|
|
Vatican II Rites --
Are they valid?
by
Eugene A. W. Howson
Surrey, England
addendum by Gordon
Cardinal Bateman
Given here is a brief explanation of the Roman Pontifical for the “ordination”
of bishops as revised by decree of the Second Vatican Council, and published
under the “authority” of (false) Paul VI. Then follows an explanation of
the Decree of Pope Leo XIII (Apostolicae Curae) where he defines for all
time his judgment against Anglican orders as being totally ineffective.
What Leo XIII says in the Church’s binding judgment on the Anglicans can
equally be applied against the defects inherent in the Vatican II “ordinations.”
Distinction Between Bishop & Priest
Before considering the new Vatican II Ordinal, it seems appropriate to
make a few remarks on the distinction between priest and bishop, and thus
determine what power or powers are given to the latter over and above those
given to the priest.
Whatever may have been the opinions in the past or even in the present
to the contrary, it seems abundantly clear to the writer, that as there
are only Seven Sacraments, of which one is that of Order,
the priest having received this Sacrament when he was ordained a priest,
cannot receive it again when he is consecrated as Bishop, for this is one
of the Three Sacraments which cannot be received more than once. It is
clear from the fact that the Catholic Church insists that a candidate for
the Episcopate must firstly be a priest, and that the consecration
rite cannot impart the character of the Sacrament of Order. If it could,
then there would have been no need for the Church to insist upon this condition.
Episcopal Power & Duties
Apart from the Power of Jurisdiction, which is not bestowed by a
sacramental rite, but by a commission received from Christ or from the
lawful Ecclesiastical authority, since its direct object is not the production
of the spiritual effect of Power and Grace in the soul, the essential Power
which differentiates the Episcopacy from the Priesthood, is that the former
alone has the power to transmit the priesthood. This opinion is confirmed
by St. Jerome and others. Just as the Power to forgive sins was given by
Christ as an annexation to, and consequent to the priesthood, so the priest
is elevated to the highest Rank of Priesthood when the Power to Transmit
the Sacrament of Order is Annexed to the Consecration Rite to his priesthood.
The essentials of the Rite whereby the priest is raised to the Episcopate
consists of the Imposition of the Bishop’s hands (that is The Matter of
the Sacrament), and the recitation of the prescribed prayer (that is the
Form of the Sacrament); but like all the sacraments, there must be a Signification
of what that power is that is to be Conferred. In other words, what the
Church means by Ministerium Suum (the high priesthood) the rank of Bishop.
The Form itself does not specify this in the old Ordinal, but it does specify
the duties of the Bishop with the words: “Episcopus oportet, judicare,
interpretari, consecrare, ordinare, offere, battizare, et confirmare.”
Deliberate Omissions
In the new rite, the Matter is still the laying on of the hands, whilst
the Form is more explicit in its Signification than in the old-Quoting
thus - from the English version issued in 1968 by the International Commission
on the English in the Liturgy, (ICEL) the Essential part of the Form says:
“Father you know all hearts. You have chosen
your servants for the Office of Bishop. May they be shepherds to your holy
flock, and high priests blameless in your sight, ministering to you night
and day: May they always gain the blessing of your favour and offer the
gifts of your holy Church.
Through the Spirit who gives the grace of high priesthood,
grant them the power to forgive sins as you have commanded, to assign ministries
as you have decreed, and to loose every bond by authority which you
gave to your apostles.
May they be pleasing to you by their gentleness and purity
of heart, presenting a fragrant offering to you through Jesus Christ, Your
Son, whom glory and power and honour are yours with the Holy Spirit in
your holy Church, now and forever. Amen.
No Power to Ordain, Confirm, Consecrate
The traditional liturgy and rites were to have needed change in order to
simplify and clarify obscurities, yet in the Vatican II ceremony we see
the “power to forgive sins” being given to Bishops, whilst not giving this
power to priests. What strange theological reasoning could there be behind
such a change?
There is no mention of “Power to Ordain,” the essence of the High priesthood,
or is the word “assign ministries as you have decreed,” supposed
to mean the “Power to Ordain?” If so, why not say “To Ordain?” Although
the English version uses this phrase, “Assign,” etc, it does not appear
in the original Latin text, where this second power is: “Ut distribuant
munera secundum praeceptum.” What these, “Munera Gifts” are supposed to
be, the rite is silent. Why? And why is there this discrepancy between
the Vatican II Latin version and the ICEL English translation? There is
no prima facie evidence that the new rite Bishop has any power to Ordain
and thereby pass on the powers of the priesthood, even if the Rite for
Ordaining priests used in the Vatican II rite was a valid one. Although
it is generally agreed that a simple priest can be authorized to confirm,
the Bishop is the normal minister for this Sacrament, yet no mention of
this power, nor his power to consecrate Holy Oils. So even for the sake
of argument the word “Munera” (Gifts) was intended to mean these other
powers, why does not a revised rite, whose alleged object was to clarify,
not say so? In any event the English version, which is the one used in
English-speaking countries, has nothing which could possibly be interpreted
to mean either to Confirm or to Consecrate.
One can therefore only conclude that this new rite is like that for
the Anglican priesthood condemned by Leo XIII as totally invalid.
It fails to give that essential power belonging only to the bishop, the
power to Ordain. This is a spiritual power, the powers to assigning and
loosing (in the new rite) are only judiciary powers.
How can one draw any other conclusion, when the Reformers deliberately
suppressed the Catholic Rite of the Apostolic Tradition, and drew up a
new one deliberately leaving out the Essential reason which the Catholic
Church had for raising a priest to the Episcopacy!
It follows, therefore, not only from the changes in the Ordinal for
the priesthood, but confirmed by the one for the Episcopacy too, that this
is not the catholic religion, but a new Protestant religion, falsely calling
itself “Catholic,” having neither priest nor bishop but only laymen as
ministers.
It is true that the new rite uses matter and form, but only to resemble
the old [apostolic] rite; but what is the value of its words in this New
Form, if the meaning they intend to convey is not stated there or anywhere
else in this New rite. When the principal meaning is omitted, how can one
conclude rationally that the new meaning of its intention in the new rite
is in fact the same as in the Old Rite! To maintain that it does, is to
make a mockery and nonsense of Language, which God has given to man solely
to convey meaning.
It may be of interest to note, that whatever the theological importance
of the ceremony is, or is not, that the anointing of the hands of the bishop-elect
has been abolished!
Validity of the Vatican II Ordination Rite
To reflect on the validity or invalidity of the New Vatican II Ordination
rite of 1968 is not only reasonable, but also a prudent act. It is easily
accomplished once we come to understand that we have no less an authority
than the Papal Bulla, “Apostolicae Curae” issued by Leo XIII on Sept. 18,
1896, one of our greatest modern-day Popes, to test the validity or invalidity
of this “new rite.”
Back in the 1800’s certain Roman Catholic leaders with some of
their Anglican friends, were attempting “unity” with Rome, whilst entertaining
strange illusions as to how this would be accomplished. It was in the spring
of 1895, when the great Pope Leo XIII caused the English to see, that to
become a Catholic, one might still remain an Englishman, but not an
Anglican. In closing his very beautiful Letter, this Holy Father
recommended prayers to the Mother of God. He did this deliberately
for several reasons; one as a test of Anglican sincerity. If they were
to be united to the One True Church, then it was high time they should
show their love and trust in the help of the Mother of God. There was no
equivocating with this pope!
Following his Spring Letter, he gave another in June 1895. Pope Leo
traces for them and all of us, the image of the Church, sketches her prominent
features, bringing out in relief the characteristic mark of her Unity.
Never did Leo ever give up any of her Rights and Prerogatives. There
was no compromising and no suppressing of the truth in favour of Conciliarism
as has been done by the traitors of Vatican II.
It was again in the spring of 1896 when this holy Pontiff appointed
a Commission to re-examine the whole question of the “validity” of Anglican
“orders”. In September of that year, he decreed a most important and Infallible
Judgment, called “Apostolicae Curae”, showing that Anglican Orders, according
to the Ewardine Ordinal had in those Three centuries, regarded the Catholic
Apostolic Church as Null and Void. The re-examination of this Anglican
Ordinal proved that the Sacrament of Holy Orders no longer existed in the
Anglican Church.
Later that year Leo XIII settled the matter for all time, answering
in detail the three ingredients that make up a valid Sacrament: the Intent,
the matter, and the form of the rite of Ordination.
Those on both sides who tried for a false unity fell back and
admitted that The Judgment had overthrown their whole position.
In Pope Leo XIII’s Bulla declaring Anglican Orders invalid, we have
a powerful weapon to use against this false new Montinian Rite. Let us
use it, just as Leo XIII showed the substantial defects, and the
corrupt intention of the persons ordaining this rite and its intention
of manifestly excluding the essence of the priesthood, namely the power
to offer Divine Sacrifice, thus resulting in the invalidity of the Sacraments
when the Form does not truly Signify the Effect intended by Christ, and
the Church HE founded. Let us use and show up this new and false Vatican
II Montinian rite in exposing its complete invalidity.
This decree of Leo XIII, as might be expected brought forth howls of
anger from the Anglicans! Responding to this reaction the Cardinal and
Bishops of the Province of Westminster wrote a “Vindication of the Bulla
of Pope Leo XIII.”
In their own document, the English Bishops {of Leo XIII’s time} using
the judgment of Pope Leo XIII wrote their: “Catholic Doctrine of the Priesthood
“a.k.a. “The Vindication.”
“Priest and Sacrifice are correlative terms with us at all
times, and indeed with all nations, except insofar as your own Communion
may be an exception. A Priest is one who offers sacrifice: and as
it is the sacrifice, so it is the priest who offers it. Since our
sacrifice is the Sacrifice of the Mass, and Our priest is one appointed
and empowered to offer up that sacrifice; then one who has received this
power from God by means of the words of consecration in the Canon of the
Mass, to cause the Body and Blood of Christ to become present under the
appearances of bread and wine, and to offer them up sacrificially. The
priest may have other powers annexed to his office, such as the power to
forgive sins; and he may likewise be charged with the duty of preaching
the word of God, and exercising pastoral care over the people consigned
to him. But these other powers and duties are super-added and
consequent. They are suitably annexed to the priesthood, but they are not
of its essence. The priest would not have been less a priest if they had
been withheld from him, nor is he any more a priest because Our Lord has
thought fit to communicate them to him.”
Here is the clear teaching of the essence of the priesthood, confirmed
not only by the manner in which Our Lord instituted the Sacrament of Order
and Penance, but by the practice of the Catholic Church in Her traditional
Rites whereby after the priest is Ordained, the bishop then invokes the
Holy Ghost, and by the imposition of hands and the accompanying prayer,
transmits to the newly-ordained priest the power to forgive sins.
This Power is not given to Vatican II “priests”
A little later on we will examine the new Montinian rite of 1968, to determine
whether the ordained is truly a valid priest. For the moment, let us pretend
that he is, then if he is, then most definitely he has not been given the
power to forgive sins, since Vatican II rite has suppressed the form and
the matter, and is silent also whereby this power was annexed to the priest
in the Old Apostolic Rite. This in itself is serious. But the real crime
is that from the “pope” downwards through the bishops and priests, the
laity are permitted to go to these men who have no power in the
belief that they will have their sins forgiven. This is a treacherous
deceit, a sacrilegious profanation of the Sacrament of Penance, and one
of the greatest sins ever committed by the “new” clergy. The real question
must be asked: “Can a true successor of St. Peter promulgate such a horrendous
rite, and deny the laity the right to heaven. The clear answer is a resounding
NO!
The only conclusion, the only honest one is that Montini, or Paul VI,
must have been a false “pope” to have issued such a blasphemous rite, and
his successor, John Paul II is also a false “pope” for continuing to allow
this blasphemous rite. What of the bishops, the ones who use it, can they
be considered as true successors of the Apostles? Again the answer is a
resounding NO!
How can a true successor of the Apostles not pass on this power to forgive
sins? They do so by using the false Montinian rite. In other words, that
is their intention. They are destroying the Sacrament of penance, for in
time, there will be no bishop left in the Western Church with this power
to pass on. The new bishop cannot pass on what he has not received,
any more than the Apostles could have done, had they not received this
power firstly from Christ. One is therefore forced to come to the conclusion,
that these men are not only deceiving the laity, but they are apostates
or cowards. The evidence of decline in confessions in the UK and its virtual
decrease in Holland, would lead one to think that they belong to the apostate
brigade, rather than to the cowards. It is no oversight or accident that
this power was excluded from the ordination rite, because if that
was the case, it would have been rectified by now. At this time, many years
later on, millions of the laity have received invalid and profane confessions.
This rite today has still remained unchanged. The laity still do not know,
so they cannot be blamed {Ed. Not quite so, as they “sin” against
culpable ignorance and are liable for their own salvation}, but the clergy
certainly do know {Ed. Again it is those older clergy from pre-Vatican
II days that are truly liable. The very young and new clergy are no different
to the Protestant members in that they have LOST their understanding of
the true faith.}, and they must share in the guilt of their Bishops. Members
of the English Hierarchy {Ed. And other nations} , when challenged with
this dishonesty, maintained, as usual, their rock solid deafening silence.
Pope Leo XIII on the Validity of Holy Orders
All the foregoing presupposes that the men ordained under this “new rite”
of Vatican II, are “true” priests, but what if their ordination is invalid?
If they are true priests, then the lack of power to forgive sins could
be remedied, but if they are not validly ordained, the giving of the power
to forgive sins would be meaningless, for it belongs to the institution
of the Apostolic priesthood alone. We must therefore consider the validity
of the “new rite of ordination” in the light and teachings of the Church
as laid down by Leo XIII.
Again quoting from the “Vindication of the Bulla” by the English
Bishops in 1896, they said:
“The Bulla, however, when passing over the controversies
about the Matter, lays down that the Form of Holy Orders must be definite.
It does not require that the Form should always consist of the same words,
but that it should always conform to the same definite type.”
Hence it goes on to say in what this definite type is to consist
of. The form must always definitely express the sacred order, or its grace
and power, which is chiefly the power of consecrating and offering of the
“Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.”
The vindication continues:
“But we also notice another misconception in
your further contention that the particular Signification which the Pope
deems essential to Holy Orders is not found in the many forms which the
Holy See nevertheless allows as valid!”
After discussing some of these ancient forms to which the Anglicans have
referred, the Vindication continues:
“What Leo XIII means is that the Order to which
the candidate is being promoted to must be distinctly indicated either
by its accepted name, or by an explicit reference to the grace and power
which belongs to it ... nor is such a disjunctive statement unreasonable,
for in the Catholic Apostolic Church, the alternative phrases are perfectly
equivalent.”
Power to Offer Sacrifice
“The Catholic Church has always meant by that
term, priest (Sacerdos), a person appointed and empowered to offer sacrifice.
For the true historical reason, a fact which was carefully investigated
in the recent commissions, is that not one single ordination rite which
the Catholic Church has accepted, is without one or the other of these
alternative modes of definite signification.”
“A further objection of the Anglicans is then considered.
The terms Priest, Bishop, it may now be said, are now declared to be the
accepted terms to denote those who have received in substance or in plenitude
the sacrificial power. Why then, have they been rejected in an earlier
part of this Letter, as not bearing the Meaning when they occur in your
prayer. Because Pope Leo XIII ruled in his Bulla that the formula, “Receive
the Holy Ghost for the office and work of a priest or Bishop”, has no validity
being now mere words, voided of the reality which Christ instituted, once
a new rite has been introduced, denying or corrupting the sacrament of
Order, and repudiating any notion whatsoever of consecrating and sacrifice.
The Pope also said that if an ordination rite implies the exclusion of
the power to sacrifice, then it is necessarily null and void, even though
it may express mention of the words “priest.” It is impossible for a Form
to be suitable and significant for a Sacrament when it suppresses that
which it ought to signify distinctly.
Further passages from the “Vindication” should now be noted since
they have an important bearing on the Montinian Rite of Paul VI 1968.
“Your Reformers no doubt retained the terms “priest”
and “bishop” as the distinctive names of the two higher degrees of their
clergy … probably because they did not dare to discard terms so long
held established and revered .
“They did not mean ministers empowered to OFFER SACRIFICE,
but pastors set over their flocks, to teach them, to administer to them
such sacraments as they believed in, and generally to tend to them spiritually.
This meaning they professed to regard as that of Scripture and the Primitive.
Quoting Leo XIII, the “Vindication” says:
“There is nothing more pertinent than to consider
the circumstances under which it was composed and publicly authorized.
Being fully cognizant of the necessary connection between faith and worship,
the laws of believing and the laws of prayer {Lex Credendi, Lex Orandi},
and under the pretext of returning to the primitive form, they
corrupted the liturgical order in many ways to suit the errors of
the Reformers .
“For this reason in the whole Ordinal, not only is there
no clear mention of the sacrifice or consecrating ... and offering
sacrifice, but as we have said, every trace of these things, which had
been in the prayers of the Catholic Rite ... was deliberately removed
and struck off. Their object in discarding it was to disavow Catholic
Apostolic doctrines, and not as you contend to render the rites simpler.”
“We have already dealt with the use of the word “priest”...
and have shown that nothing can be inferred in it from the new {Edwardine}
rite. Yet where else can any intimation be found that the graces imparted
have ANY reference to the consecration and oblation of the Body and Blood
of Christ. Nowhere of course! But your contention seems to be that
we must not argue Ex Silentio. It would be sufficient answer to this plea
to point out that at least according to the principles by which the Holy
See must judge, an Ordination Rite must contain, either explicitly, or
at least implicitly, the definite signification of what is essential to
the Order conferred. But the silence of your Ordinal is not merely neutral;
it speaks volumes...”
“Striking Suppression”
“And yet throughout, there is not one word of
reference to the powers of consecration, or sacrifice ... Why was there
this striking suppression, unless it were that the makers of this Ordinal
could find no place in their conception of the ministry for elements which
in a Catholic Ordinal are essential? Next look at the Catholic Ordinal
which was superseded. We are not referring to the Catholic Rite in its
older and simpler style, such as we find in the Leonine Sacramentary. Even
there, the sacrificial character of the power communicated is not obscurely
indicated, quite apart from the use of the sacrificial term, Priest and
Bishop. We are calling attention to this Catholic Rite, as it was prescribed
and employed in England and on the Continent at the time of the so-called
“reformation.”
“It is this rite which Cranmer and his colleagues took
in hand and reformed. It is with this old rite that their revised rite
must be compared to if we desire to interpret on rational principles the
meaning of the Latter Rite. That the Catholic Apostolic Rite in its medieval
stage abounded in words and ceremonies giving expression to the sacrificial
character of the power to be conveyed, is so well known that we do not
need to prove it.”
“We will content ourselves therefore with re-calling to
mind the delivery of the sacrificial instruments, the clothing in the sacrificial
vestments, the anointing of the hands, together with the addresses to the
candidates accompanying these manual ceremonies. We desire to accentuate
that these striking assertions of the sacrificial Priesthood which at the
time were in almost immemorial possession, were all struck out of the Edwardine
Ordinal. Why was this done so?”
“It could not have been as you seem to suggest, because
the reformers wished to go back to what was primitive ... It could not
have been ... for a rite of great simplicity, for they could have retained
some short sentence such as, “sacerdotum, opert, offere benedicere, praesse,
pradicare, conficere, et baptizare”, or they could have constructed another
short sentence of equivalent meaning. It could not have been for no reason
at all. In short, the only and sufficient reason for the suppression, is
that they disliked the notion of a sacrificing priesthood, which
they alleged to be without warrant in Scripture, and desired to dissociate
their Ordinal from all connection with it.”
“This argument is strengthened when from the Ordinal itself
we turn to your Communion service. To put the matter briefly, if the First
Prayer book of Edward VI is compared with the Missal, sixteen omissions
can be detected of which the evident purpose was to eliminate the idea
of sacrifice … Again therefore, we must put the question: “Why these systematic
changes and suppressions unless it was that your “fathers” wished to prevent
their rites from continuing to express the grace and power which is chiefly
the power of consecrating and offering the Body and Blood of Christ.”
Real Question
“The question raised is in fact whether the language of your Ordinal definitely
signifies the orders of priesthood or episcopate, or the respective graces
and powers of each, such a definitive signification being essential to
its recognition by the Holy See as a valid rite. Now to claim that this
Ordinal can be interpreted with equal justice and propriety as expressing
the opinions of Cranmer on the nature of the ministry, and those of Gardiner,
is nothing less than to allow that the rite so far from being definite
in its meaning is in fact indefinite and ambiguous, and that with an ambiguity
extending so far as to cover both the assertion and the denial of the true
priesthood, such as Our Lord instituted.
Vatican II Rite and Pope Leo XIII
In the light of the foregoing quotations from the “Vindications,”
let us examine the “new rite” of 1968, or the Montinian rite, which is
the more correct, let us see what the relationship it is to the centuries
old rite of the Catholic Apostolic Church. In other words, we will be making
the same comparisons as did Leo XIII did with the Edwardian rite of the
16th century Reformers, to the Vatican II Montinian rite of the present
time in our age, that of 1968.
The ordination rite has through the centuries had prayers and ceremonies
added to it, mainly no doubt to express more clearly the power and grace
which the Sacrament Signifies. Never, according to Pope Leo XIII, has there
been any suppression, not until the time of the “reformers.” Nevertheless,
the “new” rite of Paul VI does retain the traditional form as follows,
but it must be looked at in isolation from the statement of the English
Bishops in their “Vindication,” where, warning against omitting
or reforming, they state that there is no known historical foundations
for the subtracting of prayers and ceremonies in previous use. The English
translation of the V-2 {Vatican II} form is as follows:
“We ask you [A very impersonal form of address
to God], all-powerful Father, give these servants of yours [?] the dignity
of the priesthood. Renew the Spirit of holiness within them. By your [?]
divine gift, may they attain the second order in the hierarchy and exemplify
right conduct in their lives.” (False Rite)
This new Montinian rite has suppressed the following prayers which were
in the ancient rite:
“Be pleased O Lord, to consecrate and sanctify
these hands by this anointing and our blessing. Amen . That whatsoever
they bless may be blessed, and whatsoever they consecrate may be consecrated
and sanctified in the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ. Amen.” (True rite)
When the Bishop delivers to each priest the chalice containing wine and
water, and the paten with a host on it, he used to say this prayer:
“Receive the Power to Offer SACRIFICE to God
and to celebrate Mass, both for the living and the DEAD, in the name of
Our Lord. Amen.” (True rite)
In place of the traditional prayer used at the anointing of the hands,
the Montinian rite has this:
“The Father anointed Jesus Christ as Lord through
the power of the Holy Spirit. May Jesus keep you worthy of offering sacrifices
to God and sanctify the Christian assembly.” (False rite)
In place of the suppressed prayer: “receive the power etc...”, the Montinian
Rite or the new rite bishop says:
“Accept the gifts from the people [!!!!] to be
offered to God. Be conscious of what you are doing [???], be holy as the
actions you perform and model your life after the mystery of the Lord’s
cross.” (the false Protestant-worded phrases)
Is this the clear and definite signification of the grace to be conferred?
Certainly not. In fact, as Pope Leo XIII said in his Bulla: “if an ordination
rite implies the exclusion of the power to offer sacrifice (and by this
he meant the sacrifice of the altar - not some butcher’s block of a table
- as condemned by Pius XII in “Mediator Dei”), then it is necessarily null
even though it may include some express mention of the word “priest.”
This deliberate denial of the sacrifice of the Mass (that is the
Divine Sacrifice of the Cross and the Altar) which is the essence of the
Apostolic priesthood, compels any reasonable person to conclude that this
new rite of Montini is invalid. Again, as Pope Leo XIII points out: “It
is impossible for a Form to be suitable and Sufficient for a Sacrament
when it suppresses that which it ought to distinctly signify.”
Conclusion
Do we dare to ignore the Infallible words of Pope Leo XIII , that apply
to this new Vatican II rite, this new false Montinian rite, just as much
as to his condemnation of the false Anglican Ordinal of King Edward VI.
This truly great and holy Pope Leo XIII reaches out across time and
also nullifies all the false Vatican II rites.
Says Pope Leo XIII: “If the rite is modified with the manifest object
of introducing another not admitted by the Apostolic Church, and rejecting
the one she uses, then not only is the necessary intention for the Sacrament
defective {through Intent, 3rd of the three necessary conditions
for a valid sacrament}, but also there is an intention contrary and opposed
to the sacrament.”
So again we must conclude that not only was Paul VI a “false pope” but
that this new religion of the Second Vatican Council is not the Catholic
religion, that those who adhere to it are not Catholics, but
apostates. No true pope, bishop or priest could promulgate such
an apostate rite.
There is however other important evidence to substantiate this because,
like the reformers of the 16th century, the Reformers of the 20th century,
the new Vatican II Conciliar Church altered in an heretical sense, not
only the Ordinal rite, but the (forbidden ever-to-be-altered Mass from
time immemorial) and then each and every one of the Seven Sacraments instituted
by Christ. We must never forget that the Belief of Faith is evidenced
by its prayers. As we pray, so also we believe, and as we believe, so also
we pray. (Lex Credendi; Lex Orandi)
In the foregoing, we examined the new Vatican II Ordinal and found that
all references to the sacrifice of the Mass have been eliminated. But the
fact remains that the priest and the Sacrifice of the Mass are inseparable.
If a priest does not offer the Divine Sacrifice, he is useless as
a priest; and if he is ordained falsely, and not given this power, then
he is no priest of God. Certainly Pope Leo XIII has proven this
fact to all of us. There is no question that after examining this new V-2
ordinal rite against the judgment of a Loyal Vicar of Christ, Leo XIII,
we have found that all references to the sacrifice of the Mass has been
eliminated. The next question we should ask is Why? Why was this
elimination made and required?
Catholics cannot have any part in this new invalid liturgy, which forbids
the offering of the Sacrifice of the Cross at the Altar of sacrifice, and
substitutes a parody of the clean oblation. Catholics can have nothing
to do with these new V-2 men who pose as priests, while lacking
the power of the priesthood. Neither may Catholics have anything to do
with those true priests who willfully subject themselves to the V-2 suppressions.
However, we ought to pray for these miserable wretches because of their
terrible crime of deceiving so many Catholics as to the truth of what is
going on inside what was once the Catholic Church today under the suppression
and knavery of Vatican II.
Addendum by Gordon Cardinal Bateman
March 1999
There is also another very important point to note of these new “clerics.”
They have no authority. That is most important to remember when
we read such devastating news as the above. Remember also the true saying
of the Apostle, that the “truth will make you free.” You will no
longer be a slave to heresy and apostasy and again receive the Graces from
God.
After you have been told, and had the right conscience to realize that
the Church cannot change, examined all the evidence and prayed to the Holy
Ghost for guidance, then you cannot continue your association with this
false Church of the anti-Christ. If you fail to change because of obstinacy
or belligerence or from any other poor attitude, then you will become a
formal heretic and an apostate and as such you will be automatically
excommunicated - ipso facto. On the death of such a person, he or she will
be guaranteed a berth in hell forever. What an horrendous thought.
Christ demands that you judge the fruits of Vatican II when He said:
“By their fruits ye shall judge (know) them.” I went through this
crisis more than 25 years ago. I too judged and left this false church.
I am free today as I know and now do the Will of God. The “fruits” of my
decision not to attend further this false Church are too numerous, and
humility prevents me from their mention. In my case, as I am sure it was
with those I know, who did likewise as I did, we see today, with a spiritual
vision and intellect, far surpassing anything we ever possessed before,
even in the days of pre-Vatican II.
Like the Blessed Virgin we gave our “Fiat” when the truth was exposed
to us and then submitted to the living voice of the universal Church of
the last 2,000 years … We listened and read as many of the Papal Encyclicals
that were applicable to our times. We know that the Church did not start
with Vatican II as it has been propagated mercilessly by the traitors within
this false church. Over 95% plus of those who still call themselves “Catholics”
believe all these false tales. It is an indictment of the very poor education,
study, and understanding these wretches had of their faith. Even Christ
said, as the prelude to His 2nd Coming {and it is not too far off either}:
“But yet the Son of Man when He cometh, shall He find, think you, faith
on earth? (Luke 18, 18)
The old pre-Vatican II Church, its Saints, Fathers, Doctors, and Popes
of revered memory, have all been repudiated and rejected by this
new “abomination of the Holy Place” as Daniel the prophet foretold. To
achieve some “credibility,” the new innovators had to change Canon Law
to give “legality” to their errors, and also the New catechism, to create
a new teaching, to alter the old and ancient teaching guaranteed by the
Holy Ghost as pure and uncorrupted.
You all have one soul to save; no one has that responsibility but you
yourself. Do not blame the local “minister” or layman that he really is,
masquerading as a “priest.” He also knows no better. When you die and come
before the Judgment seat of God, you will have no excuses. When you see
the funeral processions, and hear or see of the deaths on the news, do
you ever wonder what ever became of their immortal souls? Always remember
the Four Last Things: Death, Judgment, Heaven or Hell. That constant
thought will ultimately save your soul.
La Salette in 1846, where the Blessed Virgin appeared prior to her next
visit at Lourdes, she foretold that Rome would “Lose the faith
and become the seath of the anti-Christ.” Popes Pius IX, Leo XIII and
St. Pius X all canonized this prophecy. The Blessed Mary even gave its
approximate date and even further endorsed this at Fatima. It was to start
in 1960 with the 1st false “pope” jolly John XXIII (the name of an anti-pope
in 1410-1415 AD). Jolly John was also a Freemason. He joined the sect in
1935 when he was Nuncio in Turkey. He took the Masonic name of Johannes,
and by reason of his creating a new religion “tacitly resigned” from all
offices in the Church and ceased to become a member. Therefore all
his subsequent illicit actions were Null and Void and had no authority.
What we see today is that Rome has lost the faith and has
become the seat of the anti-Christ thus fulfilling the prophecy
of the Blessed Virgin at La Salette in the last century when the apostasy
“liberalism” was raising its ugly head, and is now full-blown in Vatican
II.
A Further Addendum
Validity to the Novus Ordo
in the Light of Pope Leo XIII's teaching
on “Apostolicae Curae”
This time we judge briefly on the promulgation of this “mass” again by
Paul VI he had created together with the assistance of six Protestant ministers.
I picked up a prayer book from the Protestant Church of St. Peter’s at
Eastern Hill, Melbourne, Australia, and lo and behold, it was written exactly
in the same way and manner as the new “mass” of Paul VI.
Where Pope Leo XIII judges the invalidity of Orders, one of the 7 sacraments
of the Holy Roman Church, this same test is also applied to the other sacraments
and also to the Mass. A sacrament has three parts or requirements that
make it valid: It must have form, matter, and intent (of
the lawgiver, in this case, it is Christ).
We will see that most of them have been abrogated in all of the 7 Novus
Ordo Sacraments, and fittingly its application to the Holy Mass. It was
the intent of the corrupters to create a so-called “mass” that would be
Protestant-friendly. There was to be a sort of “unity” at any price, but
instead of the Protestants converting, it was the Catholics who were to
be converted into Protestantism.
This “defect in intention” is explained by the Abbe Barbara in his papers
called “Fortes in Fide” No 4 Vol 1.
A Defect of Intention
“The modification of the Mass pursued by the new Reformers, this intention
adverse to and incompatible with the Sacrament” of which Leo XIII spoke,
we find that from the beginning, in the very concept of the Mass which
they proposed, an idea embodied in Article 7 of chapter 11, “the structure,
component elements, and parts of the Mass” taken from the “Institutio Generalis
Missalis Romani” as follows:
Cena Dominica sive missa est sacra synaxis seu
congratio populi Dei in unum convenientis, sacerdote praeside, ad memoriale
Domini celebradum. Quare de sanctae Ecclesiae locali congregatione
exminenter vale promissio Christi: ubi sunt duo vel congregati in nomine
meo, ibi sum in medio eorim.
Translated into English:
The Lord’s supper, (or mass in its original ICEL
translation) is the assembly or gathering together of the people of God
[??], with a priest “presiding” to celebrate a memorial of the Lord. For
this reason the promise of Christ is particularly true of a local congregation
of the Church: “Where two or three are gathered together in My Name, there
am I in their midst.”
Let us not be sidetracked by the attempts at explanation furnished by friends
of the Reformers of the 20th century. It is that they did not wish to give
a definition of the mass, or again, that the pastoral concerns of the authors
of the Institutio made them leave aside doctrinal precisions in their instruction,
but for all that, they did not abandon doctrine!
Let us also recall the statements of St. Pius X in his condemnation
of the modernist apostates, “It is one of their cleverest tricks, that
the Modernists ... to present their doctrines without order and systematic
arrangements, in a scattered and disjointed manner, so as to make it appear
as if their minds were in doubt or hesitation, whereas in reality, they
are quite fixed and steadfast.
Let us again recall that other doctrine of this holy pontiff: “There
is no surer sign that a man is tending to Modernism than when he begins
to show a dislike for the scholastic method (from St. Thomas Aquinas).”
Also taken from “A Critical Study of the New Order of the Mass” from
a group of Roman Theologians, signed and presented to Paul VI by the Head
of the Holy Office - Cardinal Ottaviani:
1. History of this change
The new form of the mass was substantially rejected by the Episcopal Synod,
was never submitted to the collegial judgment of the Episcopal Conference
and was never asked for by the people. It has every possibility of satisfying
the most modernist of Protestants.
2. 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.
3. Presentation of the Ends
The three ends of the mass are altered; no distinction is allowed to remain
between the Divine and Human sacrifice; bread and wine are only spiritually
changed (not substantially as described in the Dogma of Transubstantiation).
4. And of the essence
The Real Presence of Christ is never alluded to and belief in it is implicitly
repudiated.
5. And of the 4 elements of the Sacrifice
The Position of the 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.
6. The destruction of Unity (One of the 4 Marks of the True Church)
The abandonment of Latin sweeps away for good, 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 Forever.
7. The alienation of the Orthodox
While pleasing the dissenting group Protestants, the New Order will alienate
the East.
8. The abandonment of defenses for the faith
The New Order teems with insinuations and manifest errors against the purity
of the Catholic faith and dismantles all defenses of the Deposit of the
Faith.
Whilst defending the Faith against all comers and hoping against all
hope, that somehow perhaps the “conservative element” within this new Church
will see the light of the Faith, I am reminded that Christ said that He
will find so little faith on earth on His 2nd Coming.
And also He said: “Because iniquity hath abounded [see the success of
V-2], the charity (or love of God) of many shall grow cold. (Luke 24; 12).
Also, “As it came to pass in the days of Noah, so shall it be in the days
of the (coming) of the Son of Man. (Luke 17, 26). We see this prophecy
come to pass with the enforcement by the United Nations and all socialist
Governments for the legislation and the enforcement upon the peoples of
this degrading lifestyle with its penalties from God, of HIV and AIDS.
Homosexuality is from Hell, and Satan is its guardian, and the people will
suffer accordingly to their acceptance and acquiescence of this wicked
evil.
As the great Fr. Henry James Coleridge S.J. wrote in 1883 in his discourses
“The Latter Days,” he says:
“Whether the days in which we live in be the
Latter Days or no, it is our business, first of all to fit ourselves to
meet Our Lord, who will come to each of us, “as a thief in the night,”
not prepared for as we hope, but suddenly at last as we know.”
“It is our duty to fight for Our Lord’s cause in the world,
to throw our weight into the scale against the powers of evil - against
the spirit of heresy, schism, apostasy, of lawlessness sensuality, disregard
of all sanctions and obligations, both human and divine, which is in the
air now all around us, which breathes destruction to the Church and to
that Christian Society which the Church has founded and sustained -- Christendom.
“Blessed are those servants, whom the Lord, when He cometh shall find watching.
Amen I say to you, he will gird Himself and make them to sit down to meat,
and passing, he will minister unto them. And is he shall come in the Second
watch or in the Third, and find them so. Blessed are those servants! (Luke
XII. 37, 38).”
It should be a sobering thought and prayer that Our Blessed Lady at Fatima
(Remember Fatima or have you all forgotten?) who showed the seers that
those going to hell are as snowflakes falling onto the ground. Those going
to heaven, especially in the latter times (now) are so very few. I rest
my case. They who care not for the safety of their souls, will spend their
time in hell for all eternity, then I pray that you be not one of them.
©truecatholic.us |