The correct use of a valid liturgical rite for offering the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass does NOT  make “the image and true presence of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church”, as IF the Mass was somehow the Church, as explained below, appear in heretical churches as if by some magic.

Protestant Supper Memorial Meals are NOT the Catholic Sacrifice of the Mass!

But, before going into the fact that the Mass is NOT the Church, there is yet another issue to address while on the subject of invalid Protestant Supper Memorial Meals which all claim to be the “mass” but are only FAKE "masses", a.k.a. "the Lord's Supper", etc.,

It is necessary to understand that here HERETIC Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, and thus Pope B-16, takes the position that non-Catholic “priests”, or “ministers”, or “elders”, or whatever, act in the Person of Christ IF they should attempt to confect the Double Consecration during a Protestant Supper-Meal.  But, in the process, he misses the point and simultaneously broadcasts his ignorance of Catholic Theology, or rather his circumvention of Traditional Catholic Theology which one is given the impression that he relentlessly despises.

According to the traditional teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, for a Rite of Mass to be valid, many things have to be concomitant with each other, e.g. the Ontological Essence and the Metaphysical Essence of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass as CHRIST Himself instituted them.

Also, the Celebrant of the valid rite of Mass must also have been validly Ordained to the Holy Priesthood because only in the Sacrament of the Priesthood does one receive the Sacramental POWER to offer the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

And, of course, three things are necessary to confect a valid Sacrament - proper matter, form and intention.  Now it is a contradiction of terms for the member of a non-Catholic Church to have the required proper intention, which is to do what the Catholic Church does in the Person of Christ - in Persona Christi.

In virtue of the fact that a member of a non-Catholic church or organization is NOT a member of the Catholic Church, but of some other church or group, his membership in that group or church automatically forces him to have the intention to do what that group or that church does - which is certainly NOT the same as the Catholic Church.

But, even if it should happen that he have make a conscious, deliberate intention to do what the Catholic Church does, he must also be a validly Ordained Priest of the Catholic Church, something not impossible, but improbable.

I suggest those of you who are interested in more information on this point to read the Papal Bull of Pope Leo XIII, Gioacchino Pecci [Wednesday, February 20, 1878 - Monday, July 20, 1903], Apostolicae Curae.- On the Invalidity of Anglican Orders.

But, just in case HERETIC Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, and thus Pope B-16, has in mind ex-Catholic Priests or Bishops who had been validly Ordained as Priests in the Catholic Church, but then left the Catholic Church and still continue to use a valid rite for offering Mass, he should consider what the Angelic Doctor writes about this:

“I answer that, Some have contended that heretics, schismatics, and the excommunicate, who are outside the pale of the Church, cannot perform this sacrament. But herein they are deceived, because, as Augustine says (Contra Parmen. ii), "it is one thing to lack something utterly, and another to have it improperly"; and in like fashion, "it is one thing not to bestow, and quite another to bestow, but not rightly." Accordingly, such as, being within the Church, received the power of Consecrating the Eucharist through being Ordained to the Priesthood, have such power rightly indeed; but they use it improperly if afterwards they be separated from the Church by heresy, or schism, or excommunication. But such as are Ordained while separated from the Church, have neither the power rightly, nor do they use it rightly. But that in both cases they have the power, is clear from what Augustine says (Contra Parmen. ii), that when they return to the unity of the Church, they are not re-ordained, but are received in their Orders.  And since the Consecration of the Eucharist is an act which follows the Power of Order, such persons as are separated from the Church by heresy, or schism, or excommunication, can indeed Consecrate the Eucharist, which, on being Consecrated by them, contains Christ’s True Body and Blood; but not only do they act without rectitude, but they also sin by so doing.  And, therefore, in consequence of this, they do not receive the fruit of the Sacrifice, which is a Spiritual Sacrifice.” (Saint Thomas Aquinas, O.P., [b. 1225 A.D. in Rocca Secca, Naples, Italy - d. Wednesday, March 7, 1274 A.D. in Fossa Nuova, Italy], Doctor of the Church, SUMMA THEOLOGICA  III, Question 82, Article 7.)

He also goes on to say:

“Reply to Objection 3: The Priest, in reciting the prayers of the Mass, speaks in the Person of the Church [in Persona Ecclesiæ], in whose unity he remains.  But, in consecrating the Sacrament, he speaks in the Person of Christ [in Persona Christi], Whose place he holds by the power of his Orders.  Consequently, if a Priest who is severed from the unity of the Church celebrates Mass, because the power of Order is not lost, he consecrates Christ's True Body and Blood; but, because he is severed from the unity of the Church, his prayers have no efficacy.” (Saint Thomas Aquinas, O.P., [b. 1225 A.D. in Rocca Secca, Naples, Italy - d. Wednesday, March 7, 1274 A.D. in Fossa Nuova, Italy], Doctor of the Church, SUMMA THEOLOGICA  III, Question 82, Article 7, Reply to Objection 3.)

The Mass is not the Church

But another, even more important reason, because it is the primary reason, is that the Catholic Rite of Mass, which Ratzinger calls “the Eucharistic sacrifice", is NOT "the image and true presence of the... Church”.  The terms "image" and "true presence" are nothing but typical Satanic Vatican 2 church double-talk, made so infamous by Paul 6.

Ratzinger very craftily and deviously resorts to an overuse of an equivocity which could be taken in a traditional sense by Catholic Traditionalists, and in a different sense by Pagan Secular Humanistic heretical Modernists so that its meaning could mean virtually anything because, without actually saying anything - Ratzinger ends up saying nothing but Modernist gibberish with his words which this born-again Paul 6 has so "carefully" chosen.

Perhaps Ratzinger hopes that most Catholics, confused by his deliberate amphiboly, as witnessed by his carefully crafted use of the terms "the image and true presence”, would simply assume that he is saying, without his actually explicitly saying it, that “the Eucharistic sacrifice... is... the... Church”?

For the record:  "Amphiboly, n. 1. a fallacy due to ambiguously selected language.  2.  in reasoning, a fallacy of four terms under the appearance of three terms in a syllogism." (Bernard Wuellner, S.J., DICTIONARY OF SCHOLASTIC PHILOSOPHY, p. 6.)

It seems VERY CLEAR to me that the now ex-Cardinal Ratzinger thinks that, by hiding behind his Sophist amphiboly and carefully crafted equivocity, he is somehow immune to charges of heresy?  Why?

Because the bottom line is that he has really said nothing, although to the casual listener or reader it "sounds good" - yet the reality is that it is NOT good and sound!  Rather one can expect Pope B-16 to vomit forth more of the same.  Truly, "It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." (William Shakespeare, THE TRAGEDY OF MACBETH, 1606 A.D., Act V, Scene V, Dunsinane - Within the castle; Macbeth to Seyton [an attendant to Macbeth].)

On the contrary, "That which signifies many things is an ambiguous sign and consequently occasions deception; this is clearly seen in equivocal words.  BUT ALL DECEPTION SHOULD BE REMOVED FROM THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION according to Col. II:8:  'Beware lest any man cheat you by philosophy [i.e. false philosophy, e.g. Sophisms; fallacies] and vain deceit” (Saint Thomas Aquinas, O.P., [b. 1225 A.D. in Rocca Secca, Naples, Italy - d. Wednesday, March 7, 1274 A.D. in Fossa Nuova, Italy], Doctor of the Church, SUMMA THEOLOGICA  III, 60, 3 Reply to Objection 1.)

At the very least, the fallacy of amphiboly automatically imputes to its author an affected ignorance  by which said author deliberately attempts to victimize his readers by taking advantage of their own ignorance in order to trap them in the quicksand of heresy and apostasy, as in this specific case under consideration by the now ex-Cardinal Ratzinger who is now the infallible Pope, B-16!!!

However, "affected ignorance does not excuse from guilt, but rather aggravates it since it shows that a man is so strongly attached to sin that he wishes to incur ignorance lest he avoid sinning.  The Jews therefore sinned, as crucifiers not only of the Man-Christ, but also as of God.  (Saint Thomas Aquinas, O.P., [b. 1225 A.D. in Rocca Secca, Naples, Italy - d. Wednesday, March 7, 1274 A.D. in Fossa Nuova, Italy], Doctor of the Church, SUMMA THEOLOGICA  III, 47, 5 Reply to Objection 3.)

Because most Catholics will gloss over “the Eucharistic sacrifice...is the image and true presence of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church”, and instead simply read “the Eucharistic sacrifice...is... the... Church” which seems to me to be exactly what ex-Cardinal Ratzinger, who is now the infallible Pope, B-16, expected and deliberately intended to have happen with the majority of those who read his poisoned prose, so that he could teach heresy under the guise of teaching nothing specific because the terms he wrapped his heresy in are so brutally equivocal, a classical text-book procedure used over the centuries by heretics to try to disguise their subtle heresies, you need to know that this is heresy!  But why is this heresy?

It is heresy to take the position that “the Eucharistic sacrifice...is... the... Church”. WHY?

Because ex-Cardinal Ratzinger, now B-16, would have you believe that the Ontological Essence and the Metaphysical Essence of the Mass is IDENTICAL to the Ontological Essence and the Metaphysical Essence of the Church!  In other words, the being and the nature of the Mass is NOT the exact same being and nature of the Church!  It is like saying that fire and dirt are exactly the same things and do exactly the same things!  So also the Mass and the Church, which is the Mystical Body of Christ, are not exactly the same things and they do not do exactly the same things!

Summary

In summary, it should be more than self-evident from all of the above that Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger fell into heresy years BEFORE he was elected Pope.

Therefore, Pope Paul IV’s  Infallible Papal Bull, CUM EX APOSTOLATUS OFFICIO, Promulgated on Sunday, March 15, 1559, declares that Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, a.k.a. Pope Benedict XVI, is NOT a Pope of the Roman Catholic Church!

IF necessary, please re-read paragraphs # 4, 5 and 6 of this document found above.

Dear Readers,

I thank each of you who have contacted me about the data on the this page to which you object.  You are obviously not only very sincere, but also very courageous as well!

Introduction

When I was a child I felt that some of our Parish Priests were perhaps too strict, although all received the respect due to their Office as an alter Christus (another Christ), but sometimes it was more from fear and trembling.  Just one look from Father ...... could strike terror in a young child, as well as the oldest oldster!

However, having walked in their moccasins, as the expression goes, for many years, I understand much better their heartfelt concerns for their parishioners.  But, perhaps they also had in mind this warning to them by an eminent Father of the Catholic Church, which blunt warning I also keep in my mind as well:

"Not on account of their own sins, but on account of the sins of others that they did not prevent, Priests are often condemned to hell" (Saint John Chrysostom [b. Antioch c. 347 A.D. - d. Comana, Pontus 407 A.D.], Patriarch of Constantinople, Father and Doctor of the Catholic Church).

"We slay all those whom every day We indifferently and silently watch risking mortal wrath" (Saint Gregory I, the Great, [Friday, September 3, 590 - Monday, March 12, 604], SERMON 11 ON EZEKIEL,[Ezekiel 33:6]).

"Not to oppose error is to approve of it, and not to defend the truth is to suppress it. Not to confound evil men when we can do it is no less a sin than to encourage them" (Saint Felix III (II) [Saturday, March 13, 483 - Saturday, March 1, 492]).

"He who is able to oppose and confound the wicked and does not do so does nothing other than to foster their ungodliness. He who ceases to oppose manifest wrong assumes the guilt of joining a secret organization" (Saint Anastasius I [Saturday, November 27, 399 - Wednesday, December 19, 401]; Saint Damasus I [Saturday, October 1, 366 - Tuesday, December 11, 384]; Cause xxiii [23], Question 3, QUI POTEST).

"For when the pastor refuses to rebuke those that sin, there is no doubt that in silence he slays them"(Saint Gregory I, the Great, [Friday, September 3, 590 - Monday, March 12, 604], LETTER to Bishop Venantius #34).

"Without a doubt, he who fails to oppose what he is able to correct shares the guilt of the wrongdoer"(John VIII [Wednesday, December 14, 872 - Wednesday, December 16, 882], Distinction lxxxvi [86], Canon FACIENTIS.)

"He who does not correct crimes which he can amend commits them himself" (John VIII [Wednesday, December 14, 872 - Wednesday, December 16, 882], Cause xxiii [23], Question 8, PRAETEREA.)

"We've had enough of exhortations to be silent! Cry out with a hundred thousand tongues. I see that the world is rotten because of silence" (Saint Catherine of Siena [b. at Siena on Saturday, March 25, 1347 A.D. - d. at Rome on Saturday, April 29, 1380 A.D.] Dominican Tertiary, Mystic. Secondary source: Dr. Rama Coomaraswamy, The Destruction of the Christian Tradition, p. 247).

"There will be an uncanonically elected pope who will cause a great schism, there will be diverse thoughts preached which will cause many, even those in the different orders to doubt, yea, even agree with those heretics which will cause my Orders to divide, then there will be such universal dissensions and persecutions that if those days were not shortened, even the elect would be lost" (Rev. R. Gerald Culleton, THE REIGN OF ANTICHRIST, Prophesy of Saint Francis of Assisi, p. 130).

"Woe to you that call evil good, and good evil: that put darkness for light, and light for darkness" (Isaias 5:20).

"He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, both are abominable before God"(Proverbs 17:15).

"Them that sin reprove before all: that the rest also may have fear" (1 Timothy 5:20).

"Therefore, Brethren, stand fast; and hold the Traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by Our Epistle" (2 Thessalonians 2:14).

"We may say that a true and genuine Catholic is the man who loves the truth of God, the Church, and the Body of Christ; who does not put anything above Divine religion and the Catholic faith---neither the authority, nor the affection, nor the genius, nor the eloquence, nor the philosophy of any other human being. He despises all that and, being firmly founded in the faith, is determined to hold and believe nothing but what the Catholic Church, as he has perceived, has held universally and from ancient times" (Saint Vincent of Lerins [b. Toul, France, c. 400 A.D. - d. Island of Lerins, c. 450 A.D.], COMMONITORIA, 20).

Magnopere curandum est ut id teneamus quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est. "Care must especially be had that that be held, which was believed everywhere, always, and by all" (Saint Vincent of Lerins [b. Toul, France, c. 400 A.D. - d. Island of Lerins, c. 450 A.D.], COMMONITORIA, 3).

"It is manifestly and clearly shown, that it is an established law, in the case of almost all heresies, that they [heretics] evermore delight in profane novelties, scorn the decisions of antiquity, and, through oppositions of science falsely so called, make shipwreck of the faith. On the other hand, it is the sure characteristic of Catholics to keep that which has been committed to their trust by the holy Fathers, to condemn profane novelties, and, in the Apostle's words, once and again repeated, to anathematize every one who preaches any other doctrine than that which has been received." ["But though We, or an angel from heaven, preach a Gospel to you besides that which We have preached to you, let him be anathema. As We said before, so now I say again: If any one preach to you a Gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema" Galatians 1:8-9.]. (Saint Vincent of Lerins [b. Toul, France, c. 400 A.D. - d. Island of Lerins, c. 450 A.D.], COMMONITORIA, For the Antiquity and Universality of the Catholic Faith Against the Profane Novelties of All Heresies, Chapter XXIV, Continuation of the Exposition of 1 Timothy 6:20, ¶ 63; emphasis added).

"We were terrified beyond all else by the disastrous state of human society today. For who can fail to see that society is at the present time, more than in any past age, suffering from a terrible and deep-rooted malady which, developing every day and eating into its inmost being, is dragging it to destruction? You understand, Venerable Brethren, what this disease is -- apostasy from God, than which in truth nothing is more allied with ruin, according to the word of the Prophet: "For behold they that go far from Thee shall perish" (Psalm Lxxii [72]:17)" (Saint Pius X, Giuseppe Sarto [Tuesday, August 4, 1903 - Thursday, August 20, 1914], Encyclical E SUPREMI APOSTOLATUS [Tuesday, October 4, 1903], ¶ 2).

"When all this is considered there is good reason to fear lest this great perversity may be as it were a foretaste, and perhaps the beginning of those evils which are reserved for the last days; and that there may be already in the world the ‘Son of Perdition' [anti-Christ] of whom the Apostle speaks (2 Thessalonians 2:3). Such, in truth, is the audacity and the wrath employed everywhere in persecuting religion, in combating the dogmas of the faith, in brazen effort to uproot and destroy all relations between man and the Divinity! While, on the other hand, and this according to the same apostle is the distinguishing mark of Antichrist, man has with infinite temerity put himself in the place of God, raising himself above all that is called God; in such wise that although he cannot utterly extinguish in himself all knowledge of God, he has contemned God's majesty and, as it were, made of the universe a temple wherein he himself is to be adored. ‘He sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself as if he were God' (2 Thessalonians 2:2)" (Saint Pius X, Giuseppe Sarto [Tuesday, August 4, 1903 - Thursday, August 20, 1914], Encyclical E SUPREMI APOSTOLATUS [Tuesday, October 4, 1903], ¶ 5).

Pope Saint Pius X had already become aware of "a great movement of apostasy being organized in every country for the establishment of a One World Church which will have neither dogmas, nor hierarchy... under the pretext of freedom and human dignity" (Saint Pius X, Giuseppe Sarto [Tuesday, August 4, 1903 - Thursday, August 20, 1914], Encyclical OUR APOSTOLIC MANDATE [Thursday, August 25, 1910]).

Did Saint Pius X know more than just about the infiltration of Seminaries by Modernist heretics who were some of the teachers who taught the Heresy of Modernism to the future generations of future Priests, Bishops, Archbishops, Cardinals and Popes??!!!

In other words, was Pope Saint Pius X also aware about the Communist infiltration of the Roman Catholic Church??!!!

Do you want me to lie by telling you I am wrong about this?!

It has come to my attention that there is a person most of you have probably never heard about, a Mrs. Bella Dodd. She allegedly had spent most of her life in the Communist Party of America. She had been the Attorney General designate if the Communist Party would have won the White House. After her defection from the Communist Party, she revealed that one of her jobs as a Communist agent, was to encourage young radicals (not always card-carrying Communists) to enter Roman Catholic seminaries. She said that before she had left the Communist Party in the U.S., she had encouraged almost 1,000 young radicals to infiltrate Roman Catholic Seminaries and Religious Orders. Yet, she was only ONE of large numbers of Communists allegedly doing this same thing?!

In the early 1950's, Brother Joseph Natale, the Founder of Most Holy Family Monastery, attended one of Mrs. Bella Dodd's lectures. Here is how he describes his experience attending her lecture:

"I listened to that woman for four hours and she had my hair standing on end. Everything she said has been fulfilled to the letter. You would think she was the world's greatest prophet, but she was no prophet. She was merely exposing the step-by-step battle plan of Communist subversion of the Catholic Church. She explained that of all the world's religions, the Catholic Church was the only one feared by the Communists, for it was its only effective opponent."

Mrs. Bella Dodd converted to Catholicism at the end of her life. Speaking as an ex-Communist, she said: "In the 1930's, we [the Communists] put eleven hundred men into the priesthood in order to destroy the Church from within."

The idea was for these men to be ordained, and then to climb the ladder of influence and authority as Monsignors and Bishops. Back then, around 1950 A.D., she said: "Right now they are in the highest places in the Church. They are working to bring about change in order that the Catholic Church would not be effective against Communism."

She also said that these changes would be so drastic that "you will not recognize the Catholic Church"!!!!

Do I really need to comment that this is EXACTLY the situation we have today?!

This was in the very early 1950's - about 10 to 12 years BEFORE Synod Vatican 2 [Thursday, October 11, 1962 - Wednesday, December 8, 1965].

Brother Joseph went on relating what Bella Dodd had said:

"The whole idea was to destroy, not the institution of the Church, but rather the Faith of the people, and even use the institution of the Church, if possible, to destroy the Faith through the promotion of a pseudo-religion: something that resembled Catholicism but was not the real thing."

"Once the Faith was destroyed, she explained that there would be a guilt complex introduced into the Church... to label the ‘Church of the past' as being oppressive, authoritarian, full of prejudices, arrogant in claiming to be the sole possessor of truth, and responsible for the divisions of religious bodies throughout the centuries. This would be necessary in order to shame Church leaders into an ‘openness to the world', and to a more flexible attitude toward all religions and philosophies. The Communists would then exploit this openness in order to undermine the Church" (Former Crying in the Wilderness Newsletter, #6).

So, Pope Saint Pius X was certainly on the right track trying to warn all Roman Catholics!! But it seems very few people today know next to nothing, or maybe less than nothing, about his warnings??!! Thus, a reason to quote just a few of them, including what follows:

"3. Although they express their astonishment that We should number them amongst the enemies of the Church, no one will be reasonably surprised that We should do so, if, leaving out of account the internal disposition of the soul, of which God alone is the Judge, he considers their tenets, their manner of speech, and their action. Nor indeed would he be wrong in regarding them as the most pernicious of all the adversaries of the Church. For, as We have said, they put into operation their designs for her undoing, not from without but from within."

"Hence, the danger is present almost in the very veins and heart of the Church, whose injury is the more certain from the very fact that their knowledge of her is more intimate. Moreover, they lay the ax not to the branches and shoots, but to the very root, that is, to the faith and its deepest fibers. And once having struck at this root of immortality, they proceed to diffuse poison through the whole tree, so that there is no part of Catholic truth which they leave untouched, none that they do not strive to corrupt."

"Further, none is more skillful, none more astute than they, in the employment of a thousand noxious devices; for they play the double part of rationalist and Catholic, and this so craftily that they easily lead the unwary into error; and as audacity is their chief characteristic, there is no conclusion of any kind from which they shrink or which they do not thrust forward with pertinacity and assurance To this must be added the fact, which indeed is well calculated to deceive souls, that they lead a life of the greatest activity, of assiduous and ardent application to every branch of learning, and that they possess, as a rule, a reputation for irreproachable morality."

"Finally, there is the fact which is all but fatal to the hope of cure that their very doctrines have given such a bent to their minds, that they disdain all authority and brook no restraint; and relying upon a false conscience, they attempt to ascribe to a love of truth that which is in reality the result of pride and obstinacy." (Saint Pius X, Giuseppe Sarto [Tuesday, August 4, 1903 - Thursday, August 20, 1914], Encyclical PASCENDI DOMINICI GREGIS - On the Doctrine of the Modernists [Sunday, September 8, 1907] ).

In conclusion of these considerations, I am also mindful that the Angelic Doctor says:

"The Priest that fails either through negligence or ignorance to assist souls, renders himself accountable to God for all of the souls that are lost through his fault.  Hence, if a Priest does not fulfill his duty of saving souls and rescuing them from vices, he must render to God an account of all of the souls that are lost through his fault" (Saint Thomas Aquinas, O.P., [b. 1225 A.D. in Rocca Secca, Naples, Italy - d. Wednesday, March 7, 1274 A.D., in Fossa Nuova, Italy]).

Therefore, it is clear that I need to respond to whatever objections and concerns which Readers may have concerning any or all of the above.  For anyone who might want to further question me on this issue, I would respectfully remind them to prayerfully consider the teaching of this Father and Doctor of the Catholic Church:

"The divine disciple wrote, being ready always to satisfy [i.e., to give an answer to] every one that asketh you a reason of that hope which is in you [1 Peter 3:15].  But he who willeth to do this, innovates in nothing, nor doth he frame any new exposition of Faith, but rather maketh plain to those who ask him, what faith he hath concerning Christ."   (Saint Cyril of Alexandria [b. at Alexandria, Egypt in 376 A.D. - d. at Alexandria, Egypt in 444 A.D.], Patriarch of Alexandria [412 A. D. - 444 A.D.], Father and Doctor of the Catholic Church, Ancient Epitome of Canon VII of the First Œcumenical Council of Ephesus of Tuesday, July 22, 431 A.D.)

In addition, I must be faithful to the Solemn Oath I took to Almighty God, called the Profession of Faith:

"With the help of God, I shall profess it [the Faith of the Catholic Church] whole and inviolate to my dying breath; and, with all the power and ability in me, I will see to it that those under me and any others who come under my care by virtue of my Office, to hold, to teach, and to preach all of the above mentioned truths.  To this end, so help me God and these Holy Gospels of God”

Likewise, I must also be faithful to the Solemn Oath I took to Almighty God, called the Oath Against Modernism:

“I [state your name], firmly accept and embrace each and every doctrine defined by the Church’s unerring teaching authority and all that she has maintained and declared, especially those points of doctrine which are directly opposed to the errors of our time...."

"Fourthly, I sincerely hold that the doctrine of faith was handed down to us from the Apostles through the officially approved Fathers, in exactly the same sense and with always the same meaning.  And, therefore, I completely reject the heretical notion that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one meaning which the Church held from the beginning.  I likewise condemn every erroneous notion according to which, instead of the Divine Deposit of Faith entrusted by Christ to His spouse, the Church, and to be faithfully guarded by Her, one may substitute a philosophical system or a creation of the human mind gradually refined by human effort and capable of continual and indefinite development...."

"Finally, I profess that I am completely opposed to the error of the Modernists who hold that there is nothing inherently Divine in Sacred Tradition; or who-which is far worse-admit it in a pantheistic sense.  For them, there would remain only a bare simple fact, like the ordinary facts of history, to the effect that the system begun by Christ and His Apostles still find men to support it by their energy, skill and ability."

"Therefore, I most firmly retain and will retain to my last breath the Faith of the Fathers of the Church, which has the supernatural guarantee of truth...this is not to be understood that we may hold what seems better suited to the culture of a particular age, but rather that we may never believe nor understand anything other than the absolute and unchangeable truth preached from the beginning by the Apostles."

"All this I promise to keep faithfully, entirely and sincerely and to guard them inviolately and never to depart from them in any way in teaching, word or in writing.  Thus I promise, thus I swear, so help me God and His Holy Gospels.”

By the way, WHY is it that the Satanic Vatican 2 church has thrown out these two Oaths, required to be taken of its Clergy by the Laws of the Roman Catholic Church?  This is yet but one more proof that the Satanic Vatican 2 church IS NOT the Roman Catholic Church!

The Four Stages of Grief
After the Death of Pope John-Paul 2

Some of you have apparently been going through the four stages of grief after the death of Pope John-Paul 2?  I personally empathize and feel sorry for anyone who does this, having personally done this myself at various times in the past and having witnessed this many times, especially at funeral Masses.

Also, perhaps some of you have taken some of the things found on this page personally?  If this is the case, I apologize.  Please understand that I did not have any one Reader, let alone any group(s) of Readers, in mind when I compiled the data on this page.

I went to great lengths to explain the basics of prophecy, including quoting from various Catholic sources, e.g. the Angelic Doctor.  But the point is that some people had indicated an interest in knowing what some of the prophecies have to say about the next pope and future popes, as well as the end of the world.  While some of this data is very positive, some of it is also very negative.  All I have done is report it, just as any news reported on TV or radio on in the print media report on stories which are positive and stories which are negative.  Apparently some people become angry when reporters reported the attack against America on 9-11?  On the death of former President Reagan?  And, more recently, on the death of Pope John-Paul 2?

But, just as it is not anti-Catholic to report the death of Pope John-Paul 2, so also, neither is it anti-Catholic to report on the texts of the various prophecies having to do with the next pope and all future popes!  I can understand that emotions do tend to become overwhelming at times, especially when a pope dies, and there is incessant speculation as to who the next pope might be, not to mention the many fears that some people have wondering if the world might end very soon?!

So, in order to allay the fears, doubts, confusion, the sleepless nights, and many questions, including questions on the prophecies about the next popes and prophecies about the end of the world, from  some Readers, it was decided to compile this page to put people’s mind at ease knowing that the end of the world is, according to the Apocalypse, over 1,000 years away!

Unfortunately, in the process of doing this, the reason for the thousand years of peace, namely, the subject of the reign of anti-Christ, had to be mentioned, and well as the Great Apostasy which must happen before the reign of anti-Christ (anti-Christ is the instrument Christ is going to use to “clean house” in His Church, apparently any day now?!

It is the punishment of all apostate and heretical Catholics of today just as Attilla the Hun [b. 406 A.D.?  - d. 453 A.D.], who called himself “the wrath [scourge] of God”, was the “broom” Christ used to “clean house” in His Church in the 5th Century!  Today, the people who really need to fear the “broom” of anti-Christ are primarily the apostate and heretical Catholics - fear not, Christ knows exactly who and where they are!

Attilla was the punishment of the apostate Catholics who had been or who became Arian heretics in the 4th - 5th Centuries, and who refused to abide by the decrees of the First Œcumenical Council which reasserted and restored the ancient UNCHANGEABLE genuine Apostolic Tradition and Teachings of the Apostles of Christ.  It had been because of the REBELLIOUS and ANTI-CATHOLIC CHANGES brought about by the Arian heresy that the Roman Emperor Constantine I, a.k.a. Constantine the Great [306 A.D. - 337 A.D.], convoked the First Œcumenical Council (Nicæa I) which he personally and formally opened on Saturday, June 20, 325 A.D. at Nicæa in Bithany.

Cardinal Cæsar Baronius

I feel a kind of kinship, so to speak, or at least empathy, with the Father of Modern Ecclesiastical History, Venerable Cardinal Cæsar Baronius  [b. at Sora in Naples on Tuesday, August 30, 1538 A.D. - d. at Rome on Saturday, June 30, 1607 A.D.].

Cardinal Cæsar Baronius was a Cardinal of the Roman Catholic Church and an ecclesiastical historian whose history of the Roman Catholic Church, entitled Annales Ecclesiastici, was a refutation of the Protestant history of the Centuriators of Magdeburg entitled Ecclesiastica Historia: Integram Ecclesiae Christi Ideam Complectens, Congesta per Aliquot Studiosos et Pios Viros in Urbe Magdeburgica.

The Annales Ecclesiastici of Cardinal Cæsar Baronius, in the minds of many Roman Catholics, marked an epoch in historiography and merited for its author, after Bishop Eusebius Pamphili, the well-deserved title Father of Modern Ecclesiastical History.

Ironically, it was not a Pope but a Saint, Saint Philip Neri, who had urged Cardinal Cæsar Baronius to write a response to the Protestant history produced by the Centuriators of Magdeburg. Thus it came about that in 1568 A.D. Cardinal Cæsar Baronius undertook the monumental task of writing an ecclesiastical history, which, with astounding diligence, he brought down to the year 1198 A.D. and published under the title, Annales Ecclesiastici at Rome in 12 volumes between 1588 A. D. - 1607 A.D.

Pope Clement VIII, Ippolito Aldobrandini [Thursday, January 30, 1592 - Saturday, March 5, 1605] whose Confessor he was, made him Protonotary Apostolic and, on Wednesday, June 5, 1596, this same Pope Clement VIII created Baronius a Cardinal and in 1597 A.D. Pope Clement VIII named him Librarian of the Vatican.  In short, these, plus a variety of other circumstances, prevented his active work on the Annales Ecclesiastici.

In the spring of 1607 A.D. Cardinal Cæsar Baronius was warned in a vision that his current sixty-ninth year would be his last.  Thereupon, he hastened back to the Oratory and finally finished the last volume of his Annales Ecclesiastici. He soon became critically ill and was moved to Frascati.  But, realizing that his death was at hand, he returned to Rome, where he died on Saturday, June 30, 1607 A.D.. His tomb is at the left of the High Altar in the church of Santa Maria in Vallicella (Chiesa Nuova).

His reputation for profound sanctity guided Pope Benedict XIV, Prospero Lambertini [Wednesday, August 17, 1740 - Wednesday, May 3, 1758] to proclaim him Venerable on Tuesday, January 12, 1745 A.D.  Venerable is the first of three stages to become a canonized Saint in the Roman Catholic Church.

Therefore, this holy Cardinal was not like so many of the materialistic Cardinals, Bishops and Priests of his day and later.  As a matter of fact, BEFORE he began writing his History of the Church, Pope  Saint Pius V, Antonio-Michele Ghislieri [Friday, January 7, 1566 - Monday, May 1, 1572] gave him one strict order to always follow: “Tell the Truth!”

For the Greater Honor and Glory of God
and the Salvation of Souls

I have never claimed I was in a popularity contest with the charismatic, always makes you feel good, Pope JP-2, Karol Wyotya [Monday, October 16, 1978 - Friday, April 1, 2005].

Rather, by the Most Holy Will and Grace of God, just as all Bishops and Priests of the Catholic Church, I, too, must also be responsible to my God-given Office and therefore I must go about working for the Greater Honor and Glory of God and the Salvation of Souls - in other words, putting Almighty God and His UNCHANGEABLE Truths in the spotlight, not myself!

The FOCUS must be on Almighty God and His UNCHANGEABLE, INFINITE Truths, plus fulfilling the primary Office of a Priest - to offer the Holy SACRIFICE of the Mass on behalf of the intention of those people requesting Masses.

Yet apparently Pope JP-2 was all into working only for the GREAT honor and glory of Pope JP-2?!

What better way to attain this goal of getting GREAT honor, glory and applause from the world, than to appear on the stage of the world, before the glare of the spotlights of the cameras of the world media??!!

Therefore, imbued with the false and ANTI-CATHOLIC philosophy of Pagan secular humanism, it appears as though Pope JP-2 thought it was part of his Pope job description to be the entertainer for the entire world, and, in his spare time, preach his ANTI-CATHOLIC Pagan gospel of secular humanism?
 

Professional actor/entertainer, Pope JP-2, liked to frolic in front of the spotlight of the world, as per the Prophecy of Malachy, trying to entertain people and be well liked, with his focus of the things of this world, not on the unchangeable Truths of God. Thus, his Hegelian humanist heretical song and dance routines like his heretical, ANTI-CATHOLIC teaching that "heaven" is NOT "a physical place"; rather, it is a state - "a...relationship".  In reality, it is the Teilhardian black hole of the omega point! Shades of the pantheism of Spinoza and a sentimentalized atheism, ala Cartesian Teilhardism!

Another example, since one big lie deserves another big lie, or more correctly, one HERESY deserves another HERESY, shortly after his attack against the Catholic doctrine of Heaven, Pope JP-2 then attacked the Catholic doctrine of Hell, saying:  "Hell is not a punishment imposed externally by God, but the CONDITION resulting from attitudes and actions which people adopt in this life. It is the ultimate consequence of sin itself. Sacred Scripture uses many images to describe the pain, frustration and emptiness of life without God. More than a physical place, hell is the state of those who freely and definitively separate themselves from God, the source of all life and joy"  (Pope JP-2, General Audience of Wednesday, 28 July, 1999; emphasis added.)

On the contrary, by the Grace of God, I must imitate Jesus Christ and His Holy Apostles. This is why, by the Most Holy Will and Grace of God, just as all Bishops and Priests of the Catholic Church, I, too, must also be responsible to my two Public, Solemn, Sacred Oaths as well as my God-given Offices, and therefore I must go about working for the Greater Honor and Glory of God and the Salvation of Souls - in other words, putting Almighty God and His UNCHANGEABLE Truths in the spotlight, not myself!
 

WHERE in the Bible does it say that ALMIGHTY GOD is in the entertainment business!! WHERE in the Old Testament of the Bible does it say that part of the job description God meticulously gave to the Jewish Priesthood was to be actors and to entertain the people? On the contrary, the primary SACRED function of the Priests of the Old Law was to offer sacrifice to God on behalf of the people. Almighty God wants His ambassadors, i.e. His Bishops and Priests, to SAVE SOULS, and NOT to PLAY GAMES, e.g. hide and seek with the news media!!!!  In this photo on the left, this clowning by JP-2 seems to indicate that he himself never had much respect for his own Office.  Maybe he just wanted to still be an actor!!! The GREAT clown, the GREAT actor, yes, that was definitely the GREAT Pope JP-2!  But, since the NOR was promulgated, did this GREAT Pope ever offer the infinite SACRIFICE of the Mass?!  NO, because NOR (the Novus Ordo Rite of "mass") is only an updated 16th Century Protestant Supper Memorial MEAL!

ALMIGHTY GOD wants His ambassadors, i.e. His Bishops and Priests, to SAVE SOULS, but they also need to have respect for their own various Offices in the Church because, if they have no respect for their own Offices, how can they expect anyone else to have respect for their Offices, especially that Office of Sacrificer by which, as the human instrument of Christ, in Persona Christi  - in the Person of Christ - they offer the Holy SACRIFICE of the Mass in virtue of the power they received from their ordaining Bishop during their own reception of the Sacrament of HOLY Orders!?

The Mass, the Sacraments and the Deposit of Divine Revelation are SACRED, not to be profaned by lack of due respect and irreverence.  This is serious work for which every Bishop and Priest must give a strict account on the day of his own Judgment because, YES, God IS in the punishment business, despite the lies to the contrary which the clergy of the Apostate, Heretical, Satanic Vatican 2 church teach and preach!

The Crozier, a.k.a. Crosier

Crosier, an ornamental staff in the shape of a shepherd’s crook, conferred on bishops, mitered abbots, and certain other prelates.  It usually consists of a metal tube, plated with silver and gold; sometimes of elaborately carved wood, or even of pure gold and silver.  The crook symbolizes that the bishop should act as a shepherd to those who may wander from his fold; the pointed lower end, that he should goad on the spiritually indifferent; and the tall shaft, that he should support the weak.  The bishops always carries the crosier in the left hand with the crook turned outward towards the people, in accordance with the above symbolism; other prelates using the crosier hold it with the crook turned inwards.  The popes have not used the crosier since before the 11th Century; this is supposed by some to symbolize the giving of his staff by St. Peter to one of his disciples to raise a dead person to life.  As the emblem of a saint, it indicates that he was a bishop or abbot; it is especially associated in art with saints Benedict, Bernard, and Giles.  (Conde B. Pallen, Ph.D., LL.D., John J. Wynne, S.J., S.T.D., et alii, THE NEW CATHOLIC DICTIONARY, 1929, Imprimatur, Patrick Cardinal Hayes, October 1, 1929, Crosier, p. 269c).

This definition of the Crozier helps the average member of the Laity to better understand some of the duties and responsibilities of Bishops, such as supporting the weak.  But it also symbolizes encouraging those people who are spiritually indifferent.  Yet, if the Bishop himself is an Indifferentist, that one religion is just as good as any other religion - which is the heresy of false ecumenism, e.g. as found today in the Satanic Vatican 2 church - how can that Bishop correctly and perfectly fulfill his ministry?

In the Catholic Church, the Bishop is also the official teacher, although, because the Bishop can not do this all by himself, he has help doing this by delegating part of this responsibility to his Priests.  Of course this means that the Bishop and Priest must teach only the Truths of the Catholic Faith.

IF this world was UTOPIA, a "paradise", I would always have happy, loving, joyful, blissful, positive things about which to teach and preach.  But this world is not a perfect world, it is not UTOPIA.  It is unrealistic for anyone to expect that it is UTOPIA.  Therefore, in order to warn the Laity about various Spiritual dangers to their souls, along with the rest of the Bishops and Priests of the Catholic Church, now in Catacombs III, these circumstances force me to preach and teach on subjects which human nature does not always find comfortable because these subjects too often tend to be negative.

The Truth Is NOT Always Positive, Happy, and Cuddly
But That is NOT the Fault of the One Who Writes the Truth

Again, I have recourse to a Father of the Catholic Church: “Not only does he betray the Truth who transgresses against the Truth by openly speaking falsehood and not the Truth, but he also betrays the Truth who does not openly speak the Truth, which must be openly proclaimed, or does not boldly defend the Truth when it must be boldly defended" (Saint John Chrysostom [b. Antioch c. 347 A.D. - d. Comana, Pontus 407 A.D.], Patriarch of Constantinople, Father and Doctor of the Catholic Church, Cause 11, Question 3, NOLITE).

Truth seems to be a mystery for some people, though it need not be. “The beginner is sorely tempted to be more impressed by the prestige and personality of the teacher or the writer than by the Truth of what he teaches or writes.  It is very much less trouble, but  it is fatal to knowledge, to learning, to real wisdom.  For this is concerned with the Truth that is uttered, never with the personality of the human vehicle.  This principle Saint Thomas [Aquinas] himself carried to limitless lengths. Statements or arguments must be accepted or rejected on their own merits, never on the merits of the human spokesman, be He Catholic, Infidel, Turk or Jew”  (Reverend Victor White, O.P., HOW TO STUDY, Blackfriars, London, 1951, Commentary on the advice of  Saint Thomas Aquinas; emphasis added.)

Although my primary choice for sources are Catholic sources, sometimes I do use non-Catholic sources, but only those things which they write which are True.  But, this procedure is in total harmony with the Saintly Angelic Doctor, as explained above.

The Angelic Doctor teaches that “God is truth” (Saint Thomas Aquinas, O.P., [b. 1225 A.D. in Rocca Secca, Naples, Italy - d. Wednesday, March 7, 1274 A.D., in Fossa Nuova, Italy], Doctor of the Church, SUMMA THEOLOGICA I, l16, 5 and II-II, 93, 2 reply to objection 2; SUMMA CONTRA GENTILES I, 60) and that “Truth cannot be truth’s contrary” (Saint Thomas Aquinas, O.P., SUMMA CONTRA GENTILES IV, 8).  In other words, Truth does not contradict itself.

For example, today we all witness the many, many changes which the Popes from 2nd John 23, Angelo Giuseppe Roncalli [Tuesday, October 28, 1958 - Monday, June 3, 1963] through JP-2, Karol Wyotya [Monday, October 16, 1978 - Friday, April 1, 2005] have made to the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, not to mention the almost total changes they have made, especially JP-2, to the Catholic Rite of Mass.

But the sad thing is, ALL of these changes contradict what the Catholic Church has held Sacred and Unchangeable from the days of Christ Himself because Christ PERFECTLY instituted the Ontological Essence (that which makes the Mass the Mass) and the Metaphysical Essence (that which the Mass does) of the Mass!

Jesus Christ NEVER gave any of His Apostles any authority to change any part of the Ontological Essence and the Metaphysical Essence of the Mass!

The same holds true for the Seven Sacraments and the Ontological Essence (that which makes that particular Sacrament that particular Sacrament) and the Metaphysical Essence (that which that particular Sacrament does) of each Sacrament!

Therefore, either Jesus Christ, His Holy Apostles and their successors have lied, or all of the Satanic Vatican 2 church Popes, i.e. from Pope 2nd John 23, Angelo Giuseppe Roncalli, up through Pope JP-2, Karol Wyotya have lied!

Who has been telling the Truth and who has been lying???!!!!  I believe Jesus Christ and His Holy Apostles - who do you believe?!

Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi

You have probably noted that I used the term: “the Satanic Vatican 2 church”?  The reason for this is based upon the consistent teachings of the Catholic Church since the theological principle for this was first enunciated by Pope Celestine I [Saturday, September 10, 422  - Tuesday, July 27, 432 ] who taught the principle: Legem Credendi Lex Statuit Supplicandi.  [The Liturgical form of prayer becomes the standard of Faith.]  This is sometimes shortened to simply Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi:  The Law of Praying is the Law of Believing.  This simply means that you express, by a public, exterior liturgical act of worship, your own personal interior beliefs of your faith.  Thus, you pray what you believe and you believe what you pray.

Church History

Returning to the subject of Truth, the proper function of History is to record the Truth, which is why, as mentioned above,  Pope Saint Pius V, Antonio-Michele Ghislieri [Friday, January 7, 1566 - Monday, May 1, 1572] gave him one strict order to always follow: “Tell the Truth!”

The Public Speech

This explains why, just like Truth, its authentic handmaid, “History is neither Catholic, nor Anglican, nor Calvinistic, nor Lutheran, nor Arminian, nor schismatic Greek nor Ultramontane. She is what she is - that is, something stronger than all confessions of faith of the Canons of the Ecumenical Councils. Write against it, if you dare! but you cannot destroy it, any more than taking a brick out of the Coliseum would make it fall...”

“Well, Venerable Brethren, here history raises its voice to assure us that some popes have erred. You may protest against it or deny it, as you please, but I will prove it.

Pope Victor (192) first approved of Montanism, and then condemned it.

Marcellinus (296-303) was an idolater. He entered into the temple of Vesta, and offered incense to the goddess. You will say that it was an act of weakness; but I answer, a vicar of Jesus Christ dies rather than become an apostate.

Liberius (358) consented to the condemnation of Athanasius, and made a profession of [the heresy of] Arianism, that he might be recalled from his exile and reinstated in his See.

Honorius (625) adhered to Monothelitism: Father Gratry has proved it to demonstration...

Sixtus V (1585-90) published an edition of the Bible, and by a bull recommended it to be read;

Pius VII condemned the reading of it."

“Do not cry out, Monsignori!  To fear history is to own yourselves conquered; and, moreover, if you made the whole waters of the Tiber pass over it, you would not cancel a single page."

"My venerable brethren, will a pope who establishes a bank at the gates of the temple be inspired by the Holy Spirit? Will he have any right to teach the church infallibly? You know the history of Formosus too well for me to add to it. Stephen XI caused his body to be exhumed, dressed in his pontifical robes; he made the fingers which he used for giving the benediction to be cut off, and then had him thrown into the Tiber, declaring him to be a perjurer and illegitimate. He was then imprisoned by the people, poisoned, and strangled. Look how matters were re-adjusted; Romanus, successor of Stephen, and, after him, John X, rehabilitated the memory of Formosus."

“But you will tell me these are fables, not history. Fables! Go, Monsignori, to the Vatican Library and read Platina, the historian of the papacy, and the annals of Baronius (A.D. 897)..."

"The learned Cardinal Baronius, speaking of the papal court, says (give attention, my venerable brethren, to these words), ‘What did the Roman church appear in those days? How infamous! Only all-powerful courtesans governing in Rome! It was they who gave, exchanged, and took bishoprics; and horrible to relate, they got their lovers, the false popes, put on the throne of St. Peter’ (Baronius, A.D. 912)."

"You will answer, These were false popes, not true ones: let it be so; but in that case, if for fifty years the see of Rome was occupied by anti-popes, how will you pick up again the thread of pontifical succession? Has the church been able, at least for a century and a half, to go on without a head, and find itself acephalous?"

“Look now: The greatest number of these anti-popes appear in a genealogical tree of the papacy; and it must have been this absurdity that Baronius described; because Genebrardo, the great flatterer of the popes, had dared to say in his Chronicles (A.D. 901), “This century is unfortunate, as for nearly 150 years the popes have fallen from all the virtues of their predecessors, and have become apostates rather than apostles.’ I can understand how the illustrious Baronius must have blushed when he narrated the acts of these Roman bishops. Speaking of John XI (931), natural son of Pope Sergius and of Marozia, he wrote these words in his annals - The holy church, that is, the Roman, has been vilely trampled on by such a monster.’ John XII (956) elected pope at the age of eighteen, through the influence of courtesans, was not one whit better than his predecessor.

“I grieve, my venerable brethren, to stir up so much filth. I am silent on Alexander VI, father and lover of Lucretia; I turn away from John XXII (1319), who denied the immortality of the soul, and was deposed by the holy Ecumenical Council of Constance.  Some will maintain that this Council was only a private one; let it be so; but if you refuse any authority to it, as a logical sequence you must hold the nomination of Martin V (1417) to be illegal. What, then, will become of the papal succession? Can you find the thread of it?"

(Roman Catholic Metropolitan Archbishop Joseph Georg Strossmayer [b. at Essegg in Croatia - Slavonia, Saturday, February 4, 1815 A.D. - d. Saturday, April 8, 1905 A.D.], Metropolitan Archbishop of Diakovár and Apostolic Administrator of Belgrade-Semendria in Serbia, public SPEECH of Thursday, June 2, 1870 A.D., to the Cardinals and Bishops of the Roman Catholic Church at Synod Vatican I; emphasis added).

History Repeats Itself

It is an accepted fact that history does repeat itself.  Just as there have been evil popes in the Past, so also the same can be true for today as well, despite the fact that some people are in denial about it.  This seems to be due in large part to an apparent “conspiracy” by the news media, both religious and secular, to ignore the evils of certain recent Popes, e.g. Paul 6, Giovanni Battista Montini [Friday, June 21, 1963 - Sunday, August 6, 1978], and JP-2, Karol Wyotya [Monday, October 16, 1978 - Friday, April 1, 2005].

1 Picture is Worth a 1,000 Words
1 Photograph is Worth 100,000 Words

Since it seems that some people are in denial, or others, very fearful or insecure, want to hang onto their delusions, but, because I have a responsibility to be faithful to the two Public, Solemn, Sacred Oaths I have taken before God, and because I likewise have a grave responsibility before Almighty God to give an account on the Day of Judgement, by the Most Holy Will and Grace of God, and, because I must do what I can, with God's help, to Save Souls, as proven from the above quotes, I present a number of photographs which show these two Popes doing things which are anti-Catholic.

DO NOT CONDEMN ME FOR REPORTING THE TRUTH by showing you these photographs, which I suspect most of you have never seen!

INSTEAD, CONDEMN these Popes who were “caught” by the camera in the midst of their anti-Catholic actions!!

---

Pope Paul 6, Giovanni Battista Montini
[Friday, June 21, 1963 - Sunday, August 6, 1978]

2 LARGE Photos of the 6 Protestants
of the Vatican 2 Concilium who ACTIVELY helped
to make up the updated, synthesized, and modernized
16th Century Protestant Supper-Memorial-Meal
Pope Paul 6 Calls the Novus Ordo Missae
(New Rite of Mass)

---

Photo # 1:

Photo Taken on Friday, April 10, 1970 A.D. in the Vatican

These SIX PROTESTANTS are, from left to right:

1) Dr. George;

2) Canon Jasper;

3) Dr. Shephard;

4) Dr. Konneth;

5) Dr. Smith; and,

6) Brother Max Thurian (in white), who is standing next to Pope Paul 6 (in white).

These SIX PROTESTANTS represent the following Protestant organizations: The World Council of Churches, the Church of England, the Lutheran Church, and the Protestant Community of Taize.

The synthesis of the updated 16th Century PROTESTANT Supper-Memorial-Meal (which was actually the infamous Memorial Meal of Berengar of Tours and Scotus Erugena which was condemned by the Roman Catholic Church in the 11th Century), the Novus Ordo Rite, which is now used in the United States and in many other countries as the New Mass, which Pope Paul 6, Giovanni Battista Montini [Friday, June 21, 1963 - Sunday, August 6, 1978], calls the Novus Ordo Missae, was made up in part by the very active SIX PROTESTANT members of the Synod Vatican 2 Consilium. The Pope was obviously very proud of their work.  So proud in fact that he had his photo taken with them on Friday, April 10, 1970 A.D., in the Vatican and is shown, in the photo below, shaking their hands as a gesture of congratulations!

It has been said that a picture is worth a thousand words. This photograph is worth at least a million words which proves why the New Mass is an updated PROTESTANT LITURGY which contains only the mere shadow of the CATHOLIC Rite of Mass!

It should be clear from all of this that real Catholics can NOT go to such non-Catholic seder-suppers or memorial meals (which sincere Catholics, trying to be faithful to their Holy Catholic Faith, call a "mass"), despite the fact that they may be held in what used to be "Catholic" Church buildings!

As for the exclusive use of this modernized, updated, synthesized 16th Century Protestant Memorial Supper Meal used exclusively in the Satanic Vatican 2 church nowdays, one has a perfect right to question this rite, asking of its heretical PROTESTANT theology, it heretical PROTESTANT nature of its anti-Catholic and otherwise invalid ontological and metaphysical essences touted as still being a "mass"!  As a result, the Satanic Vatican 2 church has victimized millions and millions of its own people, taking advantage of their gross ignorance of their own faith:

“But how can hearts be united in perfect charity where minds do not agree in faith?” (Pope Leo XIII, Gioacchino Pecci [Wednesday, February 20, 1878 - Monday, July 20, 1903], Encyclical, Præclara Gratulationis Publicæ, The Reunion of Christendom, Wednesday, June 20, 1894, ¶ 20.)

“There is the danger of perversion, or of gradually increasing religious indifference when the faithful freely and indiscriminately participate in heretical religious services.  Even the simulation of false religion is incompatible with the purity of the Catholic faith” (S.O., August 28, 1780; S.C.P.F., 1729  [Coll. nn. 546, 311].

For those of you who are sincere Catholics and who are trying to do the right thing and who would say that you must trust and obey the Pope, just remember this next photograph of the Pope (shown below), in this case one of the founders of the Satanic Vatican 2 church, Pope Paul 6, in which the infallible Pope is seen congratulating one of the six Protestant members of the Concilium which made up this updated, synthesized, man-made, 16th Century Protestant liturgical supper or memorial meal which sincere, but victimized Catholics, think is the Mass!

This updated, synthesized, man-made, 16th Century Protestant liturgical supper or memorial meal, which Pope Paul 6 calls the Novus Ordo Missae, which is the new Mass now used around the world, was condemned as anti-Catholic by two Cardinals!

They wrote in part that the Novus Ordo represents, both as a whole and in its details, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session XXII of the Council of Trent. The "canons" of the rite definitively fixed at that time provided an insurmountable barrier to any heresy directed against the integrity of the Mystery (Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani and Antonio Cardinal Bacci, Letter to Pope Paul 6, Thursday, September 25, 1969).

---

Photo # 2:

Photo Taken on Friday, April 10, 1970 A.D. in the Vatican

IF you would like to know the source of this photograph, it is from the Pope's official newspaper, the L'OSSERVATORE ROMANO, Weekly Edition in English, Third Year, N. 17 (108) - Thursday, APRIL 23, 1970, A.D. page # 2.

This photo of Friday, April 10, 1970 A.D. fully shows four of the six Protestants who are, from left to right:

1) Dr. George (shown shaking hands with Pope Paul 6);

2) Canon Jasper;

3) Dr. Shephard;

4) Dr. Konneth (the Pope's head is blocking most of Dr. Konneth although the top of his head is slightly visible);

5) Dr. Smith

Some of you may object to our above statement that " the Novus Ordo Rite, which is now used in the United States and in many other countries as the New Mass, which Pope Paul 6, Giovanni Battista Montini [Friday, June 21, 1963 - Sunday, August 6, 1978] calls the Novus Ordo Missae, was made up in part by the very active SIX PROTESTANT members of the Synod Vatican 2 Consilium. " by saying that these Six "non-Catholic Observers", as the photo caption reads, were only that, namely "observers"?!

On the contrary, here are a few excerpts from a speech by Pope Paul 6 on Friday, April 10, 1970 A.D. given in his Audience to the members of the Synod Vatican 2 Concilium with our comments in blue and (in parenthesis):

The Pope's own Newspaper declared: Pope commends work of "Consilium" and went on to print the Speech of the Pope who said in part:

"Venerable Brothers

("Among the many members of the Hierarchy present at the audience were Cardinals: Lercaro, Gracias. Giobbe, Confalonieri, Rugambwa, Felici, Gray, Enrique y Tarancon, and Willebrands.")

and dear sons,
 

(the context clearly indicates this includes the Six Protestant "Observers" as proven from the first above photo which shows: 1. Dr. George; 2. Canon Jasper; 3. Dr. Shephard; 4. Dr. Konneth; 5. Dr. Smith; and, 6. Brother Max Thurian. It should be noted that to have ignored them would have been seen as a breach of protocol and a rude snub and insult.

On the contrary, that they were present and included in this Speech is proven by the above two photos in which they were not excluded, but included!  It is only logical that if they were deliberately included at the Audience and included in the photo that they were likewise deliberately included in this Speech!

For those of you who want something more precise, you are left to fault the usual, and seemingly deliberate, ambiguous and equivocal style of Paul 6 in the classical use of ambiguity and equivocity by Modernists which itself casts the shadow of the heresy of Modernism over Paul 6 and but tends to prove Our case even further-especially when one compares this ambiguity and equivocity with the ambiguity and equivocity he has used when writing on matters of Faith where he tends to be even more ambiguous and equivocal!)

We are glad to give you

(this you includes the Six Protestants)

a heartfelt greeting, and to speak to you

(this you includes the Six Protestants)

... the work accomplished by you

(this you includes the Six Protestants)

in these years, We are impelled to offer you

(this you includes the Six Protestants)

a full measure of thanks for so great and so many labours. For you

(this you includes the Six Protestants)

were prompt and diligent, as well as expert,

(this expert includes the Six Protestants)

in dealing with a matter that was complicated and very difficult--and without expecting any reward, but seeking only to be of service to the Church

(exactly WHICH Church??? -certainly not the Roman Catholic Church because she forbids changes to the Missal per the infallible decree of Pope St. Pius V [QUO PRIMUM TEMPORE] under the penalty of automatic excommunication! and she forbids changes to the Mass per the infallible Canons of the Council of Trent, especially Session 22 on the Mass under penalty of automatic excommunication!.  Future historians will call this "Church" The Satanic Vatican 2 church!)

This work of yours

(this yours includes the Six Protestants)

was indeed arduous; documents had to be drawn up by which that Constitution of the Council [Vatican 2] would be gradually

(notice his admission of what Cardinal Heenan had said about this gradual implementation! "Why does the Mass keep changing? Here is the answer... It would have been foolhardy to introduce all the changes at once. It was obviously wise to change gradually and gently. If all the changes had been introduced together, you would have been shocked." [Cardinal Heenan, Lenten Pastoral Letter, Sunday, October 12, 1969 A.D.])

put into effect...

(Besides being "shocked", Roman Catholics would have REJECTED the Novus Ordo Missae because the changes would have been more obvious! In addition, The Satanic Vatican 2 church would never have seen the light of day!)

In the light of these difficulties, it is remarkable that so many things have already been achieved and completed

(The work of the 16th Century Protestants was virtually culminated and completed with the Novus Ordo Missae, and the other changes effected in part by these Six Protestants and the Modernist Satanic Vatican 2 church  Pope, Cardinals and Bishops of the 20th Century, which was condemned a priori by the Council of Trent!)

To mention only the main points, let Us note

(Modernist Paul 6 enumerates some of these other changes:)

[1] the many Instructions and other documents edited, and

[2] books of a subsidiary nature written by some of your

(does this your include one or more of the Six Protestants?)

members;

[3] the new [Novus] Ordo Missae;

(For this act Pope Paul 6, as well as many members of the Hierarchy, including Cardinals: Lercaro, Gracias. Giobbe, Confalonieri, Rugambwa, Felici, Gray, Enrique y Tarancon, and Willebrands, were all automatically excommunicated by some of the Canons of Session 22 of the Council of Trent on the Mass.

All of them were also automatically excommunicated by the Quo Primum Tempore of Pope St. Pius V!)

[4] the variations introduced into the Liturgy of Holy Week;

(For this act Pope Paul 6 as well as many members of the Hierarchy, including Cardinals: Lercaro, Gracias. Giobbe, Confalonieri, Rugambwa, Felici, Gray, Enrique y Tarancon, and Willebrands, were all automatically excommunicated by some of the Canons of Session 22 of the Council of Trent on the Mass.

All of them were also automatically excommunicated by the Quo Primum Tempore of Pope St. Pius V!)

[5] the Rites of Baptism for Infants,

[6] of Diaconate,

[7] Priesthood,

[8] Episcopate, and

[9] Matrimony;

[10] the order of readings for Mass;

[11] Rites of Exequies, and

[12[ for Religious Profession;

[13] the Roman Calendar.

[14] Soon also, after much hard work, the Roman Missal will be published

(For this act Pope Paul 6 as well as many members of the Hierarchy, including Cardinals: Lercaro, Gracias. Giobbe, Confalonieri, Rugambwa, Felici, Gray, Enrique y Tarancon, and Willebrands, were all automatically excommunicated by some of the Canons of Session 22 of the Council of Trent on the Mass.

All of them were also automatically excommunicated by the Quo Primum Tempore of Pope St. Pius V!)

to be followed by

(among other things)

[15] the Roman Breviary,

[16] the Rites for Confirmation and

[17] for the Baptism of adults,

[18] the revised Roman Martyrology,

[19] the second "Liber Pontificalis", and

[20] the Roman book of Ceremonies (Caeremoniale).

All this work

(they were certainly busy bees to do all of these 20 things!)

of yours

(this yours includes the Six Protestants)

incorporates the principles approved by the Council's [Vatican 2's] Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy. For indeed it was from this, which we may call the "Magna Charta" of liturgical renewal...

(For this Magna Charta of Modernism, Pope Paul 6, as well as many members of the Hierarchy, including Cardinals: Lercaro, Gracias. Giobbe, Confalonieri, Rugambwa, Felici, Gray, Enrique y Tarancon, and Willebrands, were all automatically excommunicated by some of the Canons of Session 22 of the Council of Trent on the Mass.

All of them were also automatically excommunicated by the Quo Primum Tempore of Pope St. Pius V!

In addition, they all came under the automatic excommunication of Pope St. Pius X against the members of the heresy of Modernism!)

You have made a special effort to see that ... "lex orandi" might correspond more aptly with the "lex credendi"...

(Here Pope Paul 6 publicly admits that he is one of the founders of The Satanic Vatican 2 church! In the official "mass" liturgy of The Satanic Vatican 2 church!, by official definition, the Catholic teaching of the Mass as a mystical renewal of the bloody sacrifice of the Cross on Calvary is replaced by the Protestant memorial supper meal - which heresy has been condemned by the Roman Catholic Church, both in the 11th Century at three Synods and in the 16th Century by the Council of Trent!

Because the law of praying is the law of believing - the lex orandi and the lex credendi - in the Novus Ordo Missae - in all languages, including Latin - omits Mysterium Fidei - Mystery of Faith - which is the transubstantiation - as even Pope Paul 6 has admitted , then not only is the Form for the Consecration of the Most Precious Blood invalidated by this fact, but so also is this liturgical rite - the Novus Ordo Missae - invalidated! In reality, The Satanic Vatican 2 church itself, for these and other reasons, e.g., that it is a man-made and man-centered "church", is invalid as well!)

Thus it happily comes about that...

Since this Consilium of yours

(This yours includes the Six Protestants - but it is somewhat of a misleading phrase since here it seems to indicate that Pope Paul 6 had no active role in it himself. According to Cardinal Heenan, this is not true since the Cardinal claims that the Novus Ordo Missae was written under the Holy Father's [i.e., Pope Paul 6's] PERSONAL supervision [Cardinal Heenan, Forward to the English translation of the Novus Ordo Missae, November, 1969 A.D.].

In addition to all of this, did YOU know that while Cardinal Montini [the future Pope Paul 6] was the Archbishop of Milan, he proposed the Novus Ordo Rite with all of its radical changes in his Lenten Pastoral Letter of 1958 A.D.?!! This was two years after his 1956 A.D.  meeting of "a delegation of four Anglican priests and a layman [These men were PROTESTANTS who obviously came not to be converted to the ROMAN Catholic Church!] who stayed with him some ten days... the meetings were clandestine in the extreme..." [B & M Pawley, FROM ROME TO CANTERBURY THROUGH FOUR CENTURIES].

This also contradicts the position of those who claim that there was NO Protestant influence in any way in that man-made fabrication - the 16th Century updated Protestant Supper-Memorial-Meal, a.k.a. the Novus Ordo Missae!!!

Based upon the above, it would seem reasonable to take the position that the future Pope Paul 6 spent two years working on the Novus Ordo Missae WITH these Protestant Anglicans, between his highly SECRET meeting with the 5 Anglicans in 1956 A.D. and his presentation of the Novus Ordo Missae with all of its radical changes in his Lenten Pastoral Letter of 1958 A.D.?!

There is the further strong possibility that one or more of the Six Protestants of the Concilium, with whom he posed for photos on Friday, April 10, 1970 A.D., were part of this 1956 A.D. "delegation of four Anglican priests and a layman who stayed with him some ten days... the meetings were clandestine in the extreme.. "!!!

Finally, for those who would take the position that we are contradicting Ourself when We relate on the one hand that Cardinal Montini [the future Pope Paul 6] "spent two years working on the Novus Ordo Missae, between his highly SECRET meeting with the 5 Anglicans in 1956 A.D. and his presentation of the Novus Ordo Missae with all of its radical changes in his Lenten Pastoral Letter of 1958 A.D.!" and, on the other hand, that the Concilium made up the Novus Ordo Missae, have forgotten that, as we also mentioned above, Cardinal Heenan "claims that the Novus Ordo Missae was written under the Holy Father's [i.e., Pope Paul 6's] PERSONAL supervision [Cardinal Heenan, Forward to the English translation of the Novus Ordo Missae, November, 1969 A.D.]!"

How do you reconcile these apparent contradictions? First of all, thank God, we were NOT there and thus can not give any personal observations or account of such highly secret, apparently anti-Catholic, activities?!!! We are, as a result, forced by circumstances, to logically surmise that most probably what happened is that the 5 Anglicans who attended the highly secret meeting with Cardinal Montini in 1956 A.D. read his presentation of the Novus Ordo Missae with all of its radical changes in his Lenten Pastoral Letter of 1958 A.D. and most probably made some suggestions for some changes which would make the Novus Ordo Missae more acceptable to Anglicans. But remember also that the Concilium also had on it other Protestants, including one or more representatives of other Protestant organizations, namely: The World Council of Churches, the Lutheran Church, and the Protestant Community of Taize.

It seems obvious that the members of these different Protestant organizations would have needed to have worked out their own differences among themselves so that the 1958 A.D. version of the Novus Ordo Missae would have been used as the starting point, with input from everyone else. However, the basic contents and structure were obviously deemed so essential by Pope Paul 6 that he found it necessary to make certain that the members of the Concilium did not stray too far away from his 1958 A.D. version of the Novus Ordo Missae, which would logically explain why Cardinal Heenan-who, to the best of our knowledge was never contradicted either by the Vatican or personally by Pope Paul 6 - claims that the Novus Ordo Missae was written under the Holy Father's [i.e., Pope Paul 6's] PERSONAL supervision [Cardinal Heenan, Forward to the English translation of the Novus Ordo Missae, November, 1969 A.D..])

comes to its end, after its excellent activity...

(This heretical revolution, which propounded the Magna Charta of Modernism, was successful in that it was dripping and otherwise soaked with so many anti-Catholic things - faith, belief, Mass, Sacraments, etc.!)

In this wish, and with a specially warm love, we impart to each and all of you the Apostolic Blessing."

(From: L'OSSERVATORE ROMANO, Weekly Edition in English, Third Year N. 17 [108], Thursday, APRIL 23, 1970, pages # 1 and 2.)

Therefore, it should be clear from all of this that real Catholics can NOT go to such non-Catholic supper/meals (Protestant "masses"), despite the fact that they may be held in what used to be "Catholic" Church buildings!

It is certainly past time for sincere "Catholics" to start praying for the conversion to the CATHOLIC Faith, from the non-Catholic Satanic Vatican 2 church, of ALL of the members of the apostate, heretical and schismatic Satanic Vatican 2 church.

Please note: The terms "Protestant", "apostate", "heretical" and "schismatic" are used within what has historically been the unchangeable position of the Catholic Church regarding her official theological, dogmatic, liturgical, legal, and other teachings, especially on the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and the Seven Sacraments.

Hence the terms "Protestant", "apostate", "heretical" and "schismatic" are used within the context of objective definitions used historically and traditionally by the Catholic Church in her lawful use of the various objective sciences of theology, liturgy, church history, canon law, philosophy, and others, as proven from the writings of well-respected authors of previous centuries whose precedents we simply follow.

Now, therefore, the members of the apostate, heretical and schismatic Satanic Vatican 2 church, for whom your prayers are requested for their conversion to the CATHOLIC Church, include not only all of the Religious and Laity of the Satanic Vatican 2 church, but also all of the Clergy of the Satanic Vatican 2 church. The reason is that, while professing themselves to be "Catholic", in terms of at least some of their theological and liturgical beliefs, especially regarding the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, they are de facto PROTESTANTS, just as the 16th century "Catholic" Clergy, Religious and Laity were de facto PROTESTANTS in places like England and Germany!

Even today, many of them in these same places are still de facto PROTESTANTS! Among the Satanic Vatican 2 church PROTESTANT Clergy, who are hereby included, in virtue of the principle of "lex orandi, lex credendi", as "Protestant", are the Pope, plus the Cardinals, Bishops, Priests and other Clergy of the Satanic Vatican 2 church!

They are all under the censures of automatic excommunication for their direct, continuous violations of some of the Canons of the Council of Trent, especially session 22 on the Mass, and the Quo Primum Tempore of Pope St. Pius V! Plus, they have committed the Mortal Sin of Perjury for their continual daily breaking of The Profession of Faith and The Oath Against Modernism which the Roman Catholic Church requires of its Clergy, most especially, its Priests and Bishops - which includes Cardinals and Popes!

Therefore, IF you say you are a "Catholic" (this applies most especially to Catholic Clergy) you are required thereby to teach, to believe and to practice the Faith of the CATHOLIC Church, including the proper use of the ancient and approved VALID and LAWFUL CATHOLIC liturgical rites for the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and the Seven Sacraments.

What sense does it make for a "Catholic" Priest to use some kind of voodoo rite for the Mass and the Seven Sacraments?

Catholics have a right to expect that their "Catholic" Priest will use the right rite!  That he will in fact use an ancient, approved VALID and LAWFUL CATHOLIC traditional liturgical rite for the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and the Seven Sacraments!

Consider, for a moment, how, because of the Council of Trent and Pope Saint Pius V, Catholics could peacefully expect that their "Catholic" pastors would in fact use that ancient, approved VALID and LAWFUL CATHOLIC traditional liturgical rite for the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass which both the Council of Trent and Pope Saint Pius V, have guarded and protected with their anathemas!

Yet the Satanic Vatican 2 church has abandoned these integral Catholic defenses! This is why the Roman Theologians have included this subject within their STUDY and concluded with it.

The Ottaviani Intervention

Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani [b. October 29, 1890 in Rome  - d. Friday, August 3, 1979]

Joint Letter of Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani and Antonio Cardinal Bacci     LETTER TO POPE PAUL 6 Thursday, September 25, 1969 A.D.

Antonio Cardinal Bacci [b. September 4, 1885 - d. January 20, 1971]

On Thursday, September 25, 1969, shortly after Pope Paul 6's original issuance of his NOR, Novus Ordo Rite of Mass, Antonio Cardinal Bacci, along with Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani, the Prefect-Emeritus of the Sacred Congregation of the Faith, voiced their strong objections.

In their joint Letter to Pope Paul 6, the veteran Cardinals attached a very critical theological study of the Novus Ordo Rite.  This study was written by a group which called itself “Roman Theologians”.  The letter, along with the attached theological study, have become known as THE OTTAVIANI INTERVENTION.

Below is the text of the Letter, followed by the text of this theological study.

LETTER TO POPE PAUL 6

Rome, September 25, 1969

Most Holy Father,

Having carefully examined, and presented for the scrutiny of others, the Novus Ordo Missae prepared by the experts of the Consilium ad exequdam Constitutionem de Sacra Liturgia, and after lengthy prayer and reflection, We feel it to be our bounden duty in the sight of God and towards Your Holiness, to put before you the following considerations:

1.  The accompanying critical study of the Novus Ordo Missae, the work of a group of theologians, liturgists and pastors of souls, shows quite clearly in spite of its brevity that if we consider the innovations implied or taken for granted, which may of course be evaluated in different ways, the Novus Ordo represents, both as a whole and in its details, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session XXII of the Council of Trent.  The "canons" of the rite definitively fixed at that time provided an insurmountable barrier to any heresy directed against the integrity of the Mystery.

2.  The pastoral reasons adduced to support such a grave break with tradition, even if such reasons could be regarded as holding good in the face of doctrinal considerations, do not seem to Us  sufficient.  The innovations in the Novus Ordo and the fact that all that is of perennial value finds only a minor place, if it subsists at all, could well turn into a certainty the suspicion, already prevalent, alas, in many circles, that truths which have always been believed by the Christian people, can be changed or ignored without infidelity to that sacred deposit of doctrine to which the Catholic faith is bound for ever.  Recent reforms have amply demonstrated that fresh changes in the liturgy could lead to nothing but complete bewilderment on the part of the faithful who are already showing signs of restiveness and of an indubitable lessening of faith.  Amongst the best of the clergy the practical result is an agonizing crisis of conscience of which innumerable instances come to our notice daily.

3.  We are certain that these considerations, which can only reach Your Holiness by the living voice of both shepherds and flock, cannot but find an echo in Your paternal heart, always so profoundly solicitous for the spiritual needs of the children of the Church.  It has always been the case that when a law meant for the good of subjects proves to be on the contrary harmful, those subjects have the right, nay the duty of asking with filial trust for the abrogation of that law.

Therefore we most earnestly beseech Your Holiness, at a time of such painful divisions and ever-increasing perils for the purity of the Faith and the unity of the Church, lamented by You our common Father, not to deprive us of the possibility of continuing to have recourse to the fruitful integrity of that Missale Romanum of St. Pius V, so highly praised by Your Holiness and so deeply loved and venerated by the whole Catholic World.

Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani
Antonio Cardinal Bacci

The Critical Study of
the New Order of Mass
Thursday, June 5, 1969
by
A Group of Roman Theologians

SUMMARY

I. History of the change.

The new form of Mass was substantially rejected by the Episcopal Synod, was never submitted to the collegial judgment of the Episcopal Conferences and was never asked for by the people. It has every possibility of satisfying the most modernist of Protestants.

II. Definition of the Mass.

By a series of equivocations the emphasis is obsessively placed upon the "supper" and the "memorial" instead of on the unbloody renewal of the Sacrifice of Calvary.

III. Presentation of the ends.

The three ends of the Mass are altered; no distinction is allowed to remain between Divine and human sacrifice; bread and wine are only "spiritually" (not substantially) changed.

IV. Presentation of the essence.

The Real Presence of Christ is never alluded to and belief in it is implicitly repudiated.

V. Presentation of the four elements of the Sacrifice.

The position of both priest and people is falsified and the Celebrant appears as nothing more than a Protestant minister, while the true nature of the Church is intolerably misrepresented.

VI. The destruction of unity.

The abandonment of Latin sweeps away for good and all unity of worship. This may have its effect on unity of belief and the New Order has no intention of standing for the Faith as taught by the Council of Trent to which the Catholic conscience is bound. VII. The alienation of the Orthodox.

While pleasing various dissenting groups, the New Order will alienate the East.

VIII. The abandonment of defenses.

The New Order teems with insinuations or manifest errors against the purity of the Catholic religion and dismantles all defenses of the deposit of Faith.

I.   History of the Change

1. In October 1967, the Episcopal Synod called in Rome was requested to pass a judgment on the experimental celebration of a so-called "normative Mass," devised by the Consilium for implementing the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy. This Mass aroused the most serious misgivings. The voting showed considerable opposition (43 non placet), very many substantial reservations (62 juxta modum), and 4 abstentions out of 187 voters. The international press spoke of a "refusal" of the proposed "normative Mass" on the part of the Synod. Progressively- inclined papers made no mention of this.

2. In the Novus Ordo Missae lately promulgated by the Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum, we once again find this "normative Mass", identical in substance, nor does it appear that in the intervening period the Episcopal Conferences, at least as such, were ever asked to give their views about it.

3. In the Apostolic Constitution, it is stated that the ancient Missal promulgated by St. Pius V, 14th July 1570, but going back in great part to St. Gregory the Great and to still more remote antiquity , <1> , was for four centuries the norm for the celebration of the Holy Sacrifice for priests of the Latin rite, and that, taken to every part of the world, "it has moreover been an abundant source of spiritual nourishment to many holy people in their devotion to God". Yet, the present reform, putting it definitely out of use, was claimed to be necessary since "from that time the study of the Sacred Liturgy has become more widespread and intensive among Christians".

4. This assertion seems to us to embody a serious equivocation. For the desire of the people was expressed, if at all, when-thanks to St. Pius X-they began to discover the true and everlasting treasures of the liturgy. The people never on any account asked for the liturgy to be changed or mutilated so as to understand it better. They asked for a better understanding of a changeless liturgy, and one which they would never have wanted changed.

5. The Roman Missal of St. Pius V was religiously venerated and most dear to Catholics, both priests and laity. One fails to see how its use, together with suitable catechesis, could have hindered a fuller participation in, and greater knowledge of, the Sacred Liturgy, nor why, when its many outstanding virtues are recognized, this should not have been considered worthy to continue to foster the liturgical piety of Christians.

6. Since the "normative Mass", now reintroduced and imposed as the Novus Ordo Missae, was in substance rejected by the Synod of Bishops, was never submitted to the collegial judgment of the Episcopal Conferences, nor have the people-least of all in mission lands-ever asked for any reform of Holy Mass whatsoever, one fails to comprehend the motives behind the new legislation which overthrows a tradition unchanged in the Church since the fourth and fifth centuries, as the Apostolic Constitution itself acknowledges. As no popular demand exists to support this reform, it appears devoid of any logical grounds to justify it and to make it acceptable to the Catholic people.

7. The Vatican Council did indeed express a desire for "the rite of the Mass to be revised in such a way that the intrinsic nature and purpose of its several parts, as well as the connection between them, may be more clearly manifested..." <2> We shall now see how the Novus Ordo recently promulgated corresponds with this original intention.

8. An attentive examination of the Novus Ordo reveals changes of such magnitude as to justify in themselves the judgment already made with regard to the "normative Mass". Both have in many points every possibility of satisfying the most modernistic of Protestants.

II. Definition of the Mass

9. Let us begin with the definition of the Mass given in No. 7 of the "Institutio Generalis" at the beginning of the second chapter of the Novus Ordo: "De structura Missae":

9.1 "The Lord's Supper is the assembly or gathering together of the People of God, with a priest presiding, to celebrate the memorial of the Lord. <3> For this reason the promise of Christ is particularly true of the local congregation of the Church: 'Where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in their midst'" <4> <5>

10. The definition of the Mass is thus limited to that of a "supper", and this term is found constantly repeated . <6> This "supper" is further characterized as an assembly presided over by the priest and held as a memorial of the Lord, recalling what He did on the first Maundy Thursday. None of this in the very least implies either the Real Presence, or the reality of the sacrifice, or the Sacramental function of the consecrating priest, or the intrinsic value of the Eucharistic Sacrifice independently of the people's presence. <7> It does not, in a word, imply any of the essential dogmatic values of the Mass which together provide its true definition. Here, the deliberate omission of these dogmatic values amounts to their having been superseded and therefore, at least in practice, to their denial. <8>

11. In the second part of this paragraph 7 it is asserted, aggravating the already serious equivocation, that there holds good, "eminenter," for this assembly Christ's promise that "Ubi sunt duo vel tres congregati in nomine meo; ibi sum in medio eorum". <9> This promise, which refers only to the spiritual presence of Christ with His grace, is thus put on the same qualitative plane, save for the greater intensity, as the substantial and physical reality of the Sacramental Eucharistic Presence.

12. In no.8 a subdivision of the Mass into "liturgy of the word" and Eucharistic liturgy immediately follows, with the affirmation that in the Mass is made ready "the table of God's word" as of "the Body of Christ", so that the faithful "may be built up and refreshed"--an altogether improper assimilation of the two parts of the liturgy, as though between two points of equal symbolic value. More will be said about this point later.

13. The Mass is designated by a great many different expressions, all acceptable relatively, all unacceptable if employed, as they are, separately and in an absolute sense. We cite a few: the Action of Christ and of the People of God; the Lord's Supper or Mass; the Paschal Banquet; the Common participation in the Lord's Table; the memorial of the Lord; the Eucharistic Prayer; the Liturgy of the Word and the Eucharistic Liturgy; etc.

14. As is only too evident, the emphasis is obsessively placed upon the supper and the memorial instead of upon the unbloody renewal of the Sacrifice of Calvary. The formula "the Memorial of the Passion and Resurrection of the Lord" is, besides, inexact, the Mass being the memorial of the Sacrifice alone, in itself redemptive, whilst the Resurrection is the consequent fruit of it. <10>

15. We shall later see how, in the same consecratory formula, and throughout the Novus Ordo, such equivocations are renewed and reiterated.

III. Presentation of the Ends

16. We come now to the ends of the Mass.

17. 1. Ultimate end. This is that of the Sacrifice of praise to the Most Holy Trinity according to the explicit declaration of Christ in the primary purpose of His very Incarnation: "Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith: Sacrifice and oblation thou wouldest not: but a body thou hast fitted to me". <11>

18. This end has disappeared: from the Offertory, with the disappearance of the prayer "Suscipe, Sancta Trinitas"; from the end of the Mass with the omission of the "Placet tibi Sancta Trinitas"; and from the Preface, which on Sunday will no longer be that of the Most Holy Trinity, as this Preface will be reserved only to the Feast of the Trinity, and so in future will be heard but once a year.

19. 2. Ordinary end. This is the propitiatory Sacrifice. It too has been deviated from; for instead of putting the stress on the remission of sins of the living and the dead it lays emphasis on the nourishment and sanctification of those present. <12> Christ certainly instituted the Sacrament of the Last Supper putting Himself in the state of Victim in order that we might be united to Him in this state but his self-immolation precedes the eating of the Victim, and has an antecedent and full redemptive value (the application of the bloody immolation). This is borne out by the fact that the faithful present are not bound to communicate, sacramentally. <13>

20. 3. Immanent end. Whatever the nature of the Sacrifice, it is absolutely necessary that it be pleasing and acceptable to God. After the Fall no sacrifice can claim to be acceptable in its own right other than the Sacrifice of Christ. The Novus Ordo changes the nature of the offering, turning it into a sort of exchange of gifts between man and God: man brings the bread, and God turns it into the "bread of life"; man brings the wine, and God turns it into a "spiritual drink".

21. "Thou art blessed Lord God of the Universe, because from thy generosity we have received the bread [or "wine"] which we offer thee, the fruit of the earth [or "vine"] and of man's labor. May it become for us the bread of life [or "spiritual drink"]." <14>

22. There is no need to comment on the utter indeterminateness of the formulae "panis vitae" [bread of life] and "potus spirtualis" [spiritual drink] which might mean anything. The same capital equivocation is repeated here, as in the definition of the Mass: there, Christ is present only spiritually among His own: here, bread and wine are only "spiritually" (not substantially) changed. <15>

23. In the preparation of the offering, a similar equivocation results from the suppression of two great prayers. The "Deus qui humanae substantiae dignitatem mirabiliter condidisti et mirabilius reformasti" was a reference to man's former condition of innocence and to his present one of being ransomed by the Blood of Christ: a recapitulation of the whole economy of the Sacrifice, from Adam to the present moment. The final propitiatory offering of the chalice, that it might ascend "cum odore suavitatis," into the presence of the divine majesty, whose clemency was implored, admirably reaffirmed this plan. By suppressing the continual reference to God in the Eucharistic prayers, there is no longer any clear distinction between divine and human sacrifice.

24. Having removed the keystone, the reformers have had to put up scaffolding; suppressing real ends, they have had to substitute fictitious ends of their own: leading to gestures intended to stress the union of priest and faithful, and of the faithful among themselves; offerings for the poor and for the church superimposed upon the Offerings of the Host to be immolated. There is a danger that the uniqueness of this offering will become blurred, so that participation in the immolation of the Victim comes to resemble a philanthropical meeting, or a charity banquet.

IV. Presentation of the essence

25. We now pass on to the essence of the Sacrifice.

26. The mystery of the Cross is no longer explicitly expressed. It is only there obscurely, veiled, imperceptible for the people. <16> And for these reasons:

27. 1. The sense given in the Novus Ordo to the so-called "prex eucharistica" [eucharistic prayer] is: "that the whole congregation of the faithful joins Christ in proclaiming the works of God and offering the sacrifice".<17>

28. Which sacrifice is referred to? Who is the offerer? No answer is given to either of these questions. The initial definition of the "prex eucharistica" [eucharistic prayer] is as follows: "The eucharistic prayer, a prayer of thanksgiving and sanctification, is the center of the entire celebration. By an introductory dialogue the priest invites the people to lift their hearts to God in prayer and thanks...". <18> The effects thus replace the causes, of which not one single word is said. The explicit mention of the object of the offering, which was found in the "Suscipe," has not been replaced by anything. The change in formulation reveals the change in doctrine.

29. 2. The reason for this non-explicitness concerning the Sacrifice is quite simply that the Real Presence has been removed from the central position which it occupied so resplendently in the former Eucharistic liturgy. There is but a single reference to the Real Presence (a quotation--in a footnote--from the Council of Trent), and again the context is that of "nourishment". <19>

30. The Real and permanent Presence of Christ, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity, in the transubstantiated Species is never alluded to. The very word transubstantiation is totally ignored.

31. The suppression of the invocation to the Third Person of the Most Holy Trinity ("Veni Sanctificator") that He may descend upon the oblations, as once before into the womb of the Most Blessed Virgin to accomplish the miracle of the divine Presence, is yet one more instance of the systematic and tacit negation of the Real Presence.

32. Note, too, the eliminations:

32.1 of the genuflections (no more than three remain to the priest, and one, with certain exceptions, to the people, at the Consecration);

32.2 of the purification of the priest's fingers in the chalice;

32.3 of the preservation from all profane contact of the priest's fingers after the Consecration;

32.4 of the purification of the vessels, which need not be immediate, nor made on the corporal;

32.5 of the pall protecting the chalice;

32.6 of the internal gilding of sacred vessels;

32.7 of the consecration of movable altars;

32.8 of the sacred stone and relics in the movable altar or upon the "mensa"--"when celebration does not occur in sacred precincts" (this distinction leads straight to "eucharistic suppers" in private houses);

32.9 of the three altar-cloths, reduced to one only;

32.10 of thanksgiving kneeling (replaced by a thanksgiving, seated, on the part of priest and people, a logical enough complement to Communion standing);

32.11 of all the ancient prescriptions in the case of the consecrated Host falling, which are now reduced to a single, casual direction: "reverenter accipiatur" [it is to be picked up reverently]; <20>

all these things only serve to emphasize how outrageously faith in the dogma of the Real Presence is implicitly repudiated.

33. 3. The function assigned to the altar. <21>The altar is almost always called the table.<22>"First the altar, the Lord's table, is prepared as the center of the eucharistic liturgy (footnote # 39)".<23>It is laid down that the altar must be detached from the walls so that it is possible to walk round it and celebration may be facing the people; <24>also that the altar must be the center of the assembly of the faithful so that their attention is drawn spontaneously toward it (ibid). But a comparison of nos. 262 and 276 would seem to suggest that the reservation of the Blessed Sacrament on this altar is excluded.<25>This will mark an irreparable dichotomy between the presence, in the celebrant, of the eternal High Priest and that same Presence brought about sacramentally. Before, they were one and the same presence. <26>

34. Now it is recommended that the Blessed Sacrament be kept in a place apart for the private devotion of the people (almost as though it were a question of devotion to a relic of some kind) so that, on going into a church, attention will no longer be focused upon the Tabernacle but upon a stripped bare table. Once again the contrast is made between private piety and liturgical piety: altar is set up against altar.

35. In the insistent recommendation to distribute in Communion the Species consecrated during the same Mass, indeed to consecrate a loaf <27>for the priest to distribute to at least some of the faithful, we find reasserted a disparaging attitude toward the Tabernacle, as toward every form of Eucharistic piety outside of the Mass. This constitutes yet another violent blow to faith in the Real Presence as long as the consecrated Species remain. <28>

36. 4. The formulae of consecration. The ancient formula of consecration was properly a sacramental not a narrative one. This was shown above all by three things:

a) The Scriptural text not taken up word for word: the Pauline insertion "mysterium fidei" was an immediate confession of the priest's faith in the mystery realized by the Church through the hierarchical priesthood.

b) The punctuation and typographical lettering: the full stop and new paragraph marking the passage from the narrative mode to the sacramental and affirmative one, the sacramental words in larger characters at the center of the page and often in a different color, clearly detached from the historical context. All combined to give the formula a proper and autonomous value.

c) The anamnesis ("Haec quotiescumque feceritis in mei memoriam facietis"), which in Greek is "eis ten emou anamnesin" (directed to my memory). This referred to Christ operating and not to the mere memory of Him, or of the event: an invitation to recall what He did ("haec...in mei memoriam facietis") in the way He did it, not only His Person, or the Supper. The Pauline formula ("Hoc facite in meam commemorationem") which will now take the place of the old--proclaimed as it will be daily in vernacular languages--will irremediably cause the hearers to concentrate on the memory of Christ as the end of the Eucharistic action, whilst it is really the beginning. The concluding idea of commemoration will certainly once again take the place of the idea of sacramental action. <29>

37. The narrative mode is now emphasized by the formula "narratio institutionis" [institution narrative] <30>and repeated by the definition of the anamnesis, in which it is said that "...the Church keeps his [Christ's] memorial...". <31>

38. In short: the theory put forward by the epiclesis, the modification of the words of Consecration and of the anamnesis, have the effect of modifying the modus significandi [manner of signifying] of the words of Consecration. The consecratory formulae are here pronounced by the priest as the constituents of an historical narrative and no longer enunciated as expressing the categorical and affirmative judgment uttered by Him in whose Person the priest acts: "Hoc est Corpus Meum" [For this is My Body] (not, "Hoc est Corpus Christi" [This is the Body of Christ])." <32>

39. Furthermore the acclamation assigned to the people immediately after the Consecration: ("we announce death, O Lord, until Thou comest") introduces yet again, under cover of eschatology, the same ambiguity concerning the Real Presence. Without interval or distinction, the expectation of Christ's Second Coming at the end of time is proclaimed just as the moment when He is substantially present on the altar, almost as though the former, and not the latter, were the true Coming.

40. This is brought out even more strongly in the formula of the third optional acclamation: "When we eat this bread and drink this cup, we proclaim your death, Lord Jesus, until you come in glory", <33>where the juxtaposition of the different realities of immolation and eating, of the Real Presence and of Christ's Second Coming, reaches the height of ambiguity." <34>

V. Presentation of the four elements of the Sacrifice

41. We now come to the realization of the Sacrifice, the four elements of which were:

1) Christ, 2) the priest, 3) the Church, 4) the faithful present.

42. In the Novus Ordo, the position attributed to the faithful is autonomous (absoluta) [absolute], hence totally false from the opening definition: "The Lord's Supper is the assembly or gathering together of the people of God, with a priest presiding, to celebrate the memorial of the Lord", <35>to the priest's salutation to the people which is meant to convey to the assembled community the "presence" of the Lord. <36>

43. A true presence, certainly, of Christ but only spiritual, and a mystery of the Church, but solely as assembly manifesting and soliciting such a presence.

44. This interpretation is constantly underlined: by the obsessive references to the communal character of the Mass; by the unheard of distinction between "missa cum populo" [mass with a congregation] <37>and "missa sine populo" [mass without a congregation] <38>by the definition of the prayer of the faithful <39>, where once more we find stressed the "sacerdotal office" of the people <40>presented in an equivocal way because its subordination to that of the priest is not mentioned, and all the more since the priest, as consecrated mediator, makes himself the interpreter of all the intentions of the people in the Te igitur and the two Memento.

45. In "Prex eucharistica III" [Eucharistic Prayer III] the following words are addressed to the Lord: "From age to age you gather a people to yourself, in order that from east to west a perfect offering may be made to the glory of your name", <41>the in order that making it appear that the people, rather than the priest, <42>are the indispensable element in the celebration; and since not even here is it made clear who the offerer is, the people themselves appear to be invested with autonomous priestly powers. From this step it would not be surprising if, before long, the people were authorized to join the priest in pronouncing the consecrating formulae (which actually seems here and there to have already occurred).

46. The priest's position is minimized, changed and falsified. Firstly in relation to the people for whom he is, for the most part, a mere president, or brother, instead of the consecrated minister celebrating in persona Christi [in the Person of Christ]. Secondly in relation to the Church, as a "quidam de populo" [someone taken from the people]. In the definition of the epiclesis, the invocations are attributed anonymously to the Church. <43>The part of the priest has vanished.

47. In the Confiteor which has now become collective, he is no longer judge, witness and intercessor with God; so it is logical that he is no longer empowered to give the absolution, which has been suppressed. He is integrated with the fratres [his brothers]. Even the server addresses him as such in the Confiteor of the "Missa sine populo" [Mass without a congregation].

48. Already, prior to this latest reform, the significant distinction between the Communion of the priest, the moment in which the Eternal High Priest and the one acting in His Person were brought together in closest union, and the Communion of the faithful had been suppressed.

49. Not a word do we now find as to the priest's power to sacrifice, or about his act of consecration, the bringing about through him of the Eucharistic Presence. He now appears as nothing more than a Protestant minister.

50. The disappearance, or optional use, of many sacred vestments (in certain cases the alb and stole are sufficient) <44>obliterates even more the original conformity with Christ: the priest is no more clothed with all His virtues, becoming merely a "graduate" whom one or two signs may distinguish from the mass of people <45>: "a little more a man than the rest," to quote the involuntarily humorous definition by a Dominican preacher. <46>Again, as with the "table" and the Altar, there is separated what God has united: the sole Priesthood of the Word of God.

51. Finally, there is the Church's position in relation to Christ. In one case, namely the "missa sine populo" [mass without a congregation] is the Mass acknowledged to be "Actio Christi et Ecclesiae" [the action of Christ and the Church], <47> whereas in the case of the "missa cum populo" [mass with a congregation] this is not referred to except for the purpose of "remembering Christ" and sanctifying those present. The words used are: "In offering the sacrifice through Christ in the Holy Ghost to God the Father, the priest associates the people with himself" <48>instead of words which would associate the people with Christ Who offers Himself "per Spiritum Sanctum Deo Patri" [through the Holy Ghost to God the Father].

52. In this context the following are to be noted:

1) the very serious omission of the phrase "Per Christum Dominum Nostrum" [through Christ Our Lord], the guarantee of being heard given to the Church in every age; <49>

2) the all-pervading "paschalism," almost as though there were no other, quite different and equally important, aspects of the communication of grace;

3) the very strange and dubious eschatologism whereby the communication of supernatural grace, a reality which is permanent and eternal, is brought down to the dimensions of time: we hear of a people on the march, a pilgrim Church--no longer militant against the Potestas tenebrarum--looking toward a future which having lost its link with eternity is conceived in purely temporal terms.

53. The Church--One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic--is diminished as such in the formula that, in the "Prex Eucharistica IV" [Eucharistic Prayer IV] has taken the place of the prayer of the Roman Canon "on behalf of all orthodox believers of the Catholic and Apostolic faith." Now they are no more nor less than: "all men to seek and find you". <50>

54. Again, in the Memento of the dead, these have no longer passed on "with the sign of faith and sleep the sleep of peace" but only "who have died in the peace of thy Christ," and to them are added, with further obvious detriment to the concept of visible unity, the host of all the dead "whose faith is known to you alone."

55. Furthermore, in none of the three new Eucharistic Prayers is there any reference, as has already been said, to the state of suffering of those who have died, in none the possibility of a particular Memento: all of this, again, must undermine faith in the propitiatory and redemptive nature of the Sacrifice. <51>

56. Desacralizing omissions everywhere debase the mystery of the Church. She is not presented above all as a sacred hierarchy: Angels and Saints are reduced to anonymity in the second part of the collective Confiteor: they have disappeared, as witnesses and judges, in the person of St. Michael, from the first. <52> The various hierarchies of angels have also disappeared (and this is without precedent) from the new Preface of "Prex II." In the Communicantes the reminder of the Pontiffs and holy martyrs on whom the Church of Rome is founded and who were, without doubt, the transmitters of the apostolic traditions, destined to be completed in what became, with St. Gregory, the Roman Mass, has been suppressed. In the Libera nos the Blessed Virgin, the Apostles and all the Saints are no longer mentioned: her and their intercession is thus no longer asked, even in time of peril.

57. The unity of the Church is gravely compromised by the wholly intolerable omission from the entire Ordo, including the three new Eucharistic Prayers, of the names of the Apostles Peter and Paul, Founders of the Church of Rome, and the names of the other Apostles, foundation and mark of the one and universal Church, the only remaining mention being in the Communicantes of the Roman Canon.

58. A clear attack upon the dogma of the Communion of Saints is the omission, when the priest is celebrating without a server, of all the salutations, and the final Blessing, not to speak of the Ite Missa est <53>now not even said in Masses celebrated with a server.

59. The double Confiteor showed how the priest--in his capacity of Christ's Minister, bowing down deeply and acknowledging himself unworthy of his sublime mission, of the "tremendum mysterium" about to be accomplished by him and of even (in the Aufer a nobis) entering into the Holy of Holies--invoked the intercession (in the Oramus te, Domine) of the merits of the martyrs whose relics were sealed in the altar. Both these prayers have been suppressed; what has been said previously in respect of the double Confiteor and the double Communion is equally relevant here.

60. The outward setting of the Sacrifice, evidence of its sacred character, has been profaned. See, for example, what is laid down for celebration outside sacred precincts, in which the altar may be replaced by a simple table without consecrated stone or relics, and with a single cloth . <54>Here too all that has been previously said with regard to the Real Presence applies, the disassociation of the "convivium" and of the sacrifice of the supper from the Real Presence Itself.

61. The process of desacralization is completed thanks to the new procedures for the offering: the reference to ordinary not unleavened bread; altar-servers (and lay people at Communion sub utraque specie) being allowed to handle sacred vessels <55> ; the distracting atmosphere created by the ceaseless coming and going of priest, deacon, subdeacon, psalmist, commentator (the priest becomes a commentator himself from his constantly being required to "explain" what he is about to accomplish)--of readers (men and women), of servers or laymen welcoming people at the door and escorting them to their places whilst others carry and sort offerings. And in the midst of all this prescribed activity, the "mulier idonea" [suitable woman] (anti-scriptural and anti-Pauline) who for the first time in the tradition of the Church will be authorized to read the lessons and also perform other "ministeria quae extra presbyterium peraguntur" [perform other ministries outside the sanctuary]. <56>Finally, there is the concelebration mania, which will end by destroying Eucharistic piety in the priest, by overshadowing the central figure of Christ, sole Priest and Victim, in a collective presence of concelebrants. <57>

VI. The destruction of unity

62. We have limited ourselves to a summary evaluation of the new Ordo where it deviates most seriously from the Theology of the Catholic Mass and our observations touch only those deviations that are typical. A complete evaluation of all the pitfalls, the dangers, the spiritually and psychologically destructive elements contained in the document--whether in text, rubrics or instructions--would be a vast undertaking.

63. No more than a passing glance has been taken at the three new Canons, since these have already come in for repeated and authoritative criticism, both as to form and substance. The second of them <58>gave immediate scandal to the faithful on account of its brevity. Of Canon II it has been well said, amongst other things, that it could be recited with perfect tranquility of conscience by a priest who no longer believes either in Transubstantiation or in the sacrificial character of the Mass--hence even by a Protestant minister.

64. The new Missal was introduced in Rome as "a text of ample pastoral matter," and "more pastoral than juridical," which the Episcopal Conferences would be able to utilize according to the varying circumstances and genius of different peoples. In this same Apostolic Constitution we read: "we have introduced into the new missal legitimate variations and adaptations." Besides, Section I of the new Congregation for Divine Worship will be responsible "for the publication and constant revision of the liturgical books." The last official bulletin of the Liturgical Institutes of Germany, Switzerland and Austria says: "The Latin texts will now have to be translated into the languages of the various peoples; the 'Roman' style will have to be adapted to the individuality of the local Churches: that which was conceived beyond time must be transposed into the changing context of concrete situations in the constant flux of the Universal Church and of its myriad congregations." <59>

65. The Apostolic Constitution itself gives the coup de grace to the to the Church's universal language (contrary to the express will of Vatican Council II) with the bland affirmation that "one (?) and the same prayer in a great diversity of languages will ascend, more fragrant than any incense, to our heavenly Father..." <60>

66. The demise of Latin may therefore be taken for granted; that of Gregorian chant, which even the Council recognized as "liturgiae romanae proprium" [specially suited to the Roman liturgy] <61>ordering that "principem locum obtineat" [it should be given pride of place in liturgical services], <62>will logically follow, with the freedom of choice, amongst other things, of the texts of Introit and Gradual.

67. From the outset therefore the new rite is launched as pluralistic and experimental, bound to time and place. Unity of worship, thus swept away for good and all, what will now become of the unity of faith that went with it, and which, we were always told, was to be defended without compromise?

68. It is evident that the Novus Ordo has no intention of presenting the Faith as taught by the Council of Trent, to which, nonetheless, the Catholic conscience is bound forever. With the promulgation of the Novus Ordo, the loyal Catholic is thus faced with a most tragic alternative.

VII. The alienation of the Orthodox

69. The Apostolic Constitution makes explicit reference to a wealth of piety and teaching in the Novus Ordo borrowed from the Eastern Churches. The result--utterly remote from and even opposed to the inspiration of the oriental Liturgies--can only repel the faithful of the Eastern Rites. What, in truth, do these ecumenical options amount to? Basically to the multiplicity of anaphora (but nothing approaching their beauty and complexity), to the presence of the deacons, to Communion sub utraque specie. Against this the Ordo would appear to have been deliberately shorn of everything which in the Liturgy of Rome came close to those of the East. <63>; Moreover, in abandoning its unmistakable and immemorial Roman character, the Ordo lost what was spiritually precious of its own. Its place has been taken by elements which bring it closer only to certain other reformed liturgies (not even to those closest to Catholicism) and which debase it at the same time. The East will be ever more alienated, as it already has been by the preceding liturgical reforms.

70. By way of compensation the new Liturgy will be the delight of the various groups who, hovering on the verge of apostasy, are wreaking havoc in the Church of God, poisoning her organism and undermining her unity of doctrine, worship, morals and discipline in a spiritual crisis without precedent.

VIII. The abandonment of defenses

71. St. Pius V had the Roman Missal drawn up (as the present Apostolic Constitution itself recalls) so that it might be an instrument of unity among Catholics. In conformity with the injunctions of the Council of Trent it was to exclude all danger, in liturgical worship, of errors against the Faith, then threatened by the Protestant Reformation. The gravity of the situation fully justified, and even rendered prophetic, the saintly Pontiff's solemn warning given at the end of the Bull promulgating his Missal: "Should any person venture to do so, let him understand that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul." <64>

72. When the Novus Ordo was presented at the Vatican Press Office, it was asserted with great audacity that the reasons which prompted the Tridentine decrees are no longer valid. Not only do they still apply, but there also exist, as we do not hesitate to affirm, very much more serious ones [i.e., reasons] today. It was precisely in order to ward off the dangers which in every century threaten the purity of the deposit of faith ("depositum custodi, devitans profanas vocum novitates." <65> that the Church has had to erect under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost the defenses of her dogmatic definitions and doctrinal pronouncements. These were immediately reflected in her worship, which became the most complete monument of her faith. To try to bring the Church's worship back at all cost to the ancient practice by refashioning, artificially and with that "unhealthy archeologism" so roundly condemned by Pius XII, <66>what in earlier times had the grace of original spontaneity means--as we see today only too clearly--to dismantle all the theological ramparts erected for the protection of the Rite and to take away all the beauty by which it was enriched over the centuries. <67>

73. And all this at one of the most critical moments--if not the most critical moment--of the Church's history! Today, division and schism are officially acknowledged to exist not only outside of but within the Church. <68>; Her unity is not only threatened but already tragically compromised. <69>Errors against the Faith are not merely insinuated but positively imposed by means of liturgical abuses and aberrations which have been equally acknowledged. <70>To abandon a liturgical tradition which for four centuries was both the sign and the pledge of unity of worship <71>(and to replace it with another which cannot but be a sign of division by virtue of the countless liberties implicitly authorized, and which teems with insinuations or manifest errors against the integrity of the Catholic religion) is, we feel in conscience bound to proclaim, an incalculable error.

ENDNOTES

Sources with Abbreviations

Please Note: The Roman Theologians most probably used copies of original papal and conciliar documents-in Latin-as their sources. The sources given below are given as a courtesy for those who wish to examine these same Latin sources which the Roman Theologians used, but which have been translated into English.

CT = The Council of Trent, Canons and Decrees, Edited By J. Waterworth, (Chicago, 1848), - Scanned by Hanover College students, 1995. Taken from the Internet at: http://history.hanover.edu/early/trent.html

CCT = The Catechism of the Council of Trent, Taken from the Internet at: http://abbey.apana.org.au/Official/Catechisms/Trent/

ES-L = Henry Denzinger, Enchiridion Symbolorum, 32nd edition in Latin, Herder, 1957.

GIN = The General Instruction and the New Order of Mass, International Committee on English in the Liturgy, 1969.

GRIM = Documents on "The General Instruction of the Roman Missal". Taken from the Internet at: http://www.ewtn.com/

MD = Pope Pius XII, Encyclical, Mediator Dei, November 20, 1947.

PT = Papal Teachings: The Liturgy, selected and arranged by the Benedictine Monks of Solesmes; translated by the Daughters of St. Paul, St. Paul Editions, 1962.

QPT = Pope St. Pius V, Quo Primum Tempore, July 14, 1570.

V2-PO = Documents of Vatican II, Editor, Walter M. Abbott, S.J., Decree on the Ministry and Life of Priests, Presbyterorum Ordinis, December 7, 1965. Taken from the Internet at: uunet!uts.mcc.ac.uk!mfulsmb It will also be found at: http://www.rc.net/rcchurch/vatican2/

V2-SC = Documents of Vatican II, Editor, Walter M. Abbott, S.J., Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Sacrosanctum Consilium, December 4, 1963. Taken from the Internet at: uunet!uts.mcc.ac.uk!mfulsmb It will also be found at: http://www.rc.net/rcchurch/vatican2/

Endnotes

<1> "The prayers of our Canon are found in the treatise De Sacramentis (4th-5th centuries)...Our Mass goes back, without essential change, to the epoch in which it developed for the first time from the most ancient common liturgy. It still preserves the fragrance of that primitive liturgy, in times when Caesar governed the world and hoped to extinguish the Christian faith; times when our forefathers would gather together before dawn to sing a hymn to Christ as to their God...(cf. Pl. jr., Ep. 96)...There is not in all Christendom a rite so venerable as that of the Roman Missal." (A. Fortescue) "The Roman Canon, such as it is today, goes back to St. Gregory the Great. Neither in East nor West is there any Eucharistic prayer remaining in use today that can boast such antiquity. For the Roman Church to throw it overboard would be tantamount, in the eyes not only of the Orthodox, but also of Anglicans and even Protestants having still to some extent a sense of tradition, to a denial of all claim any more to be the true Catholic Church." (Fr. Louis Bouyer)

<2> V2-SC, Chapter II The Most Sacred Mystery of the Eucharist, Decrees, # 50.

<3> For such a definition, the Novus Ordo refers one in a note to two texts of Vatican II. But rereading these texts one finds nothing to justify the definition.

The first text referred to runs as follows:

"...through the ministry of the bishop, God consecrates priests, that being made sharers by special title in the priesthood of Christ, they might act as His ministers in performing sacred functions. In the liturgy they continue to carry on His priestly office by the action of His Spirit..and especially by the celebration of Mass they offer sacramentally the Sacrifice of Christ." (V2-PO, Chapter II, The Ministry of Priests, Section I, Priest's Functions, # 5.)

The second text runs thus:

"For in the liturgy God speaks to his people, and Christ is still proclaiming his Gospel. And the people reply to God both by song and prayer. Moreover the prayers addressed to God by the priest who, in the person of Christ, presides over the assembly, are said in the name of the entire holy people and of all present" (V2-SC, Chapter I General Principles for the Restoration and Promotion of the Sacred Liturgy, III. The Reform of the Sacred Liturgy, C. Norms Based on the Educative and Pastoral Nature of the Liturgy, # 33).

One is at a loss to explain how, from such texts as these, the above definition could have been drawn.

We note. too, the radical alteration, in this definition of the Mass, of that laid down by Vatican II: "Thus the Eucharistic Action, over which the priest presides, is the very heart of the congregation" (V2-PO, Chapter II The Ministry of Priests, Section 1 Priests' Functions, # 5). The centrum [center] having been spirited away, in the Novus Ordo the congregatio [congregation] itself has usurped its place.

<4> Matthew 18:20.

<5> GIN, Chapter II, Structure, Elements and Parts of the Mass, I General Structure of the Mass, # 7.

<6> GIN

1. Chapter II, Structure, Elements and Parts of the Mass, I General Structure of the Mass, # 8.

2. Chapter II, Structure, Elements and Parts of the Mass, III Individual Parts of the Mass, C) Liturgy of the Eucharist, # 48.

3. Chapter II, Structure, Elements and Parts of the Mass, III Individual Parts of the Mass, C) Liturgy of the Eucharist, Eucharistic Prayer, # 55d.

4. Chapter II, Structure, Elements and Parts of the Mass, III Individual Parts of the Mass, C) Liturgy of the Eucharist, Communion Rite, # 56.

<7> The Council of Trent reaffirms the Real Presence in the following words:

"Principio docet Sancta Synodus et aperte et simpliciter profitetur in almo Sanctae Eucharistiae sacramento post panis et vini, consacrationem Dominum nostrum Jesum Christum verum Deum atque hominem vere, realiter ac substantialiter (can. I) sub specie illarum rerum sensibilium contineri" (ES-L, # 874).

["In the first place, the holy Synod teaches, and openly and simply professes, that, in the august sacrament of the Holy Eucharist, after the consecration of the bread and wine, our Lord Jesus Christ, true God and man, is truly, really, and substantially [canon 1] contained under the species of those sensible things." CT, Session XIII, October 11, 1551, Decree on the Most Holy Eucharist, Chapter 1, The Real Presence of our Lord Jesus Christ in the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist.]

In session XXII, which interests us directly (De sanctissimo Missae Sacrificio), the approved doctrine [of the entire Session] is clearly synthesized in nine canons.

1. The Mass is a true and visible Sacrifice, not a symbolic representation: "quo cruentum illud semel in cruce peragendum repraesentaretur atque illius salutaris virtus in remissionem eorum, quae a nobis quotidie committuntur peccatorum applicaretur" (ES-L, # 938).

["...whereby that bloody sacrifice, once to be accomplished on the cross, might be represented, and the memory thereof remain even unto the end of the world, and its salutary virtue be applied to the remission of those sins which we daily commit..." CT, Session XXII, September 17, 1562, The Doctrine on the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, Chapter 1, The Institution of the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.]

2. Jesus Christ Our Lord "sacerdotem secundum ordinem Melchisedech ac in aeternum (Psalm 109:4) constitutum declarans, corpus et sanguinem suum sub specibus panis et vini Dec Patri obtulit ac sub earundem rerum symbolis Apostolis (quos tunc Novi Testamenti sacerdotes constituebat). ut sumerent. tradidit, et eisdem eorumque in sacerdotio successoribus, ut offerent, praecepit per haec verba: 'Hoc facite in meam commemorationem' (Luke 22:19; 1 Corinthians 11:24) ut semper catholica Ecciesia intellexit et docuit" (ES-L, # 938).

["...declaring Himself constituted a priest for ever, according to the order of Melchisedech (Genesis 14:18; Psalm 109:4; Hebrews 7:11), He offered up to God the Father His own body and blood under the species of bread and wine; and, under the symbols of those same things, He delivered (His own body and blood) to be received by His apostles, whom He then constituted priests of the New Testament; and by those words, Do this in commemoration of Me (Luke 22:19; 1 Corinthians 11:24) He commanded them and their successors in the priesthood, to offer (them); even as the Catholic Church has always understood and taught...." CT, Session XXII, September 17, 1562, The Doctrine on the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, Chapter 1, The Institution of the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.]

The celebrant, the offerer, the sacrificer is the priest. consecrated for this, not the people of God. the assembly. "Si quis dixerit. illis verbis: 'Hoc facite' etc. Christum non istituisse Apostolos sacredotes, aut non ordinasse. ut ipsi aliique sacredotes offerent corpus et sanguinem suum: anathema sit" (ES-L, # 949).

["CANON II. If any one saith, that by those words, 'Do this for the commemoration of me' (Luke xxii. 19), Christ did not institute the apostles priests; or, did not ordain that they, and other priests should offer His own body and blood; let him be anathema." CT, Session XXII, September 17, 1562, The Doctrine on the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, Canons on the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, Canon 2.]

3. The Sacrifice of the Mass is a true propitiatory Sacrifice and NOT a "bare commemoration of the sacrifice accomplished on the Cross". "Si quis dixerit: Missae sacrificium tantum esse laudis et gratiarum actiones aut nudam commemorationem sacrificii in cruce peracti, non autem propitiatorium; vel soli prodesse sumenti, neque pro vivis et defunctis, pro peccatis, poenis, satisfactionibus et aliis necessitatibus offeri debere, anathema sit" (ES-L, # 949).

["CANON III. If any one saith, that the sacrifice of the mass is only a sacrifice of praise and of thanksgiving; or, that it is a bare commemoration of the sacrifice consummated on the cross, but not a propitiatory sacrifice; or, that it profits him only who receives; and that it ought not to be offered for the living and the dead for sins, pains, satisfactions, and other necessities; let him be anathema." CT, Session XXII, September 17, 1562, The Doctrine on the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, Canons on the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, Canon 3.]

Canon 6 will also be recalled: "Si quis dixerit Canon Missae errores continere ideoque abrongandum esse, anathema sit" (ES-L, # 953): and Canon 8: "Si quis dixerit Missae. in quibus solus sacerdos sacramentaliter communicat, illicitas esse, ideoque abrogandas, anathema sit" (ES-L, # 955).

["CANON VI. If any one saith, that the canon of the mass contains errors, and is therefore to be abrogated; let him be anathema." CT, Session XXII, September 17, 1562, The Doctrine on the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, Canons on the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, Canon 6.]

["CANON VIII. If any one saith, that masses, wherein the priest alone communicates sacramentally, are unlawful, and are, therefore, to be abrogated; let him be anathema." CT, Session XXII, September 17, 1562, The Doctrine on the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, Canons on the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, Canon 8.]

[Editor's note: It is well worth while recalling Canon 9 as well: "CANON IX. If any one saith, that the rite of the Roman Church, according to which a part of the canon and the words of consecration are pronounced in a low tone, is to be condemned; or, that the mass ought to be celebrated in the vulgar tongue only; or, that water ought not to be mixed with the wine that is to be offered in the chalice, for that it is contrary to the institution of Christ; let him be anathema." CT, Session XXII, September 17, 1562, The Doctrine on the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, Canons on the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, Canon 9.]

<8> It is superfluous to assert that if a single defined dogma were denied, all dogma would ipso facto fall, insofar as the very principle of the infallibility of the supreme hierarchical Magisterium, whether papal or conciliar, would thereby be destroyed.

<9> "For where there are two or three gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them" (Matthew 18:20).

<10> The Ascension should be added if one wished to recall the "Unde et memores" which furthermore does not associate but clearly and finely distinguishes: "...tam beatae Passioni, nec non ab inferis Resurrectionis, sed et in caelum gloriosae Ascensionis." ["calling to mind...the blessed passion, not only His rising from the dead, but also His glorious Ascension into Heaven."]

<11> Hebrews 10:5 (cf. Psalm 39:7).

<12> GIN, # 54.

<13> This shift of emphasis is met with also in the surprising elimination, in the new Canons, of the Memento of the dead and of any mention of the sufferings of the souls in Purgatory, to whom the propitiatory Sacrifice was applied.

<14> Cf. Mysterium Fidei in which Paul VI condemns the errors of symbolism together with the new theories of "transignification" and "transfinalization": "To confirm what we have said by examples, it is not allowable to emphasize what is called the "communal" Mass to the disparagement of Masses celebrated in private, or to exaggerate the element of sacramental sign as if the symbolism, which all certainly admit in the Eucharist, expresses fully and exhausts completely the mode of Christ's presence in this sacrament. Nor is it allowable to discuss the mystery of transubstantiation without mentioning what the Council of Trent stated about the marvelous conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood of Christ, speaking rather only of what is called "transignification" and transfiguration," or finally to propose and act upon the opinion according to which, in the Consecrated Hosts which remain after the celebration of the sacrifice of the Mass, Christ Our Lord is no longer present" (Paul VI, Encyclical "Mysterium Fidei", On the doctrine and worship of the Eucharist, September 3, 1965, # 10).

<15> The introduction of new formulae, or expressions, which, though occurring in texts of the Fathers and Councils, and of the Church's magisterium, are used in a univocal sense not subordinated to the substance of doctrine with which they form an inseparable whole (e.g., "spiritualis alimonia" [spiritual nourishment]; "cibus spiritualis" [spiritual food]; "potus spiritualis", [spiritual drink]; etc.) is amply denounced and condemned in Mysterium Fidei. Paul VI states that:

"Having safeguarded the integrity of the faith, it is necessary to safeguard also its proper mode of expression, lest by the careless use of words, we occasion (God forbid) the rise of false opinions regarding faith in the most sublime of mysteries. St. Augustine gives a stern warning about this in his consideration of the way of speaking employed by the philosophers of that which ought to be used by Christians."

"'The philosophers', he says, 'speak freely without fear of offending religious listeners on subjects quite difficult to understand. We, on the other hand, must speak according to a fixed norm, lest the lack of restraint in our speech result in some impious opinion even about the things signified by the words themselves.' [De Civit. Dei X, 23 - The City of God, 10, 23; P.L. 41,300.]"

"The Church, therefore, with the long labor of centuries, and, not without the help of the Holy Spirit, has established a rule of language and confirmed it with the authority of the councils. This rule, which has more than once been the watchword and banner of Orthodox faith, must be religiously preserved, and let no one presume to change it at his own pleasure or under the pretext of new science. Who would ever tolerate that the dogmatic formulas used by ecumenical councils for the mysteries of the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation be judged as no longer appropriate for men of our times and therefore that others be rashly substituted for them? In the same way it cannot be tolerated that any individual should on his own authority modify the formulas which were used by the Council of Trent to express belief in the Eucharistic Mystery. For these formulas, like the others which the Church uses to propose the dogmas of faith, express concepts which are not tied to a certain form of human culture, nor to a specific phase of human culture, nor to one or other theological school" (Paul VI, Encyclical "Mysterium Fidei", On the doctrine and worship of the Eucharist, September 3, 1965, # 23-25).

<16> Contradicting what is prescribed by Vatican II: "48. The Church, therefore, earnestly desires that Christ's faithful, when present at this mystery of faith, should not be there as strangers or silent spectators. On the contrary, through a good understanding of the rites and prayers they should take part in the sacred action, conscious of what they are doing, with devotion and full collaboration. They should be instructed by God's word, and be nourished at the table of the Lord's Body. They should give thanks to God. Offering the immaculate victim, not only through the hands of the priest but also together with him, they should learn to offer themselves. Through Christ, the Mediator,[38] they should be drawn day by day into ever more perfect union with God and each other, so that finally God may be all in all" (V2- SC, # 48).

<17> GIN, # 54.

<18> GIN, # 54.

<19> "Council of Trent, Session 21, Decree "de Communione eucharistica", c. 1-3: Denzinger 929- 932 (1725-1729)" (GIN, # 241, footnote # 63).

<20> GIN, # 239.

<21> GIN, # 262.

<22> The altar's primary function is recognized once: "The altar, where the sacrifice of Christ is made present under sacramental signs...'' [GIN, # 259]. This single reference does not seem to remove to any extent the equivocations of the other repeated designation.

[Editor's note: By "the other repeated designation" is meant "the table of the Lord". This would have been made more clear if the Roman Theologians had given the FULL text which reads: "The altar, where the sacrifice of Christ is made present under sacramental signs, is also the table of the Lord." Therefore, the Roman Theologians themselves are guilty of deliberate ambiguity at least and equivocation at worst. One is left to wonder: Why did the Roman Theologians do this? One possible explanation is that the translated text has been corrupted and the original is somewhat different. But if the original text of the Ottaviani Intervention as published by the Roman Theologians omits the final clause-which We have added because it is found in GIN, # 259-then such an act was either: a) accidental; b) deliberate. If deliberate, then this is a grave fault on the part of the Roman Theologians which no excuses can mitigate. Unfortunately, this is not their only error, some of which We point out in other "notes"!]

<23> GIN, # 49. "'Inter Oecumenici', no. 91; Instruction 'Eucharisticum mysterius', no 24" (GIN, # 39). Cf. GIN, # 262.

<24> GIN, # 262.

<25> GIN, # 262; GIN, # 276.

<26> "To separate tabernacle from altar is to separate two things which by their origin and their nature should remain united" (PT # 817, Pope Pius XII, "Allocution to the International Congress on Pastoral Liturgy", September 22, 1956).

[Editor's note: Further data germane to the subject of altar/table is found here: "But it is neither wise nor laudable to reduce everything to antiquity by every possible device. Thus, to cite some instances, one would be straying from the straight path were he to wish the altar restored to its primitive tableform; were he to want black excluded as a color for the liturgical vestments; were he to forbid the use of sacred images and statues in Churches; were he to order the crucifix so designed that the divine Redeemer's body shows no trace of His cruel sufferings; and lastly were he to disdain and reject polyphonic music or singing in parts, even where it conforms to regulations issued by the Holy See."] ["This way of acting bids fair to revive the exaggerated and senseless antiquarianism to which the illegal Council of Pistoia gave rise. It likewise attempts to reinstate a series of errors which were responsible for the calling of that meeting as well as for those resulting from it, with grievous harm to souls, and which the Church, the ever watchful guardian of the 'deposit of faith' committed to her charge by her divine Founder, had every right and reason to condemn.[53] For perverse designs and ventures of this sort tend to paralyze and weaken that process of sanctification by which the sacred liturgy directs the sons of adoption to their Heavenly Father of their souls' salvation" (MD, # 62, 64).]

<27> Rarely in the Novus Ordo is the word "hostia" used, a traditional one in liturgical books with its precise significance of "Victim." This. needless to say, is part of the reformers' plan to emphasize only the aspects "supper," "food."

<28> In accordance with the customary habit of the reformers of substituting and exchanging one thing for another, the Real Presence is made equivalent to the Presence in the word (GIN, # 7; GIN, # 54). But this latter presence is really of quite another nature, having no reality except in usu [literally-in use; i.e., when it is taking place ]; whilst the former is in a stable manner, objective and independent of the communication that is made of it in the Sacrament. The formulae "God speaks to his people... Christ is present by his word in the midst of the faithful" (GIN, # 33), are typically Protestant ones, which strictly speaking, have no meaning, as the presence of God in the word is mediated, bound to an act of the spirit, to the spiritual condition of the individual and limited in time. This error has the most serious consequences; the affirmation (or insinuation) that the Real Presence is bound to the usus, and ends together with it.

["...in the liturgy God speaks to his people" (V2-SC, # 33).]

["Christ...is present in his word" (V2-SC, # 7).]

<29> The sacramental action of the institution is emphasized as having come about in Our Lord's giving the Apostles His Body and Blood "to eat" under the species of bread and wine, not in the act of consecration and in the mystical separation therein accomplished of the Body from the Blood, essence of the Eucharistic Sacrifice. (Cf. MD # 66.)

[The mystery of the most Holy Eucharist which Christ, the High Priest instituted, and which He commands to be continually renewed in the Church by His ministers, is the culmination and center, as it were, of the Christian religion. We consider it opportune in speaking about the crowning act of the sacred liturgy, to delay for a little while and call your attention, Venerable Brethren, to this most important subject" (MD # 66).]

<30> GIN # 55d.

<31> GIN # 55e.

<32> The words of Consecration as inserted in the context of the Novus Ordo can be valid by virtue of the minister's intention. They could also not be valid because they are no longer so ex vi verborum [from the force of the sacramental words themselves], or, more precisely. by virtue of the modus significandi [manner of signifying, i.e., from the meaning] they had in the Mass up to the present time.

[Editor's Note: The Novus Ordo Rite of Mass is per se INVALID in any language, including Latin, because this liturgical rite does NOT contain the ontological essence of the Mass as Jesus Christ, the Eternal High Priest, instituted it. The "Roman Theologians" who wrote this "Critical Study" apparently either forgot about the requirements of the ontological essence of the Mass or were ignorant of them! Irregardless, in plain English this simply means that it is IMPOSSIBLE for ANYONE, irregardless whether or not they have the required proper Valid Intention, to effect ANY Transubstantiation, whether of the bread or of the wine or of both!]

Will priests of the near future who have not received the traditional formation, and who rely on the Novus Ordo with the intention of "doing what the Church does," consecrate validly? One may be allowed to doubt it.

[Editor's Note: The ontological essence of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass requires much more than merely the proper Valid Intention to effect ANY Transubstantiation, whether of the bread or of the wine or of both! Put another way, even IF a valid Celebrant of Mass did in fact have a valid intention, there is no way his valid intention could effect any transubstantiation in any of the following liturgical rites of "mass" or supper/meal service or gospel service or pseudo- Christian service: Anglican; Lutheran; Baptist; Presbyterian; Congregational; Methodist; United Brethren; Disciples of Christ; Mormon; Salvation Army; Christian Science; Four- Square Gospel; etc. Why? Because not one of these Protestant services, a.k.a. liturgical rites, has a valid rite of Mass. It would be a strange site to see someone trying to transubstantiate, WITH a valid intention, in a Four-Square Gospel service! The same is true also, then, of the Novus Ordo Rite because it, too, is a PROTESTANT supper or meal service, made up by six Protestants and those heretical apostate Catholics who were the members of the Concilium which merely updated the PROTESTANT "mass" rites of the Anglicans, Lutherans, etc. in that satanic synthesis Paul VI calls the Novus Ordo Missae!]

<33> GIN, The Order of Mass with a Congregation, Eucharistic Prayer I # 64c; Eucharistic Prayer II # 77c; Eucharistic Prayer III # 84c; Eucharistic Prayer IV # 93c.

<34> Let it not be said, according to the well-known Protestant critical procedure, that these phrases belong to the same scriptural context. The Church has always avoided their juxtaposition and superimposition precisely in order to avoid any confusion of the different realities here expressed.

<35> GIN, # 7.

<36> "After the entrance song, the priest and the congregation make the sign of the cross. Then the priest expresses the presence of the Lord in the assembled community by means of a greeting. This greeting and the people's response manifest the mystery of the Church's unity" (GIN, # 28).

<37> GIN # 77-152.

<38> GIN # 209-231.

<39> GIN # 45.

<40> "In the general intercessions or prayer of the faithful, the people exercise their priestly function by interceding for all mankind. It is appropriate that this prayer be included in all Masses celebrated with a congregation, so that intercession may be made for the Church, for civil authorities, for those oppressed by various needs, for all mankind, and for the salvation of the world " (GIN # 45) .

<41> GIN, The Order of Mass with a Congregation, # 80.

<42> As against the Lutherans who affirmed that all Christians are priests and hence offerers of the Supper, see A. Tanquerey: "Synopsis theologiae dogmaticae," [Synopsis of dogmatic theology], vol. III, Desclee, Paris, Tournai, Rome, 1930: "Each and every priest is, strictly speaking, a secondary minister of the sacrifice of the mass. Christ Himself is the principal minister. The faithful offer through the intermediary of the priest but not in the strict sense."

["CANON II. If any one saith, that by those words, Do this for the commemoration of me (Luke xxii. 19), Christ did not institute the apostles priests; or, did not ordain that they, and other priests should offer His own body and blood; let him be anathema" (CT, Session 22, September 17, 1562, Canon 2).]

[Editor's Note: Christ functions at every Mass as the Eternal High Priest, hence as the Principal Offerer, the agent of Whom is the secondary offerer, the Mass Celebrant, and also as the Infinite Victim. However, this is true of only VALID Rites of Mass. It does NOT apply in any way to INVALID Rites of Mass, e.g., the Anglican, Lutheran, Methodist, and all other Protestant rites/services, including the Novus Ordo Missae! This is a very important distinction!]

<43> GIN # 55c.

<44> GIN # 298.

<45> We note in passing an incredible innovation which is sure to have the most serious psychological effects: the Good Friday liturgy in red vestments instead of black (GIN # 308b), the commemoration, that is, of any martyr instead of the mourning of the whole Church for her Founder.

["...one would be straying from the straight path were he to... want black excluded as a color for the liturgical vestments..." (MD, # 62).]

<46> Fr. A. M. Rouget, O.P., speaking to the Dominican Sisters of Bethany at Plessit-Chenet.

<47> "...the eucharistic celebration, in which the priest acts for the salvation of the people, retains its efficacy and dignity as the action of Christ and the Church" (GIN, # 4).

"...hence the daily celebration of Mass is strongly urged, since even if there cannot be present a number of the faithful, it is still an act of Christ and of the Church" (V2-PO, # 13).

<48> GIN, # 60.

"Within the community of believers, the presbyter is another who possesses the power of orders to offer sacrifice in the person of Christ.[49] He therefore presides over the assembly and leads its prayer, proclaims the message of salvation, joins the people to himself in offering the sacrifice to the Father through Christ in the Spirit, gives them the bread of eternal life, and shares in it with them" (GRIM, "General Instruction of the Roman Missal", 4th edition, issued by the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship on March 27, 1975. # 60).

<49> John 14:13-16; 23-24.

<50> GIN, The Order of Mass with a Congregation, # 89.

<51> In some translations of the Roman Canon, the "locus refrigerii, lucis et pacis" [a place of refreshment, light and peace] was rendered as a simple state ("blessedness, light, peace"). What is to be said, then, of the disappearance of every explicit reference to the Church suffering?

<52> In all this welter of curtailment a single enrichment only: the mention of omission in the accusation of sins at the Confiteor: "in what I have failed to do" (GIN, The Order of Mass with a Congregation, # 3a).

<53> At the press conference introducing the [Novus] Ordo, Fr. Joseph Lecuyer, CSSp, in what appears to be, objectively speaking, a profession of purely rationalistic faith, spoke of converting the salutationes [salutations] in the "Missa sine populo" [Mass without a congregation] from the plural to the singular. "Dominus tecum," ["The Lord be with you" - only one person, to replace "Dominus vobiscum", "The Lord be with you" - more than one person]; "Ora, frater" ["Pray, brother", to replace "Orate, fratres", "Pray, brethren."], etc. His reason was "so that there would be nothing [in the Mass] which does not correspond with the truth."

Ite Missa est [The Victim (Jesus Christ) has been sent to the Altar in Heaven before the Holy Trinity by the hands of the Holy Angel (Saint Michael the Archangel).]

<54> GIN # 260, 265.

<55> GIN, # 244d.

<56> GIN, # 70.

<57> We note in this connection that it seems lawful for priests obliged to celebrate alone either before or after concelebration to communicate again sub utraque specie [under both species] during concelebration.

<58> It has been presented as "The Canon of Hippolytus", but in fact nothing of that original text remains in the new rite except for a few traces.

<59> "Gottesdienst," no. 9, May 14th 1969.

<60> GRIM, Apostolic Constitution, Paul VI, "Missale Romanum", Promulgation of the Roman Missal Revised by Decree of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, April 3, 1969, # 13.

<61> ["The Church recognizes Gregorian chant as being specially suited to the Roman liturgy. Therefore, other things being equal, it should be given pride of place in liturgical services. Other kinds of sacred music, especially polyphony, are by no means excluded from liturgical celebrations so long as they accord with the spirit of the liturgical action as laid down in Article 30."] V2-SC, # 116.

<62> V2-SC, # 116.

<63> One has only to think of the following elements in Byzantine liturgical rite:

1) its reiterated and lengthy penitential prayers;

2) the solemn rites of vesting of the celebrant and deacon;

3) the preparation of the offerings at the proscomidia, a complete rite in itself;

4) the continual presence in the prayers, even those of the offerings, of the Blessed Virgin, the Saints and Choirs of Angels (who are actually invoked, at the entrance with Gospel, as "invisibly concelebrating";

5) the choir identifying itself with them in the Cherubicon);

6) the iconostasis [sanctuary screen] which divides the sanctuary from the rest of the church, the clergy from the people;

7) the hidden Consecration, symbolizing the divine mystery to which the entire liturgy alludes;

8) the celebrant's position versus ad Deum never versus ad populum;

9) Communion given always and only by the celebrant;

10) the continual marks of profound adoration shown to the Sacred Species;

11) the essentially contemplative attitude of the people.

The fact that these liturgies, even in their less solemn forms, last for over an hour, and are constantly defined as "tremendous and unutterable...celestial, life-giving mysteries..." need no elaborating.

It is finally worth noting how, in the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, and in that of St. Basil, the concept of "supper" or "banquet" appears clearly subordinate to that of sacrifice, as it did in the Roman Mass.

<64> "Accordingly, no one whosoever is permitted to infringe or rashly contravene this notice of Our permission, statute, ordinance, command, direction, grant, indult, declaration, will, decree and prohibition. Should any person venture to do so, let him understand that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul." (QPT, # 9)

In Session XIII, (Decree on the Most Holy Eucharist), the Council of Trent manifested its intention: "Ut stirpitus convelleret zizania execrabilium errorum et schismatum, quae inimicus homo...in doctrina fidei usu et cultu Sacrosanctae Eucharistiae superseminavit--Mt. 13:25 et seq.--quam alioqui Salvator noster in Ecclesia sua tamquam symbolum reliquit eius unitatis et caritatis, qua Christianos omnes inter se coniunctos et copulatos, esse voluit." (ES-L, # 873a).

[" that It might pluck up by the roots those tares of execrable errors and schisms, with which the enemy hath, in these our calamitous times, oversown [Matthew 13:25, ff.] the doctrine of the faith, in the use and worship of the sacred and holy Eucharist, which our Saviour, notwithstanding, left in His Church as a symbol of that unity and charity, with which He would fain have all Christians be mentally joined and united together" (CT, Session 13, October 11, 1551, Decree on the Most Holy Eucharist).

<65> "O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding the profane novelties of words, and oppositions of knowledge falsely so called" (1 Timothy 6:20).

<66> "Assuredly it is a wise and most laudable thing to return in spirit and affection to the sources of the sacred liturgy. For research in this field of study, by tracing it back to its origins, contributes valuable assistance towards a more thorough and careful investigation of the significance of feast-days, and of the meaning of the texts and sacred ceremonies employed on their occasion. But it is neither wise nor laudable to reduce everything to antiquity by every possible device. Thus, to cite some instances, one would be straying from the straight path were he to wish the altar restored to its primitive tableform; were he to want black excluded as a color for the liturgical vestments; were he to forbid the use of sacred images and statues in Churches; were he to order the crucifix so designed that the divine Redeemer's body shows no trace of His cruel sufferings...This way of acting bids fair to revive the exaggerated and senseless antiquarianism to which the illegal Council of Pistoia gave rise. It likewise attempts to reinstate a series of errors which were responsible for the calling of that meeting as well as for those resulting from it, with grievous harm to souls, and which the Church, the ever watchful guardian of the "deposit of faith" committed to her charge by her divine Founder, had every right and reason to condemn" (MD, # 62; # 64).

<67> "Let us not deceive ourselves with the suggestion that the Church, which has become great and majestic for the glory of God as a magnificent temple of His, must be brought to its original and smallest proportions, as though they were the only true ones, the only good ones" (Paul VI, Encyclical "Ecclesiam Suam," August 6, 1964).

<68> "A practically schismatic ferment divides, subdivides, splits the Church" (Paul VI, Homily "In Coena Domini," April 3, 1969).

<69> "There are also among us those "schisms" and "separations" which St. Paul sadly denounces in I Corinthians" (Paul VI, Homily "In Coena Domini," April 3, 1969).

<70> It is well-known how Vatican II is now being repudiated by the very men who once gloried in being its leaders. While the Pope declared at the Council's end that it had changed nothing, these men came away determined to "explode" the Council's teachings in the process of actually applying it. Unfortunately the Holy See, with inexplicable haste, approved and even seemingly encouraged through Consilium an ever-increasing infidelity to the Council.. This infidelity went from changes in mere form (Latin, Gregorian Chant, suppression of the ancient rites, etc.) all the way to changes in substance which the Novus Ordo sanctions. To the disastrous consequences we have attempted to point out here, we must add those which, with an even greater effect psychologically, will affect the Church's discipline and teaching authority by undermining the respect and docility owed the Holy See.

<71> "...Do not let us deceive ourselves with the suggestion that the Church, which has become great and majestic for the glory of God, as a magnificent temple of His, must be brought back to its original and smallest proportions, as though they were the only true ones, the only good ones..." (Paul VI, "Ecclesiam suam").

Therefore, very few Catholics would - and NONE should - expect a "Catholic" Priest to use a voodoo rite, or a hindu ritual, or a shaman ritual, or, while we are on this subject, an anti-Catholic Protestant supper memorial meal in place of the CATHOLIC traditional liturgical rite for the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass!

If the members of the shinto religion went to a service where their shinto priest used the Ancient Roman Rite of the Catholic Church in place of their shinto rituals, would there not be a riot and would not the congregation grab such a shinto priest and physically throw him out of their place of worship?

How many "catholic" Priests of the Satanic Vatican 2 church have been physically thrown out of what used to be ROMAN Catholic Churches by their congregations for using the newly synthesized/updated Protestant supper memorial-meal instead of the CATHOLIC traditional liturgical rite for the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass which is called the Ancient Roman Rite!?

Thomas Cranmer, the first Protestant Archbishop of Canterbury, had a revolt on his hands by some Catholics, e.g. in Cornwall, when he tried to force them to accept his 1549 A.D. version of the Novus Ordo Missae known as THE BOOKE OF THE COMMON PRAYER, a.k.a. First Prayer Book of Edward VI!!!

Is it true that some of the Catholics of England of the 16th Century were better educated and/or loved their CATHOLIC Faith much MORE than many of the Catholics of these days who, despite their sincerity, have been victimized by the endless hypnotic mantra: "Obey the Pope"?!!! and "Obey the Bishop"?!!! - even if that "pope" and/or "bishop" belongs to a non-Catholic church, e.g. the Satanic Vatican 2 church?!

The sad thing is that it seems that a vast majority of Catholics do NOT know their Catholic Faith!

This seems to be one reason why the Satanic Vatican 2 church has been so successful! The Satanic Vatican 2 church has taken advantage of the ignorance of its own people!

The Satanic Vatican 2 church has victimized its members while infecting them with the heresy of Modernism!

But those people who go to a Satanic Vatican 2 church ARE getting something other than the ancient, approved VALID and LAWFUL CATHOLIC traditional liturgical rite [the Ancient Roman Rite] for the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and the Seven Sacraments - despite denials to the contrary from the Pope, Cardinals, Bishops, Priests, "experts", theologians, etc. of the Satanic Vatican 2 church!

Today, it seems as if there is really no substantial or ontologically essential difference between a person going to say the Protestant Anglican - Episcopalian Church, or a Protestant Lutheran Church or a Protestant Methodist Church, or some other Protestant Church and the PROTESTANT Satanic Vatican 2 church which seems to have become the official teacher, not of CATHOLICISM, but instead, of MODERN PROTESTANTISM (lex orandi, lex credendi in action)!

But in order to be a REAL, ACTUAL member of the Catholic Church, one must properly fulfill their duties of membership.

On the contrary, IF a "Catholic" freely chooses NOT to fulfill ALL of his duties of membership in the Catholic Church, that person is no longer a de facto "Catholic"!

IF a person who calls himself a "Catholic" practices some other faith, e.g., a PROTESTANT faith, then, in reality, that person can NOT any longer call himself a "Catholic" and all of the legalisms in the world of heretical Modernism - despite the Magna Charta of Modernism - can't change that Truth!

Canons of the Council of Trent
Forbidding Any Changes to the Mass

Roman Catholic Council of Trent Solemn Session 22 Monday, September 17, 1562, A.D.

Pope Pius IV Giovan Angelo De Medici [Friday, December 25, 1559 - Thursday, December 9, 1565]

In Session 22 of the Roman Catholic Council of Trent, with the Roman Catholic Pope, Pope Pius IV presiding, which was held on Monday, September 17, 1562, A.D., the Council, in conjunction with Pope Pius IV, first taught what the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is.  Then it issued nine Canons, the violations of these laws being the penalty of automatic excommunication (anathema).

CANONS ON
THE HOLY SACRIFICE OF THE MASS

CANON I  If any one saith, that in the Mass a true and real Sacrifice is not offered to God; or, that to be offered is nothing else but that Christ is given us to eat; let him be anathema.

CANON II  If any one saith, that by those words, Do this for the commemoration of me (Luke xxii. 19), Christ did not institute the Apostles Priests; or, did not ordain that they, and other Priests should offer His own Body and Blood; let him be anathema.

CANON III  If any one saith, that the Sacrifice of the Mass is only a sacrifice of praise and of thanksgiving; or, that it is a bare commemoration of the Sacrifice consummated on the Cross, but not a propitiatory sacrifice; or, that it profits him only who receives; and that it ought not to be offered for the living and the dead for sins, pains, satisfactions, and other necessities; let him be anathema.

CANON IV  If any one saith, that, by the Sacrifice of the Mass, a blasphemy is cast upon the most Holy Sacrifice of Christ consummated on the Cross; or, that it is thereby derogated from; let him be anathema.

CANON V   If any one saith, that it is an imposture to celebrate Masses in honour of the saints, and for obtaining their intercession with God, as the Church intends; let him be anathema.

CANON VI   If any one saith, that the Canon of the Mass contains errors, and is therefore to be abrogated [abolished]; let him be anathema.

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.

CANON VIII   If any one saith, that Masses, wherein the Priest alone communicates Sacramentally, are unlawful, and are, therefore, to be abrogated [abolished; let him be anathema.

CANON IX   If any one saith, that the Rite of the Roman Church, according to which a part of the Canon and the words of Consecration are pronounced in a low tone, is to be condemned; or, that the Mass ought to be celebrated in the vulgar tongue only; or, that water ought not to be mixed with the wine that is to be offered in the chalice, for that it is contrary to the institution of Christ; let him be anathema.

Commentary on these Canons of the Council of Trent

Please note that this 22nd Session of the Council of Trent did not take place until Monday, September 17, 1562, A.D.  To put things into proper perspective, it should be noted historically that there had already been 45 Protestant Supper-Meals which had been made up (some of them revised several times by 1562!) and that the 46th Protestant Supper-Meal, which the Protestants used to replace what Jesus Christ had perfectly instituted, namely, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, saw the light of day in 1562 A.D., namely THE BOOK OF COMMON ORDER, which was the 2nd Updated Version of The Forme of Prayers which was used in Scotland and had been pieced together by an ex-Roman Catholic Priest, namely Father John Knox [c. 1505 A.D. - 1572 A.D.].

The point is that the Protestants had not only thrown out the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, beginning with the guiding force of the first ex-Catholic Priest, Father Martin Luther, O.S.A. [1483 A.D. - 1546 A.D.],  who had proposed a German “mass” as early as 1519 A.D., and who was taken at his word on Christmas Day, December 25, 1521 A.D., at Wittenberg by Andreas Rudolph Bodenstein [b. c. 1480 A.D. - d. 1541 A.D.], a.k.a. Carlstadt or Karlstadt, who appeared in the Castle Church without vestments and did a Protestant Supper-Meal “mass”, a.k.a. a Protestant Evangelical Meal, without the Canon, but, because of their vast experience, they had become "professional" Protestant Supper-Meal composers by 1562!

You will note that Canons 6, 8, and 9 most especially deal with the Rebellious ex-Catholic Clergy condemning and abolishing of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.  The Council of Trent established the penalty for doing this horrible act being automatic excommunication.

This is exactly what the Protestants like Luther, Knox, Cranmer, etc. had accomplished - they had abolished the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, replacing it with their Protestant Supper Meals which a few might have still called a "mass", although it was a "mass" in name only!

Exhibit -  A-1
Changes to the Mass
Automatic Excommunication

The Roman Catholic Church Roman Catholic Church Pope Pope Pius IV Giovan Angelo De Medici [Friday, December 25, 1559 - Thursday, December 9, 1565] Roman Catholic Council of Trent Solemn Session 22 Monday, September 17, 1562, A.D. Forbade any Changes to the Ancient Roman Rite of the Catholic Mass under penalty of anathema, i.e. automatic excommunication! CANON VI   If any one saith, that the Canon of the Mass contains errors, and is therefore to be abrogated [abolished]; let him be anathema. CANON IX   If any one saith, that the Rite of the Roman Church, according to which a part of the Canon and the words of Consecration are pronounced in a low tone, is to be condemned; or, that the Mass ought to be celebrated in the vulgar tongue only; or, that water ought not to be mixed with the wine that is to be offered in the chalice, for that it is contrary to the institution of Christ; let him be anathema.

The Satanic Vatican 2 church Satanic Vatican 2 church Pope Pope Paul 6 Giovanni Battista Montini [Friday, June 21, 1963 - Sunday, August 6, 1978] Photo with the 6 PROTESTANTS  who actively helped to update, modernize, and synthesize the 16th Century Protestant Supper Meals into the New Mass, the NOR, Novus Ordo Rite Satanic Vatican 2 church Synod Vatican 2 Satanic Vatican 2 church Pope, Pope Paul 6, Giovanni Battista Montini, and all of the Synod Vatican 2 Cardinals and Bishops who voted to change the Mass were all automatically excommunicated from the Roman Catholic Church because of Canons VI and IX, infallibly promulgated by the Roman Catholic Church Pope, Pope Pius IV, Giovan Angelo De Medici with the Council Fathers of the Roman Catholic Church Council of Trent.

Now either the Pope is the Pope or he is not. Which is it?

Either the Pope is infallible or he is not. Which is it?
 

Either the Doctrinal Canons Promulgated by the Pope
with an OEcumenical Council
are infallible or they are not.  Which is it?

IF the Pope is the Pope, and IF the Pope is infallible, and IF the Pope promulgates Doctrinal Canons with the Bishops of an Œcumenical Council, and IF such Doctrinal Canons are infallible, and IF the censure for disobeying or otherwise breaking any of these Doctrinal Canons is anathema, i.e. automatic excommunication, then no Pope in the future, and no Council of Bishops with the Pope, and no Synod of Bishops with the Pope in the future, can ever teach or do anything in the future which is contrary to anything any of the previous Councils/Synods of Bishops had done, or anything the new Pope’s predecessors had done.

The bottom line is that IF the Pope of the Satanic Vatican 2 church, Pope Paul 6, was a Roman Catholic Pope and was, therefore, infallible, and if the Bishops of Synod Vatican 2 - with Pope Paul 6 - were infallible as a Synod/Council, then both Pope Paul 6 with the Bishops of Synod Vatican 2, by the definition of primacy and infallibility, MUST teach EXACTLY the same things on the Mass which their predecessors taught, including Pope Pius IV with the Bishops of the Council of Trent.  This certainly includes Canons VI and IX.

But since the Satanic Vatican 2 church Pope, Pope Paul 6, Giovanni Battista Montini, promulgated the changes to the Mass in his Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum of Monday, April 6, 1969, in which he calls this changed "mass" the Novus Ordo Missae, the New Order of the Mass, this means that Pope Paul 6, Giovanni Battista Montini, was automatically excommunicated from the Roman Catholic Church for breaking Canons VI and IX of the Roman Catholic Church Pope Pius IV with the Bishops of the Roman Catholic Council of Trent, in the Solemn Session held on Monday, September 17, 1562, A.D.

This also means that Pope Paul 6, Giovanni Battista Montini, did NOT believe in either the Papal Primacy or the Papal Infallibility of the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church, because, IF he really did believe these things, he would have OBEYED all of the Canons and Decrees of the Roman Catholic Council of Trent promulgated with the Pope, including Canons VI and IX of the Roman Catholic Church Pope Pius IV with the Bishops of the Roman Catholic Council of Trent, which were promulgated, under censure of anathema, on Monday, September 17, 1562, A.D., just as all of his Pope predecessors up to Pope Pius IV, who issued them, had OBEYED them!!!

The bottom line is this:  BECAUSE Pope Paul 6, Giovanni Battista Montini, DISOBEYED Canons VI and IX of the Roman Catholic Church Pope Pius IV with the Bishops of the Roman Catholic Council of Trent, promulgated under Papal/Conciliar Infallibility, on Monday, September 17, 1562, A.D., Pope Paul 6, Giovanni Battista Montini, not only automatically excommunicated himself from the Roman Catholic Church by this public act of DISOBEDIENCE, but, this excommunicated Pope, in being excommunicated, also became a public Apostate and a Heretic!

By the way, BECAUSE the successors of Pope Paul 6, Giovanni Battista Montini [Friday, June 21, 1963 - Sunday, August 6, 1978] publicly went along with these changes, and publicly used the NEW MASS in violation of Canons VI and IX of the Roman Catholic Church Pope Pius IV with the Bishops of the Roman Catholic Council of Trent, both Pope John-Paul 1, Albano Luciani [Saturday, August 26, 1978 - Thursday, September 28, 1978] and Pope JP-2, a.k.a.  John-Paul 2, Karol Wyotya [Monday, October 16, 1978 - Friday, April 1, 2005], not only also automatically excommunicated themselves from the Roman Catholic Church by their numerous public acts of DISOBEDIENCE, but, these excommunicated Popes, in being excommunicated, also became public Apostates and Heretics!!!!

Thus, the GREAT APOSTATE, Pope JP-2; the GREAT HERETIC, Pope JP-2!!!  This is what the TRADITION of the GREAT APOSTATE, Pope JP-2; the GREAT HERETIC, Pope JP-2, is all about!!

To call his Apostate and Heretical "legacy" a holy or sacred "Tradition" is like calling Almighty God the Devil!!!  How dare the word "Tradition" be bastardized this way by the members of the Satanic Cult of the GREAT SAINT Pope JP-2!!!!!!  By the way, to call Pope JP-2 a "Saint" likewise bastardizes the Holy word "Saint"!!!  Such people such be ashamed of their gross ignorance!!!!

So, all of this logically means that either the Roman Catholic Church Pope, Pope Pius IV, Giovan Angelo De Medici [Friday, December 25, 1559 - Thursday, December 9, 1565], was not a Pope and not infallible with the Bishops of the Council of Trent, or that the Satanic Vatican 2 church Pope, Pope Paul 6, Giovanni Battista Montini [Friday, June 21, 1963 - Sunday, August 6, 1978], was not a Pope, and, with the Bishops of Council Vatican 2, were not infallible, and that the Satanic Vatican 2 church Pope, Pope John-Paul 2, Karol Wyotya [Monday, October 16, 1978 - Friday, April 1, 2005], was not a Pope and not infallible, because there is a clear contradiction here because, as Saint Thomas Aquinas teaches, "Truth cannot be Truth's contrary"  (Saint Thomas Aquinas [b. 1225 A.D. in Rocca Secca, Naples, Italy - d. 1274 A.D. in Fossa Nuova, Italy], Summa Contra Gentiles, IV,8) and moreover, since one truth cannot contradict another truth, every assertion contrary to the truth of Faith, We define to be altogether false (Fifth Lateran Council, [1512-1517], Session 1, Friday, December 19, 1513 A.D.), so which of these popes is teaching error and are teaching the truth?

So, which "infallible" Pope/Council is teaching the Truth
and which "infallible" Pope/Council is teaching error?

Is it the Roman Catholic Pope Pope Pius IV Giovan Angelo De Medici [Friday, December 25, 1559 - Thursday, December 9, 1565] with the Roman Catholic Council of Trent Solemn Session 22 Monday, September 17, 1562, A.D.???

Or, is it the Satanic Vatican 2 church Pope Pope Paul 6 Giovanni Battista Montini [Friday, June 21, 1963 - Sunday, August 6, 1978] with the  Satanic Vatican 2 church Synod Vatican 2???

Exhibit -  A-2
The Mass is a Sacrifice
Automatic Excommunication

The Roman Catholic Church Roman Catholic Church Pope Pope Pius IV Giovan Angelo De Medici [Friday, December 25, 1559 - Thursday, December 9, 1565] The Infallible Roman Catholic Pope, Pope Pius IV, along with the Council of Trent, Session 22, infallibly condemned and issued the censure of anathema, i.e. automatic excommunication, in perpetuity, to anyone and everyone, who would act contrary to the Canons on the Mass. This includes anyone who would deny the dogma that the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is a propitiatory sacrifice. CANON III  If any one saith, that the Sacrifice of the Mass is only a sacrifice of praise and of thanksgiving; or, that it is a bare commemoration of the Sacrifice consummated on the Cross, but not a propitiatory sacrifice; or, that it profits him only who receives; and that it ought not to be offered for the living and the dead for sins, pains, satisfactions, and other necessities; let him be anathema. This also includes anyone who would change the Canon of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass: CANON VI   If any one saith, that the Canon of the Mass contains errors, and is therefore to be abrogated [abolished]; let him be anathema. This likewise includes anyone who would condemn the Ancient Roman Rite of the Holy Sacrifice of the Catholic Mass: CANON IX   If any one saith, that the Rite of the Roman Church, according to which a part of the Canon and the words of Consecration are pronounced in a low tone, is to be condemned; or, that the Mass ought to be celebrated in the vulgar tongue only; or, that water ought not to be mixed with the wine that is to be offered in the chalice, for that it is contrary to the institution of Christ; let him be anathema. The Holy Sacrifice of the Catholic Mass defended by the Mass Canons of the Council of Trent. The Council of Trent did this in conjunction with the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church, His Holiness, Pope Pius IV, who presided over Public Session 22 which issued these Canons.

The Satanic Vatican 2 church Satanic Vatican 2 church Pope Pope Paul 6, Giovanni Battista Montini [Friday, June 21, 1963 - Sunday, August 6, 1978] Photo with the 6 PROTESTANTS who  actively helped to update, modernize, and synthesize the 16th Century Protestant Supper Meals into the New Mass, the NOR, Novus Ordo Rite What has the Satanic Vatican 2 church done? Question:  Has the Satanic Vatican 2 church, including all of its Clergy who use the NOR, i.e. the Novus Ordo Rite, a.k.a. the New Mass, or Novus Ordo Missae, in fact incurred the censure of automatic excommunication, i.e. anathema?  Does this also include the Popes of the Satanic Vatican 2 church, most especially, Pope Paul 6 and Pope JP-2??? The answer is YES!   It is public knowledge that Pope Paul 6 and Pope JP-2 did in fact used the Novus Ordo Rite, a.k.a. the New Mass, or Novus Ordo Missae which violates the Canons of the Council of Trent and of Pope Pius IV on the Mass. As a matter of fact, JP-2 brazenly made up his own special diabolical Novus Ordo Rites. This includes various PAGAN Liturgical Rites for the modernized, synthesized, updated 16th Century Protestant Supper Meal of Luther, Cranmer, etc.!  These various PAGAN, NON-CATHOLIC, actually ANTI-CATHOLIC, Liturgical Rites were made up by the infallible Pope, JP-2.  These various PAGAN, NON-CATHOLIC, actually ANTI-CATHOLIC, Liturgical Rites, which were made up by the GREAT infallible Pope, JP-2, include, but are not limited to, such abominations as:  THE NUDE NOR, THE PAGAN TILAK NOR, THE PAGAN AZTEC NOR, etc., etc.!!! The Pope of the Satanic Vatican 2 church, Pope JP-2, publicly and brazenly instituted the NUDE NOR.  This X-Rated photograph was taken in Papua, New Guinea, on Tuesday, May 8, 1984, where the Epistle is read by a bare-breasted woman. There are a number of other photographs of nude, or at least, topless, women who helped the GREAT PORNO POPE, Pope JP-2, institute the GREAT NUDE NOR!  The GREAT Pope, JP-2, thus becomes this first GREAT PORNO POPE of the Satanic Vatican 2 church.  The GREAT PORNO Pope, JP-2, with his GREAT NON-CATHOLIC, ANTI-CATHOLIC, PAGAN Liturgical Rites, which he made up, which include the GREAT PORNO, NON-CATHOLIC, ANTI-CATHOLIC, PAGAN “mass”, certainly fulfilled the ancient prophecies of the abomination of desolation!  Thus, the ultimate devolution of the Protestant influence on the Popes of the Satanic Vatican 2 church!

Now either the Pope is the Pope or he is not. Which is it?

Either the Pope is infallible or he is not. Which is it?

IF the Pope is the Pope and IF the Pope is infallible, then no Pope in the future can ever teach or do anything contrary to any of his predecessors.

The bottom line is that IF the Popes of the Satanic Vatican 2 church, Pope Paul 6 and Pope John-Paul 2, were Popes and were infallible, then they, by the definition of primacy and infallibility, MUST teach EXACTLY the same things their predecessors taught, including Pope Pius IV, with the Council of Trent, on the Mass.  This certainly includes Canons III, VI and IX.

But since the Popes of the Satanic Vatican 2 church, Pope Paul 6 and Pope John-Paul 2, and their church used, and still continue to use, since the death of these two Popes, the NOR, the Novus Ordo Rite, in whatever way, e.g. the NUDE NOR, the AZTEC NOR, etc., this logically means that either the Roman Catholic Church Pope, Pope Pius IV, Giovan Angelo De Medici [Friday, December 25, 1559 - Thursday, December 9, 1565], was not a Pope and not infallible, or that the Satanic Vatican 2 church Pope, Pope Paul 6, Giovanni Battista Montini [Friday, June 21, 1963 - Sunday, August 6, 1978], and that the Satanic Vatican 2 church Pope, Pope John-Paul 2, Karol Wyotya [Monday, October 16, 1978 - Friday, April 1, 2005], were not Popes and not infallible, because there is a clear contradiction here because, as Saint Thomas Aquinas teaches, "Truth cannot be Truth's contrary"  (Saint Thomas Aquinas [b. 1225 A.D. in Rocca Secca, Naples, Italy - d. 1274 A.D. in Fossa Nuova, Italy], Summa Contra Gentiles, IV,8) and moreover, since one truth cannot contradict another truth, every assertion contrary to the truth of Faith, We define to be altogether false (Fifth Lateran Council, [1512-1517], Session 1, Friday, December 19, 1513 A.D.), so which of these popes is teaching error and are teaching the truth?

So, which "infallible pope(s)" is/are teaching the Truth
and which "infallible pope(s)" is/are teaching error?

Is it the Roman Catholic Pope Pope Pius IV Giovan Angelo De Medici [Friday, December 25, 1559 - Thursday, December 9, 1565]?

Or, is it the Satanic Vatican 2 church Pope Pope Paul 6 Giovanni Battista Montini [Friday, June 21, 1963 - Sunday, August 6, 1978]?

Or, is it the Satanic Vatican 2 church Pope Pope John-Paul 2 Karol Wyotya [Monday, October 16, 1978 - Friday, April 1, 2005]?

QUO PRIMUM TEMPORE
Forbidding Any Changes to the Missal

Pope Saint Pius V
Antonio-Michele Ghislieri
[Friday, January 7, 1566 - Monday, May 1, 1572]

AN INFALLIBLE DOCUMENT OF SAINT PIUS V
For all ROMAN Catholics!

PIUS EPISCOPUS

Pius Bishop

SERVUS SERVORUM DEI

Servant of the Servants of God

AD PERPETUAM REI MEMORIAM
(For a Perpetual Memorial of the Matter)

Where the first, upon Our elevation to the Apostolic throne, We gladly turned Our mind and energies, and directed all Our thoughts, to the matter of preserving incorrupt the public worship of the Church; and We have striven, with God's help, by every means in Our power to achieve that purpose.

Whereas amongst other decrees of the holy Council of Trent, We were charged with revision and re-issue of the sacred books, to wit, the Catechism, the Missal and the Breviary; and whereas We have with God's consent published a Catechism for the instruction of the faithful and thoroughly revised the Breviary for the due performance of the Divine Office, We next, in order that the Missal and Breviary might be in perfect harmony, as is right and proper (considering that it is altogether fitting that there should be in the Church only one appropriate manner of Psalmody and one sole rite of celebrating Mass), deemed it necessary to give Our immediate attention to what still remained to be done, namely the re-editing of the Missal with the least possible delay.

We resolved accordingly to delegate this task to a select committee of scholars; and they, having at every stage of their work and with the utmost care collated the ancient codices in Our Vatican Library and reliable, original or amended, codices from elsewhere, and having also consulted the writing of ancient and approved authors who have bequeathed to us records relating to the said sacred rites, thus restored the Missal [of the Ancient Roman Rite] itself to the pristine form and rite of the holy Fathers.

When this production had been subjected to close scrutiny and further amended We, after mature consideration, ordered that the final result be forthwith printed and published in Rome, so that all may enjoy the fruit of this labor; that priests may know what prayers to use, and what rites and ceremonies they are to observe henceforward in the celebration of Masses.

Now therefore, in order that all everywhere may adopt and observe what has been delivered to them by the Holy Roman Church, Mother and Mistress of the other churches, it shall be unlawful henceforth and forever throughout the Christian world to sing or to read Masses according to any formula other than that of this Missal published by Us.

This ordinance to apply to all churches and chapels, with or without care of souls, patriarchal, collegiate, and parochial, be they secular or belonging to any religious Order, whether of men, including the military Orders, or of women, in which conventual Masses are or ought to be sung aloud in choir or read privately according to the rites and customs of the Roman Church.

To apply, moreover, even if the said churches have been in any way exempted, whether by indult of the Apostolic See, by custom, by privilege, or even by oath or Apostolic confirmation, or have their rights and faculties guaranteed to them in any other way whatsoever, saving only those in which the practice of saying Mass differently was granted over 200 years ago simultaneously with the Apostolic See's institution and confirmation of the church, and those in which there has prevailed a similar custom followed continuously for a period of not less than 200 years; in which cases We in no wise rescind their prerogatives or customs aforesaid.

Nevertheless, if this Missal which We have seen fit to publish be more agreeable to these last, We hereby permit them to celebrate Mass according to its rite, subject to the consent of their bishop or prelate, and of their whole Chapter, all else to the contrary notwithstanding.

All other churches aforesaid are hereby denied the use of other missals, which are to be wholly and entirely rejected; and by this present Constitution, which shall have the force of law in perpetuity, We order and enjoin under pain of Our displeasure that nothing be added to Our newly published Missal, nothing omitted therefrom, and nothing whatsoever altered therein.

We specifically command each and every Patriarch, administrator and all other persons of whatsoever ecclesiastical dignity, be they even Cardinals of the Holy ROMAN Church or possessed of any other rank or preeminence, and We order them by virtue of holy obedience to sing or to read the Mass according to the rite and manner and norm herein laid down by Us, and henceforward to discontinue and utterly discard all other rubrics and rites of other missals, howsoever ancient, which they have been accustomed to follow, and not to presume in celebrating Mass to introduce any ceremonies or recite any prayers other than those contained in this Missal.

Furthermore, by these presents and by virtue of Our Apostolic authority We give and grant in perpetuity that for the singing or reading of Mass in any church whatsoever, this Missal must be followed absolutely, without any scruple of conscience or fear of incurring any penalty, judgment or censure, and may be freely and lawfully used.

Nor shall bishops, administrators, canons, chaplains, and other secular priests, or religious of whatsoever Order or by whatsoever title designated, be obliged to celebrate Mass otherwise than enjoined by Us.

We likewise order and declare that no one whosoever shall be forced or coerced into altering this Missal and that this present Constitution can never be revoked or modified, but shall forever remain valid and have the force of law, notwithstanding previous constitutions or edicts of provincial or synodal councils, and notwithstanding the usage of the churches aforesaid, established by very long and even immemorial prescription, saving only usage of more than 200 years.

Consequently it is Our will, and by the same authority We decree, that one month after publication of this Our constitution and Missal, priests of the Roman Curia shall be obliged to sing or to read the Mass in accordance therewith; others south of the Alps, after three months; those who live beyond the Alps, after six months or as soon as the Missal becomes available for purchase.

Furthermore, in order that the said Missal may be preserved incorrupt and kept free from defects and errors, the penalty for non-observance in the case of all printers resident in territory directly or indirectly subject to Ourselves and the Holy Roman Church shall be forfeiture of their books and a fine of 100 gold ducats payable by that very fact to the Apostolic Treasury.

In the case of those resident in other parts of the world, it shall be automatic excommunication and other penalties at Our discretion; and by Our Apostolic authority and the tenor of these presents, We also decree that they must not dare or presume either to print or to publish or to sell, or in any way to take delivery of such books without Our approval and consent, or without express permission of the Apostolic Commissary in the said parts appointed by Us for that purpose. Each of the said printers must receive from the aforementioned Commissary a standard Missal to serve as an exemplar and agree faithfully therewith, varying in no wise from the first impression printed in Rome.

But, since it would be difficult for this present Constitution to be transmitted to all parts of the world and to come to the notice of all concerned simultaneously, We direct that it be, as usual, posted and published at the doors of the Basilica of the Prince of Apostles, at those of the Apostolic Chancery, and at the end of the Campo dei Fiori.

Moreover, We direct that printed copies of the same, signed by a notary public and authenticated with the seal of an ecclesiastical dignitary, shall possess the same unqualified and indubitable validity everywhere and in every country that would attend the display there of Our present text.

Accordingly, no one whosoever is permitted to infringe or rashly contravene this notice of Our permission, statute, ordinance, command, direction, grant, indult, declaration, will, decree and prohibition.

Should any person venture to do so, let him understand that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.

Given at St. Peter's, Rome, in the year of Our Lord's Incarnation one thousand five hundred and seventy, on the fourteenth day of July in the fifth year of Our Pontificate.

Caesar Glorierus

H. Cumin.

Anno a Nativitate Domini 1570, Indict. 13, die vero 19 mensis Julii, Pontificatus sanctissimi in Christo Patris et D. N. Pii divina providentia Papae V anno ejus quinto, retroscriptae litterae Principis Apostolorum, ac Cancellariae Apostolicae, et in acie Campi Flore, ut moris est, per nos Joannem Andream Rogerium et Philibertum Cappuis Cursores.

Scipio De Octavianis, Magister Cursorum

Commentary on Quo Primum Tempore of Saint Pius V

On Tuesday, July 14, 1570 A.D., an infallible Roman Catholic Pope, Saint Pius V, Antonio-Michele Ghislieri [Friday, January 7, 1566 - Monday, May 1, 1572], issued an infallible document binding ALL Roman Catholics, at that time and until the end of the world, not to change the Catholic Missal which he had just published for offering the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.  This Missal had been restored to the way Mass was offered at least as far back as the Sacramentary (Missal) of Gregory I [Friday, September 3, 590 - Monday, March 12, 604], and possibly even earlier than that.

This infallible document includes a penalty of automatic excommunication for anyone violating its decrees, although it was written in the style common for the Popes of that and previous centuries to write.

Now some have maintained that QUO PRIMUM TEMPORE is no longer in force.  However, “Canon 5 remaining in full force, a custom either against or beyond the law may be revoked by a contrary custom or law; however, a law, unless it makes express mention thereof, does not abolish centary [100 year old] or immemorial customs, nor does a general law abolish particular customs” (Codex Iuris Canonici, 30.)

It is interesting how it seems that the Satanic Vatican 2 church does not want you or anyone else to know about this very important infallible Papal Document, or Papal Bulla or Bull as it was called in those days, by the name of QUO PRIMUM TEMPORE!?

Why?  Probably because you just might discover the Truth, from reading Canons 6, 8 and 9 of the Council of Trent and QUO PRIMUM TEMPORE, that Pope Paul 6, Giovanni Battista Montini [Friday, June 21, 1963 - Sunday, August 6, 1978], and ALL of his Clergy, i.e., all of the Cardinals, Bishops and Priests of the Satanic Vatican 2 church who use the "New Mass", which is to say, the NOR - the Novus Ordo Rite of "mass", or the Novus Ordo Missae, as Paul 6 called it, were automatically EXCOMMUNICATED from the Roman Catholic Church!?

Exhibit -  A-3
Changes to the Missal Forbidden
Automatic Excommunication

The Roman Catholic Church Roman Catholic Church Pope Pope Saint Pius V Antonio-Michele Ghislieri [Friday, January 7, 1566 -  Monday, May 1, 1572] The Infallible Roman Catholic Pope, Pope Saint Pius V, issued his Papal Bull, QUO PRIMUM TEMPORE, which FORBIDS ANY CHANGES to the Missal. "...it shall be unlawful henceforth and forever throughout the Christian world to sing or to read Masses according to any formula other than that of this Missal published by Us." "...this present Constitution, which shall have the force of law in perpetuity, We order and enjoin under pain of Our displeasure that nothing be added to Our newly published Missal, nothing omitted therefrom, and nothing whatsoever altered therein." "We ORDER them... not to presume in celebrating Mass to introduce any ceremonies or recite any prayers other than those contained in this Missal." "Furthermore, by these presents and by virtue of Our Apostolic authority We give and grant in perpetuity that for the singing or reading of Mass in any church whatsoever, this Missal must be followed absolutely, without any scruple of conscience or fear of incurring any penalty, judgment or censure, and may be freely and lawfully used." "We likewise order and declare that no one whosoever shall be forced or coerced into altering this Missal and that this present Constitution can never be revoked or modified, but shall forever remain valid and have the force of law..." "Consequently it is Our will, and by the same authority We decree, that one month after publication of this Our constitution and Missal, priests of the Roman Curia shall be obliged to sing or to read the Mass in accordance therewith..." "Furthermore, in order that the said Missal may be preserved incorrupt and kept free from defects and errors, the penalty for non-observance in the case of all printers resident in territory directly or indirectly subject to Ourselves and the Holy Roman Church shall be forfeiture of their books and a fine of 100 gold ducats payable by that very fact to the Apostolic Treasury." "In the case of those resident in other parts of the world, it shall be automatic excommunication and other penalties at Our discretion..." "Accordingly, NO ONE WHOSOEVER is permitted to infringe or rashly contravene this notice of Our permission, statute, ordinance, command, direction, grant, indult, declaration, will, decree and prohibition." "Should any person venture to do so, let him understand that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul."

The Satanic Vatican 2 church Satanic Vatican 2 church Pope Pope Paul 6 Giovanni Battista Montini [Friday, June 21, 1963 -  Sunday, August 6, 1978]   Photo with the 6 PROTESTANTS who actively helped to update, modernize, and synthesize the 16th Century Protestant Supper Meals into the New Mass, the NOR, Novus Ordo Rite What has the Satanic Vatican 2 church done? Question:   Has the Satanic Vatican 2 church, including Pope Paul 6 and Pope JP-2 CHANGED the Missale Romanum which Pope Saint Pius V issued on Tuesday, July 14, 1570 A.D.? The answer is YES!  It is public knowledge that Pope Paul 6 and Pope JP-2 did in fact used the Novus Ordo Rite, a.k.a. the New Mass, or Novus Ordo Missae which violates the Canons of the Council of Trent and of Pope Pius IV on changing the Mass, but also changing the actual Missal in which the prayers and rubrics for the Ancient Roman Rite of the Catholic Mass are printed.  The infallible Pope Paul 6 DISOBEYED the Roman Catholic Council of Trent and the infallible Pope, Saint Pius V. Under Pope JP-2 a variety of NOR Missals have sprung up, some not even printed in book form, but made up by local V-2 Clergy, so I have been given to understand. As a matter of fact, JP-2 brazenly made up his own special diabolical Novus Ordo Rites, including such abominations as THE NUDE NOR, THE PAGAN TILAK NOR, THE PAGAN AZTEC NOR, etc., etc.!!! Therefore, it should be self-evident to everyone who is not morally and spiritually blind, the GREAT Pope John-Paul 2 DISOBEYED the Roman Catholic Council of Trent and the infallible Pope, Saint Pius V. The Pope of the Satanic Vatican 2 church, Pope JP-2, publicly and brazenly instituted the NUDE NOR.  This X-Rated photograph was taken in Papua, New Guinea, on Tuesday, May 8, 1984, where the Epistle is read by a bare-breasted woman. There are a number of other photographs of nude, or at least, topeless, women who helped the GREAT PORNO POPE, Pope JP-2, institute the NUDE NOR! The GREAT Pope, JP-2, thus becomes this first GREAT PORNO POPE of the Satanic Vatican 2 church with his PORNO “mass”, certainly fulfilling the ancient prophecies of the abomination of desolation! Thus, the ultimate end of Protestant influence on the Popes of the Satanic Vatican 2 church! The irony is that some of the NOR's instituted by the GREAT Pope JP-2 are no longer Protestant, but PAGAN!!!

Now either the Pope is the Pope or he is not. Which is it?

Either the Pope is infallible or he is not. Which is it?

IF the Pope is the Pope and IF the Pope is infallible, then no Pope in the future can ever teach or do anything contrary to any of his predecessors.

The bottom line is that IF the Popes of the Satanic Vatican 2 church, Pope Paul 6 and Pope John-Paul 2, were Popes and were infallible, then they, by the definition of primacy and infallibility, MUST teach EXACTLY the same things their predecessors taught, including Pope Saint Pius V, who forbade any changes to the Missal he published.

But since the Popes of the Satanic Vatican 2 church, Pope Paul 6 and Pope John-Paul 2, and their church used, and still continue to use, since the death of these two Popes, the NOR, the Novus Ordo Rite, in whatever way, e.g. the NUDE NOR, the AZTEC NOR, etc., this logically means that either the Roman Catholic Church Pope, Pope Saint Pius V, Antonio-Michele Ghislieri [Friday, January 7, 1566 -  Monday, May 1, 1572], was not a Pope and not infallible, or that the Satanic Vatican 2 church Pope, Pope Paul 6, Giovanni Battista Montini [Friday, June 21, 1963 - Sunday, August 6, 1978], and that the Satanic Vatican 2 church Pope, Pope John-Paul 2, Karol Wyotya [Monday, October 16, 1978 - Friday, April 1, 2005], were not Popes and not infallible, because there is a clear contradiction here because, as Saint Thomas Aquinas teaches, "Truth cannot be Truth's contrary"  (Saint Thomas Aquinas [b. 1225 A.D. in Rocca Secca, Naples, Italy - d. 1274 A.D. in Fossa Nuova, Italy], Summa Contra Gentiles, IV,8) and moreover, since one truth cannot contradict another truth, every assertion contrary to the truth of Faith, We define to be altogether false (Fifth Lateran Council, [1512-1517], Session 1, Friday, December 19, 1513 A.D.), so which of these popes is teaching error and are teaching the truth?

So, which "infallible pope(s)" is/are teaching the Truth
and which "infallible pope(s)" is/are teaching error?

Is it the Roman Catholic Pope Pope Saint Pius V Antonio-Michele Ghislieri [Friday, January 7, 1566 - Monday, May 1, 1572]?

Or, is it the Satanic Vatican 2 church Pope Pope Paul 6 Giovanni Battista Montini [Friday, June 21, 1963 - Sunday, August 6, 1978]?

Or, is it the Satanic Vatican 2 church Pope Pope John-Paul 2 Karol Wyotya [Monday, October 16, 1978 - Friday, April 1, 2005]?

Exhibit -  A-4
Altar of Sacrifice vs. the Primitive Tableform

The Roman Catholic Church Roman Catholic Church Pope Pope Pius XII Eugenio Pacelli [Thursday, March 2, 1939 - Thursday, October 9, 1958] The Infallible Roman Catholic Pope, Pope Pius XII, infallibly condemned whoever would want to do away with the Altar of SACRIFICE to be used for offering the Catholic Rite of the Holy SACRIFICE of the Mass He said in part: "one would be straying from the straight path were he to wish the altar restored to its primitive tableform". Here is the context of the above quote:  "62. Assuredly it is a wise and most laudable thing to return in spirit and affection to the sources of the sacred liturgy." "For research in this field of study, by tracing it back to its origins, contributes valuable assistance towards a more thorough and careful investigation of the significance of feast-days, and of the meaning of the texts and sacred ceremonies employed on their occasion." "But it is neither wise nor laudable to reduce everything to antiquity by every possible device." "Thus, to cite some instances, one would be straying from the straight path were he to wish the altar restored to its primitive tableform; were he to want black excluded as a color for the liturgical vestments; were he to forbid the use of sacred images and statues in Churches; were he to order the crucifix so designed that the divine Redeemer's body shows no trace of His cruel sufferings; and lastly were he to disdain and reject polyphonic music or singing in parts, even where it conforms to regulations issued by the Holy See" (Pope Pius XII, Eugenio Pacelli, Encyclical, Mediator Dei, On the Sacred Liturgy, # 62, Thursday, November 20, 1947 A.D.).

The Satanic Vatican 2 church Satanic Vatican 2 church Pope Pope Paul 6, Giovanni Battista Montini [Friday, June 21, 1963 -  Sunday, August 6, 1978] What has the Satanic Vatican 2 church done?   Question:  Has the Satanic Vatican 2 church in fact restored to its primitive tableform the Altar? The answer is YES!  Pope Paul 6 promulgated the NOR which uses a Table in the place of the Altar of Sacrifice. In fact, the Satanic Vatican 2 church has not only restored to its primitive tableform the Altar of Sacrifice, the Satanic Vatican 2 church has also ripped out the Altar of Sacrifice in every church and chapel under their control, so it seems, with but few exceptions. Why? Because history has repeated itself: "# 38. THE DESTRUCTION OF ALTARS. The destruction of the altars was a measure so distinct in its meaning that we have never been able to conceive how the meaning could be misunderstood. This measure meant a bitter hatred of the Mass and a hatred directed against the Mass itself, not merely against some obscure abuse...Surely if these reformers had desired only to remove an abuse, but were full of reverence for the great Christian Sacrifice itself, they would not have destroyed and desecrated the altars and substituted tables in their place, alleging as their reason, in unqualified terms, that the form of a table shall more move the simple from the superstitious opinions of the Popish Mass unto the right use of the Lord's Supper. For the use of an altar is to make sacrifice upon it; the use of a table is to serve men to eat upon it."  (The Catholic Bishops of England, Vindication of the Bull Apostolicae Curae, # 38, 1898 A.D.; emphasis added.). So there you have it - the use of an ALTAR is to make SACRIFICE upon it; the use of a TABLE is to serve men to EAT upon it. Thus, the Protestant influence has caused the ALTAR of Sacrifice to be removed from most churches and replaced by a TABLE which emphasizes not the SACRIFICE of the Mass, but the EATING of a SUPPER/MEAL!

Now either the Pope is the Pope or he is not. Which is it?

Either the Pope is infallible or he is not. Which is it?

IF the Pope is the Pope and IF the Pope is infallible, then no Pope in the future can ever teach or do anything contrary to any of his predecessors.

The bottom line is that IF John-Paul 2 was the Pope and infallible, then he, by the definition of primacy and infallibility, MUST teach EXACTLY the same things he predecessors taught, including Pope Pius XII who taught that one would be straying from the straight path were he to wish the altar restored to its primitive tableform(Pope Pius XII, Eugenio Pacelli [Thursday, March 2, 1939 - Thursday, October 9, 1958], Encyclical Mediator Dei, On the Sacred Liturgy, # 62, Thursday, November 20, 1947).

But since Pope JP-2, John-Paul 2, Karol Wyotya [Monday, October 16, 1978 - Friday, April 1, 2005] and his church uses the primitive tableform, this logically means that either Pope Pius XII, Eugenio Pacelli [Thursday, March 2, 1939 - Thursday, October 9, 1958], was not a Pope and not infallible, or that Pope John-Paul 2, Karol Wyotya [Monday, October 16, 1978 Friday, April 1, 2005], was not a Pope and not infallible because there is a clear contradiction here because, as Saint Thomas Aquinas teaches, "Truth cannot be Truth's contrary"  (Saint Thomas Aquinas [b. 1225 A.D. in Rocca Secca, Naples, Italy - d. 1274 A.D. in Fossa Nuova, Italy], Summa Contra Gentiles, IV,8) and moreover, since one truth cannot contradict another truth, every assertion contrary to the truth of Faith, We define to be altogether false (Fifth Lateran Council, [1512-1517], Session 1, Friday, December 19, 1513 A.D.), one of these two popes is teaching error and one is teaching the truth.

So, which infallible Pope is teaching the Truth
and which infallible Pope is teaching error?

Is it the Roman Catholic Pope Pope Pius XII Eugenio Pacelli [Thursday, March 2, 1939 - Thursday, October 9, 1958]?

Or, is it the Satanic Vatican 2 church Pope Pope John-Paul 2 Karol Wyotya [Monday, October 16, 1978 - Friday, April 1, 2005]?

---

Pope JP-2, Karol Wyotya
[Monday, October 16, 1978 -
Friday, April 1, 2005]

"God is NOT in the punishment business!"

JP-2 is ultimately responsible for the heresy, so widespread, in the Satanic Vatican 2 church that "God is NOT in the punishment business!"

Standing to Receive the NON-Transubstantiated Bread and Wine

JP-2 is likewise ultimately responsible for the enforcement, in the NOR, of the BLACK RUBRIC of the First Protestant Archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas Cranmer, first published in his Second Prayer Book of Edward VI in 1552, which no longer contained Transubstantiation and therefore logically forbade kneeling to receive the NON-Transubstantiated bread and wine.

Original Text of the BLACK RUBRIC
of the First Protestant Archbishop of Canterbury,
Thomas Cranmer, in Elizabethean English

Archbishop Thomas Cranmer [1489 A.D. - 1556 A.D.] First Protestant Archbishop of Canterbury

ALthough no ordre can be so perfectlye deuysed, but it may be of some, eyther for theyr ignoraunce and infirmitie, or els of malice and obstinacie, mysconstrued, depraued, and interpreted in a wrong parte. And yet because brotherly charitie willeth, that so muche as conueniently may be, offences should be taken away:  therfore we willing to dooe the same. Wheras it is ordeyned in the booke of common prayer, in the administracion of the Lordes Supper, that the Communicantes kneelynge shoulde receiue the holye Communion:  whiche thyng beynge well mente, for a sygnificacyon of the humble and gratefull acknowledgeynge of the benefites of Christe, geuen unto the woorthye receyuer, and to auoyde the prophanacion and dysordre whiche about the holye communion myghte elles ensue. Lest yet the same kneelynge myght be thought or taken otherwyse, we dooe declare that it is not mente thereby, that any adoracion is doone, or oughte to bee doone, eyther unto the Sacramentall bread or wyne there bodelye receyued, or unto anye reall and essenciall presence there beeyng of Chrystes naturall fleshe and bloude. For as concernynge the Sacramentall bread and wyne, they remayne styll in theyr verye naturall substaunces, and therfore may not bee adored, for that were Idolatrye to be abhorred of all faythfull christians. And as concernynge the naturall bodye and bloud of our sauiour Christ, they are in heauen and not here: for it is agaynst the trueth of Christes true naturall bodye, to be in moe places then in one at one tyme.    (THE BOOKE OF COMMON PRAYER, a.k.a. Second Prayer Book of Edward VI, Black Rubric, 1552 A.D.)

This is exampled in the action taken by
the Bishops of the Satanic Vatican 2 church
of the American Satanic Vatican 2 church:

“The bishops of the United States have decided that the normative posture for receiving Holy Communion should be standing.  Kneeling is NOT a licit [lawful] posture for receiving Holy Communion in the dioceses of the United States of America unless the bishop of a particular diocese has derogated from this norm in an individual and extraordinary circumstance” (Official Newsletter of the United States Bishops’ Committee on the Liturgy, July, 2002).