The True Mass

In 1969, Pope Paul VI issued a New Order of the Mass, the Novus Ordo Missae. Up to that time, what is commonly referred to as the "Tridentine" or "Latin" Mass, was used by the Church. On the face of things, it may seem to be a simple matter for the Pope to change the Mass. It has been done before. Is there a difference, then, between the modifications made by Paul VI and the liturgical changes of the past? There is a radical difference, and one that has had disastrous consequences for the universal Church.

The "Tridentine" or Roman Rite Mass, while it has developed organically over the 2,000 year history of the Church, is essentially the Mass that was given to the Apostles and the Church by Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself. Although various rites emerged, they all maintained the same spirit imparted to the liturgy by Our Lord and were only adapted to various cultures without any deviation in doctrine. The Roman Rite, up to Vatican II, underwent only minor changes, such that the famous English liturgist Fr. Adrian Fortescue was able to state that "no one has ventured to touch it except in unimportant details."

The integrity of the Mass was considered so sacred that when Pope St. Gregory the Great (590-604) sought to add the words "diesque nostros in tua pace disponas" [may you order our days in Thy peace] to the Hanc Igitur of the Canon (central part of the Mass), the Catholics of Rome were so outraged that they threatened to kill him!

In this context, it is easy to see why Pope St. Pius V sought to protect the Roman Rite by codifying the Traditional Latin Mass in the proclamation Quo Primum in 1570. The Mass that he was confirming was not some new creation like the Novus Ordo Missae, but a Mass that matched in every respect the Faith of the Apostles. Nor was it the Mass of some particular area of the Church like the Eastern rites, but the universal rite of the Church, the rite of the Roman See. His bull says in part:

"At no time in the future can a priest, whether secular or order priest, ever be forced to use any other way of saying Mass. And in order once and for all to preclude any scruples of conscience and fear of ecclesiastical penalties and censures, we declare herewith that it is by virtue of our Apostolic authority that we decree and prescribe that this present order and decree of ours is to last in perpetuity, and never at a future date can it be revoked or amended legally. . . . And if, nevertheless, anyone would dare attempt any action contrary to this order of ours, handed down for all times, let him know that he has incurred the wrath of Almighty God, and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul."

What, then, was done at Vatican II? Were some changes made merely in "unimportant details"? Was the proper honor and respect given to the Rite essentially bestowed by Christ on His Church and confirmed by incomparable proofs in the form of thousands of saints and countless miracles? Cardinal Ratzinger, the Church's former Prefect of the Congregation for Doctrine & Faith and now reigning as Pope Benedict XVI, gives the answer: "[The concept] that the liturgy is in fact something given and not a reality to be manipulated at will, has completely disappeared from the consciousness of Western Catholics. Yet Vatican I in 1870 defined the Pope to be, not an absolute monarch, but the guarantor of obedience to the revealed word. The legitimacy of his power was bound up above all with his transmitting the Faith. This fidelity to the deposit of the Faith and to its transmission concerns in a quite special way the liturgy. No authority can ‘fabricate' a liturgy. The Pope himself is only the humble servant of its homogenous development, its integrity, and the permanence of its identity." The Pope, as the guardian of the Deposit of Faith, has a duty to preserve the liturgy intact and pass it on essentially unmodified to the next generation. The very authors of Vatican II, on the other hand, openly acknowledged their desire not to pass on Tradition, but to make it.

St. Vincent of Lerins in the 5th century gave as a standard for the orthodoxy of doctrine that which has been believed everywhere (ubique), always (semper), and by all (omnia). But, as Cardinal Ratzinger points out, the Council Fathers of Vatican II rejected this hallowed definition: "Vatican II's refusal of the proposal to adopt the text of Lerins, familiar to, and, as it were, sanctified by two Church Councils, shows once more how Trent and Vatican I were left behind, how their texts were continually reinterpreted... Vatican II had a new idea of how historical identity and continuity were to be brought about." This new idea was nothing other than to create a pseudo-tradition from the "common consciousness" of the Council Fathers. This is pure Modernism and totally contrary to the Deposit of Faith.

What are Catholics to think when, according to the common opinion of Catholic theologians throughout the centuries, any pope who "wished to overturn the rites of the Church based on Apostolic Tradition would become a schismatic, not to be obeyed" (Suarez*)? Is that not just exactly what Vatican II  attempted to do by foisting the Novus Ordo on the Catholic world in place of the rite given to us by Jesus Christ Himself through Apostolic Tradition? (*Francisco Suarez (1548-1617), S.J., Doctor Eximus – "an eminent and pious theologian" – Pope Paul V)

The Church has always set forth the firm and clear principle that: "The way we worship is the way we believe." The doctrinal truths of the Faith are embodied in the worship we offer to God. In other words, it is the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass that teaches us our theology and not the reverse. The True Mass comprises the Apostolic Tradition of faith and morals in its very essence. Every doctrine essential to the Faith is taught therein. Pope Leo XIII points out in Apostolicae Curae that the Church's enemies have always understood this principle as "They knew only too well the intimate bond that unites faith with worship, the law of belief with the law of prayer, and so, under the pretext of restoring the order of the liturgy to its primitive form, they corrupted it in many respects to adapt it to the errors of the Innovators." It is no wonder, then, that Luther coined the slogan: "Take away the Mass, destroy the Church."

St. Alphonsus Liguori explains that "The devil has always attempted, by means of the heretics, to deprive the world of the Mass, making them precursors of the Anti-Christ, who, before anything else, will try to abolish and will actually abolish the Holy Sacrament of the altar, as a punishment for the sins of men, according to the prediction of Daniel: ‘And strength was given him against the continual sacrifice' (Dan. 8:12)."

Pope Paul VI with the six Protestant ministers who collaborated in making up the New Mass!

The question then becomes: Does the New Mass teach the Catholic Faith? No, say both Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci: "It is clear that the Novus Ordo no longer intends to present the Faith as taught by the Council of Trent." How well founded, then, were the concerns expressed by Pope Pius XII shortly before the introduction of the New Mass: "I am worried by the Blessed Virgin's messages to Lucy at Fatima. This persistence of Mary about the dangers which menace the Church is a divine warning against the suicide that would be represented by the alteration of the Faith in Her liturgy."

When you place the prayers and ceremonies of the traditional Latin Mass side by side with those of the New Mass, you can easily see to what degree the Church's traditional doctrine has been "edited out." And the "editing" always seems to have been done on those parts of the Mass expressing some Catholic doctrine which Protestants find "offensive." Here are some examples:

1. Common Penitential Rite: The traditional Mass begins with the priest reciting personal prayers of reparation to God called "The Prayers at the Foot of the Altar." The New Mass begins instead with a "Penitential Rite" which the priest and people recite together. Who were the first to introduce a common penitential rite? The 16th century Protestants, who wanted to promote their teaching that the priest is no different from the layman.
2. The Offertory: The Offertory prayers of the traditional Mass clearly express a number of Catholic teachings, as that the Mass is offered to God to satisfy for sin and that the saints are to be honored. The Protestants rejected these teachings and so abolished the Offertory prayers. "That abomination called the Offertory," said Luther, "and from this point almost everything stinks of oblation!" In the New Mass as well, the Offertory is gone – it has been replaced with a ceremony called "The Preparation of the Gifts." The prayers "offensive" to Protestants have also been removed. In their place is the prayer "Blessed are you, Lord God of all creation," based on a Jewish grace before meals.
3. The "Eucharistic Prayer": The traditional Mass has only one "Eucharistic Prayer," the ancient Roman Canon. The Canon was always a favorite target of Lutheran and other Protestant attacks. Instead of just one Canon, the New Mass now has a number of "Eucharistic Prayers," only one of which we will mention here. Eucharistic Prayer No. 1 is an "edited" version of the Roman Canon. The lists of Catholic saints, so despised by Protestants, are now optional, and hence rarely used. The translators did some further "editing." Among other things, the idea that Christ the Victim is offered at Mass (a notion Luther condemned) has disappeared. All the Eucharistic Prayers now incorporate some typical Protestant practice. They are recited in a loud voice instead of silently, and they have an "Institution Narrative" instead of a Consecration. (According to Protestant beliefs, their ministers do not consecrate the Eucharist like Catholic priests do; they just narrate the story of the Last Supper.) Even the words of consecration have been changed, contrary to Sacred Scripture and tradition, from  " . . . 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"   to   ". . . 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" (This mistranslation was finally acknowledged by Rome in recent times). The various signs of respect toward Our Lord present in the Blessed Sacrament (genuflections, signs of the cross, bells, incense, etc.) have been reduced, made optional, or eliminated.
4. Communion in the Hand: The 16th century Protestant Martin Bucer condemned the Church's practice of placing the Host on the tongue of the communicant as something introduced out of "a double superstition: first, the false honor they wish to show to this sacrament, and secondly, the wicked arrogance of priests claiming greater holiness than that of the people of Christ, by virtue of the oil of consecration." The practice in Protestant churches of "communion in the hand" is thus based upon their rejection of Christ's Real Presence and the priesthood. At the New Mass, just as at a Protestant service, there is Communion in the hand. But the men who created the New Mass went even further, for a layman may not only receive Communion in the hand – he is also permitted to distribute it, even on a moment's notice. Meanwhile, St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) states that "The body of Christ must not be touched by anyone, other than a consecrated priest. No other person has the right to touch it, except in case of extreme necessity" (III, 82 a.3).
5. Veneration of the Saints: The prayers of the traditional Mass frequently invoke the saints by name and beg their intercession. The Church's veneration of the saints in her worship was another practice which Protestants dismissed as "superstition." The New Order of the Mass dropped most invocations of the saints by name, or made them optional. In the new Missal, moreover, the weekday prayers for saints' feast days (most of which are also optional) have been rewritten for the benefit of Protestants – allusions to miracles, the defense of the Catholic Faith, or to the Catholic Church as the one, true Church have disappeared.
6. False Translations: Lastly, there is the matter of the false official English translations of the New Mass. A whole book could be written on the errors and distortions they contain. Here we will mention briefly only the official translations of the prayers for the 34 "Sundays in Ordinary Time." The following are some of the ideas which the English translation suppresses: God's wrath, our unworthiness, error, sins which "burden our consciences," God's majesty, obedience to His commandments, supplication, humility, eternity, heaven – the list could go on and on. Perhaps the most serious omission is the word "grace." It appears 11 times in the Latin original. It does not appear even once in the official English "translation"!

Clearly, then, the "new liturgy reflects a new ecclesiology, whereas the old reflects another ecclesiology" (Cardinal Benelli) and one quite foreign to the Catholic Church. This ultimately means as Fr. Gelineau, S.J., one of the "experts" who co-authored the New Mass, pointed out, that "The New Mass is a different liturgy. This needs to be said without ambiguity. The Roman Rite, as we knew it, no longer exists. It has been destroyed." The Catechism of the Council of Trent tells us that "a Catholic sins against the faith by participating in non-Catholic worship." The New Mass is not Catholic worship, even if it has retained the name "Catholic," as did the Anglican liturgy until recently.

If the New Mass is so contrary to Church teaching, does it not seem that God would warn His people of the betrayal of His Church and His Mass by Her pastors? It would be entirely fitting for His Mercy.

Marie-Julie Jahenny, a mystic and Stigmatist of La Fraudais and perhaps the greatest mystic in the history of the Church, was born on the 12th of February, 1850, in a little village in Brittany (in the West of France), called Blain. Our Lord favored her with many graces from the time of her First Holy Communion, graces to which she corresponded with ever increasing devotion.

In 1873, she received from Heaven that most remarkable mystic gift, the Stigmata. From the age of twenty-three until her death, some sixty years later, she bore in her body the Wounds of Our Lord to a more visible degree than had any other Stigmatist in the Church's history. In addition to the Five Wounds of the Sacred Hands, Feet and Side, Marie-Julie suffered the Wounds inflicted by the Crown of Thorns and the Cross on Our Lord's Sacred Head and Shoulder respectively, the Wounds of His Scourging, those caused by the ropes with which He was bound, as well as other Wounds of a more mystical nature. She had subsisted miraculously on the Blessed Sacrament alone, for the last many years of her life. She went to her Heavenly reward on March 4, 1941.

The truth of the Heavenly warnings of which she was to be the humble messenger was vindicated by her characteristic simplicity and honesty, her exemplary obedience to her spiritual directors and her Bishop, and of course, by the fulfillment of all she prophesied during her long life. With unfailing accuracy she foretold the two World Wars, the election of Pope Saint Pius X, the various persecutions of the Church, the chastisements and the fate of apostate France.

Surely then, we will not pass over lightly the following heavenly messages confided to Marie-Julie Jahenny concerning the new liturgy:

On November 27, 1902, Our Lord warned of the new liturgy which would one day be instituted:

"I give you a warning. The disciples who are not of My Gospel are now working hard to remake according to their ideas, and under the influence of the enemy of souls, a Mass that contains words which are odious in My Sight. When the fatal hour arrives where the faith of my priest is put to the test, it will be these texts that will be celebrated, in this second period."

"The first period is the one of My Priesthood, existing since Me. The second is the one of the persecution, when the enemies of the Faith and of Holy Religion will impose their formulas in the book of the second celebration. Many of My holy priests will refuse this book, sealed with the words of the abyss. Unfortunately, amongst them are those who will accept it."

On May 10, 1904, Our Lady describes the new clergy and their liturgy:

"They will not stop on this hateful and sacrilegious road. They will go further to compromise all at once, and in one blow, the Holy Church, the clergy, and the Faith of my children."

She announces the "dispersion of the pastors" by the Church herself – true pastors, who will be replaced by others formed by Hell: "...new preachers of new sacraments, new temples, new baptisms, new confraternities."

"By their fruits you shall know them. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit, and the evil tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can an evil tree bring forth good fruit" (Matt. 7:15-17). Given the foregoing, it should be plain that the New Mass was conceived for an evil purpose and constructed by evil means. It only follows that such a tree would have disastrous effects on the Church. Let us look at its fruits as reported in Index of Leading Catholic Indicators: The Church Since Vatican II.

The number of priests in the United States more than doubled from 1930 to 1965 to 58,000. Since then, however, the number has fallen to 45,000 and there will be only 31,000 priests left in 2020, with half of them being over 70. In 1965, only 1% of U.S. parishes were without a priest. Today, 3,000 or 15% of the parishes are priestless. The number of seminarians from 1965 to 2002 dropped over 90% from 49,000 to 4,700, while two-thirds of the seminaries have closed. There were 104,000 teaching nuns in 1965, while today there are a mere 8,200, a decline of 94% since the end of Vatican II. Religious orders are on the road to disappearance. Three and a half thousand were studying to be Jesuits in 1965. In 2000, the number was 389. The Christian Brothers have lost two-thirds of their members in that span of time, while the number of their seminarians has shrunk by 99%. In 2000, there were only seven. Almost half of all Catholic high schools have closed in the U.S. since 1965. Only one in four Catholics now attend Mass on Sundays. There were 338 annulments in 1968 and 50,000 in 2002. Only 10% of lay religious teachers now accept Church teaching on contraception. Fifty-three percent believe a Catholic can have an abortion and remain a good Catholic. Sixty-five percent say that Catholics may divorce and remarry. Seventy-seven percent hold that one can be a good Catholic without going to Mass on Sundays. Finally, 70% of Catholics between 18 and 44 believe that the Eucharist is merely a "symbolic reminder" of Jesus.

Who could possibly claim that there is not a terrible crisis of Faith in the Catholic Church!? It is no wonder that Cardinal Ratzinger affirmed: "I am convinced that the ecclesial crisis in which we find ourselves today depends in great part on the collapse of the liturgy." It is clear how the New Mass could create such a disaster. Liturgy dictates belief. A Protestantized liturgy yields heretical belief, loss of the Faith, and devaluation of the priesthood. Satan has been able to accomplish more effective damage to the entire body of the Church in the past 35 years through the destruction of the Mass than ever before.

The New Mass is condemned by its own nature, by its fruits, and even by Our Lord Himself. The crisis in the Church will continue to worsen until we return to orthodoxy and discipline. What is a Catholic to do in such troublesome times? He must follow the advice of St. Vincent of Lerins: "What then shall the Catholic do if some portion of the Church detaches itself from communion of the universal Faith? If some new contagion attempts to poison, no longer a small part of the Church, but the whole Church at once, then his great concern will be to attach himself to antiquity (Tradition) which can no longer be led astray by any lying novelty."

St. Athanasius, one of the four great Doctors of the Eastern Church, earned the title of "Father of Orthodoxy" for his strong and uncompromising defense of our Catholic Faith against the Arian Heresy which most of the hierarchy where affected, including the pope. He was banned from his diocese at least five times, spending a total of seventeen years in exile. He sent the following letter to his flock which is a powerful lesson for our times: "What saddens you is the fact that others have occupied the churches by violence, while during this time you are on the outside. It is a fact that they have the premises – but you have the Apostolic Faith. They can occupy our churches, but they are outside the true Faith. You remain outside the places of worship, but the Faith dwells within you. Let us consider: what is more important? The place or the Faith? The true Faith, obviously. Who has lost and who has won in this struggle? The one who keeps the premises or the one who keeps the Faith?"

Please pray that our dear Savior will grant to our holy Father the Pope and the bishops of the Church the grace to abolish the New Mass and restore the Traditional Latin Mass fully, without reservations or restrictions, throughout the entire Church. If we deny one article of our Faith, we are on the road to hell. The New Mass cannot have come from God, whereas the True Mass came directly from God. The only safe course to follow is to attend the Traditional Mass at any cost. It is not worth risking the loss of your soul for all eternity. To locate the Traditional Mass closest to you, call us at 502-425-9738.

The following information is provided in addition to what has already been said, to eliminate concerns of being "disobedient" or of the need for special permission (indult) for the faithful to attend or priests to celebrate the traditional Latin Mass. Even if your local bishop and/or parish priest does not acknowledge or will not admit, the present hierarchy in Rome has admitted that the "Tridentine Mass" was never abrogated.

In 1986, Pope John Paul II appointed a commission of nine Cardinals to examine the legal status of the traditional rite of Mass, commonly known as the "Tridentine Mass." The commission of Cardinals included Cardinals Ratzinger, Mayer, Oddi, Stickler, Casaroli, Gantin, Innocenti, Palazzini, and Tomko and was instructed to examine two questions:

1) Did Pope Paul VI authorize the bishops to forbid the celebration of the traditional Mass?
2) Does the priest have the right to celebrate the traditional Mass in public and in private without restriction, even against the will of his bishop?

The Commission unanimously determined that Pope Paul VI never gave the bishops the authority to forbid priests from celebrating the traditional rite of Mass.

Regarding the second question: The Commission stated that priests cannot be obligated to celebrate the new rite of Mass; the bishops cannot forbid or place restrictions on the celebration of the traditional rite of Mass whether in public or in private.

The Commission also recommended that the Pope issue a Papal decree based on the Commission's findings and it was the Pope's intention to issue this decree in November of 1988, but the decree was never issued, due to pressure placed on the Pope from opposing Cardinals.

Cardinal Stickler, when questioned later about the Nine Cardinal Commission, made the following statements, "He (the Pope) can't forbid a Mass that has been used not only for centuries but has been the Mass of thousands and thousands of Saints and Faithful" and "No, the Mass of Saint Pius V (Tridentine Mass) has never been suppressed" . . . "the nine Cardinals unanimously agreed that no bishop may forbid a Catholic priest from saying the Tridentine Mass."