A refutation of the Pauline Rite of Mass.

Part I - II - III - IV

Part I


Shawn's (A Novus Ordo theologian) statements are in italics, our responses are in normal (black) text.  Any emphasis in Shawn's text is given as he gave it - unless otherwise noted.  

The critical point to remember is that these questions of style are secondary in Catholic worship for the simple reason that CATHOLIC WORSHIP IS NOT PRIMARILY ABOUT WHAT WE DO FOR CHRIST, BUT ABOUT WHAT CHRIST DOES FOR US. This point cannot be overemphasized. The Mass is first and foremost an action of Christ Himself. At each Mass, through the instrumentality of the priest as "alter Christus", Our Lord reenacts the sacrifice of Calvary in an unbloody manner and becomes present on the altar -- body, blood, soul and divinity -- to nourish us unto eternal life.

As it is, The Catholic Encyclopedic Dictionary defines the term "worship: "The unique adoration and reverence paid to God, called latria;" (p. 560)  Hence we see that worship is adoration and reverence paid to God, in other words, what we do for God.  It is our adoration of Him, our reverence being paid to Him.  God is not worshipping us, we are worshipping Him.  "This point cannot be overemphasized."  It is granted that we receive something when we worship God - in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, we receive graces and even the very Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity, of Our Lord Jesus Christ -, but it is we who initiate the act worship, and our emphasis is on God, and not necessarily upon what we will get out of adoring God.  As "A Catholic Dictionary," by Donald Attwater, pointed out: "Christian social and public worship is the Liturgy centering around the Sacrifice of the Mass." (p. 529)  

Note that I am not saying merely that more graces are available in the Mass than in other forms of worship (though this is true). The comparison is not a matter of tallying up the ways in which a particular liturgical style assists worshippers in becoming receptive to the available stock of grace. Such a comparison may be relevant for different liturgical settings of the Mass itself, but it is completely out of place when comparing the Mass with non-Catholic worship. What I am saying is that WHILE A NON-CATHOLIC WORSHIP SERVICE IS A HUMAN ACTION, THE CATHOLIC MASS IS A DIVINE ACTION. There is an unfathomable gulf between them -- a gulf so vast that any effort to compare the two without the most careful qualifications and caveats will lead to blasphemy. [1]

This statement is most interesting, especially when one looks as his statement on the difference between a non-Catholic worship and the Catholic Mass, and how the former is a human action, and the latter a divine action. I would like to point out the Novus Ordo Missae is not centered around Christ and God, but around humans. Hence the reason why the Priest faces the people, for their benefit period. Hence the reason why it is no longer even called an altar, but "sacrificial table." Hence the reason why the Novus Ordo is said in the vernacular.

Concerning the introduction of the vernacular, this is one of the causes of the confusion in the Church today. As Father O’Brien said in his book "A History of the Mass,"

The Catholic Church celebrates in Latin for a variety of reasons ... First. Because she did so in the beginning; and as she never changes her faith, she has never deemed it advisable to change her language. If her sacred language changed with those that are changing around her, there would be no end to the confusion that would result, and much disedification would unavoidably be given by using words and phrases in the hearing of the people to which the grossest meanings are sometimes attached. (p. 33)

The Church prior to Vatican 2 knew that if the vernacular was to be introduced into the Liturgy, there would be no end to the confusion it would cause. And, as Shawn’s scholar admitted above, the Church has been proven correct on this point. The introduction of the Novus Ordo has 1) split the Church in two, 2) caused confusion among the ranks of Catholics, 3) opened the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass to Hula Dance masses, and butterfly masses, clown masses, complete with female Alter servers and communion in the hand. Things that were unheard of, and undreamed of, fifty years ago in the Catholic Church.

Fifty years ago, one could attend Mass anywhere in the world and get the self-same Liturgy that he was accustomed to, understood the liturgy - whether he knew the local language or not - and have known what was going on. Whereas, the opposite holds true today. To cite Father O’Brien again,

Secondly. As order is heaven’s first law, uniformity seems to be the first law of the Church, for which reason she makes it her endeavor to have her greatest charge, the due and respectful celebration of the Adorable Sacrifice of the Altar, conducted with the same ceremonies and said in the same language everywhere. This she could not do unless she had fixed on a common language.

As can easily be seen, uniformity is something not found in the Conciliar church. Shawn’s own scholar admits that the uniformity is gone, and that there is confusion. Hence, we see that the "prophecy" of Father O’Brien - and the pre-Vatican 2 clerics - manifested within our own generation, and we also see the vindication of the Traditional Catholic teaching on this matter.

A good example of the confusion which comes from translating Sacred Texts into the language of the people, can be found in the Sacred Scriptures. For example, today there are hundreds of various translations and version of the Scriptures in the vernacular. Including such ridiculous ones as the "Living Bible," the "African American Bible," and so forth. Anyone who has done any apologetics work with protestants, which this potion of Shawn’s article is geared towards, they not only have to explain what the verse says, but also explain which Bible is the more accurate. It is for this reason that the Church has always resisted the translation of the Bible into the vernacular, it wished to keep it unified in the Latin and eliminate such questions regarding translation.

It is also of interest to note that doctors use Latin in their prescriptions for the simple reason that it is a dead language that doesn’t change. Can you picture the mass confusion at the pharmacy if the doctor were to use English instead of Latin?

Of course, in all honesty, the language may be a large part in the confusion in the Church today but there are other issues which we will get into further on in our refutation.

I. Introduction: Vatican II on the Liturgy

In this section and the succeeding one, my words will be in bold print, the SSPX's in italics, and any sources quoted in regular type (with occasional underlining or bold type in spots for emphasis).

In the first place, I would like to point out that the Traditional Movement does not consist of the Society of Saint Pius X, and the views that they may hold on various subjects are not necessarily the views of the entire Movement.  Although judging by this article, and the other six parts, Shawn's emphasis seems to be on the Society, while ignoring the other parts of the Traditional Movement - although he wishes to group us together in this refutation.  While the Society has done a lot of good, and is to be highly praised for it, it's statements/stances on various subjects are not necessarily the official stance of the Traditional Movement as a whole.  

In the second place, the views of the Society make no difference whatsoever as to the legitimacy of the Traditional Mass, or the illegitimacy of the Novus Ordo. The Society is one group among many in the Traditional Movement, granted they may be the largest, but that does not necessarily that Shawn can define the beliefs of the Traditional Movement on the basis of this one group. It would be the equivalent of trying to define the beliefs of the entire Novus Ordo establishment according to the tenets of the "We Are Church" group. It just doesn’t work that way.

To start with, a look at part of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy (Sacrosanctum Concilium) from the Second Vatican Council.


21. In order that the Christian people may more certainly derive an abundance of graces from the sacred liturgy, holy Mother Church desires to undertake with great care a general restoration of the liturgy itself. For the liturgy is made up of unchangeable elements divinely instituted, and of elements subject to change. These latter not only may be changed but ought to be changed with the passage of time, if they have suffered from the intrusion of anything out of harmony with the inner nature of the liturgy or have become less suitable. In this restoration both texts and rites should be drawn up so as to express more clearly the holy things which they signify. The Christian people, as far as is possible, should be able to understand them with ease and take part in them fully, actively, and as a community. (Emphasis ours)

I would like to point out to the reader the emphasized portions of the above citation provided by Shawn.  The Second Vatican Council states that what they wanted was a restoration - not a new mass.  It further states that the rites and texts of the restored Missal should "express more clearly the holy things which they signify," and yet, as Shawn himself admits, the Novus Ordo Missae is not as explicit, or clear, on various points, such as on the sacrificial nature of the Mass.  Therefore, we are forced to come to the conclusion that the Novus Ordo Missae is not what the Second Vatican Council had in mind when it drew up the document "Sacrosanctum Concilium."  As one prelate, who fulfilled important functions during the Council, stated:  

"I regret having voted in favor of the Council Constitution (Sacrosanctum Concilium) in whose name (but in what a manner!) this heretical pseudo-reform has been carried out, a triumph of arrogance and ignorance. If it were possible, I would take back my vote, and attest before a magistrate that my assent had been obtained through trickery." (As cited in Pope John's Council by Michael Davies, page 224, quoting a prelate of the Council.) 

Father Paul Leonard wrote in an article which he wrote entitled "The Present Legal Status of the Traditional Latin Mass,"

Certainly there may be many who will ask: "What about Vatican II? Didn't the Council decree that there should be a new  rite of Mass?" The answer to this question is a very emphatic NO. The Second Vatican Council decreed that the liturgy of the Roman Rite be revised. It did not decree a radical reform or an entirely new rite. The Liturgy Constitution, SACROSANCTUM CONCILIUM, reads: 

The rite of the Mass is 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, and that devout and active participation by the faithful may be more easily achieved. For this purpose the rites are to be simplified, due care being taken to preserve their substance; elements which, with the passage of time, came to be duplicated, or were added with but little advantage, are now to be discarded; other elements which have suffered injury through accidents of history are now to be restored according to the pristine norm of the holy Fathers, to the extent that they may seem useful or necessary.

There are some key passages in this text, and elsewhere in this conciliar document that must be examined in order to determine if the creation of a New Order of Mass and the suppression of the traditional rite corresponds to the express wishes of the Second Vatican Council, or if it is rather a rejection of both that Council and the perpetual teaching and tradition of the Church: 

1) The rite of the Mass is to be revised... 

The revision of the ancient Roman Rite is prescribed, there is no mention of a liturgical reform that will sweep away the old rite and replace it with a new one. 

2) ...the intrinsic nature and purpose of its several parts...more clearly manifested... 

The sacred mystery of the altar must be manifested more clearly, it must not be obscured in ambiguities. 

3) ...restored according to the pristine norm of the holy Fathers. 

Restoration means that the ancient structure and form are to be preserved, and not be replaced with novel inventions. 

In addition to these there are other passages of this document which express the mind of the Council in those matters concerning the revision of the liturgy: 

Finally, in faithful obedience to tradition, the sacred Council declares that Holy Mother Church holds all lawfully recognized rites to be of equal right and dignity; that she wishes to preserve them in the future and to foster them in every way. The Council also desires that, where necessary, the rites be revised carefully in the light of sound tradition, and that they be given new vigor to meet the present-day circumstances and needs. 

In order that sound tradition be retained...there must be no innovations unless the good of the Church genuinely and certainly requires them, and care must be taken that any new forms adopted should in some way grow organically from forms already existing

In this restoration both text and rites should be ordered so as to express more clearly the holy things they signify

Here are the key passages: 

1) ...in faithful obedience to tradition... 
2) ...all lawfully recognized rites...to preserve them in the future and to foster them in every way... 
3) ...the rites be revised carefully in the light of sound tradition... 
4) ...In order that sound tradition be retained...there must be no innovations unless the good of the Church genuinely and certainly requires them... 
5) ...any new forms adopted should in some way grow organically from forms already existing... 
6) ...In this restoration both text and rites should be ordered so as to express more clearly the holy things they signify. 

It is absolutely clear according to the text of SACROSANCTUM CONCILIUM, that the traditional rite of Mass of the Roman Church is to be preserved and restored, and it must clearly express the dogmatic truths that it had previously expressed. The Council very clearly did not call for the institution of an entirely new rite of Mass, but, not unlike the Council of Trent , it intended 
to revise and preserve the ancient Roman Rite.  (The Present Legal Status of the Traditional Latin Mass)

Many "traditionalists" as they call themselves react with comments like "the Novus Ordo is either a.) illicit b.) doubtfully valid c.) sacrilegeously valid or d.) an invalid Mass." At the same time, comments are made defending the Tridentine Ritual most commonly along the lines of "the Traditional Latin Mass (Tridentine Rite codified by Pope Pius V in 1570) has been the Mass for the past 2,000 years" or "it is the Mass of All Time" which are comments that betray a profound degree of historical ignorance.

In the first place, the Traditional Mass (which Shawn wrongfully terms the "Tridentine Rite") consists of the Traditions of the Apostles (according to the infallible Council of Trent). Furthermore, it is certainly nearly 2,000 years old. The last major change to the Canon, for example, took place during the reign of Pope Gregory the Great in the 6th and 7th centuries - and those were only minor changes. Which, in turn, means that the Canon of the Traditional Mass had been around long before then. Father Fortescue says the following:

"The prayers of our Canon are found in the treatise De Sacramentis (4th-5th centuries )... Our Mass goes back without essential changes 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... There is not in all Christendom a rite so venerable as that of the Roman Missal." (1)

As Father Fortescue also said elsewhere:

Essentially the Missal of Pius V, is the Gregorian Sacramentary, that again is formed from the Galasian book, which depends on the Leonine collection. We find prayers of our Canon in the treatise de Sacramentis and allusions to it in the 4th century. So our Mass goes back, without essential change, to the age when it first developed out of the oldest Liturgy of all. It is still redolent of that Liturgy, of the days when Caesar ruled the world and thought he could stamp out the Faith of Christ, when our fathers met together before dawn and sang a hymn to Christ as to a God. The final result of our enquiry is that, in spite of unsolved problems, in spite of later changes, there is not in Christendom another rite so venerable as ours. (The Mass – A Study of the Roman Liturgy. Adrian Fortescue. Longmans, Green & Co. London. 1950. p. 213)

The Great Sacrilege had the following to say: 

There is, therefore, no such thing as a "Tridentine Mass," or a "Mass of St. Pius V," strictly speaking, for which reason I reluctantly use the terms here and do so in quotation marks. It is almost a concession to present-day "reformers" to employ such terms. Better to refer to it as "The Mass of the Roman Rite," or "The Traditional Catholic Mass," or the like. Before I am finished here, you will understand why I feel obligated to speak of it as the "True Mass," if you do not already. According to Fortescue, the work of the Tridentine Commission, which produced the Missale Romanum, consisted mainly of purging from the Liturgy disparate "medieval accretions" and established a single ceremonial for practically all the churches of the Roman Rite. (The Great Sacrilege)

Initially Mass was celebrated in a more intimate house setting and before Mass there was an "agape" or love feast. The "agape" was dropped in the early to mid second century and the self-styled "traditionalists" of that period probably voiced their disapproval as something along the lines of the modifications being "against tradition." What about the move from primarily worship in private homes to church buildings starting in the 4th century???

In the first place, the "agape" was not dropped in the "early to mid second century," as Shawn would have us believe, but was gradually dropped between the sixth century and the eighth century - not a spontaneous dropping as Shawn would seem to want us to believe.  In the second place, the "agape" did not take place "before Mass," but after the Holy Sacrifice.  As Tertullian pointed out (Apolog., vii - ix) after the "agape", the people departed.  In other words, it couldn't have possibly taken place before Mass, but only after.  As Father Wathen stated, "it was a meal which followed the celebration of the Mass." (The Great Sacrilege)  In the third place, Traditionalists would not have contested it's gradual extinction, for, after all, the "agape" was swiftly becoming a source of scandal.  As the Encyclopedic Catholic Dictionary states "These 'love-feasts' were soon definitely separated from the Eucharist and became sources of disorder and scandal.  St. Augustine and St. Paulinus of Nola complained of them, and the Council's of Laodicea (363) and in Trullo (692) had to forbid feasting in church.  By the 8th century the agape had disappeared altogether." (p. 12)  In fact, I think that Traditional Catholics at the time would have applauded it's extinction.  Hence we see that there this is one of the many practices of the Early Church which should not be brought back, and which we, as Catholics, should be glad haven't been brought back.  We will go into this subject of whether or not the practices of the Early Church should be reinstituted, in Part IV.

Furthermore, the move from "primarily worship in private homes to church buildings starting in the 4th century" would not have been contested by Traditional Catholics since this move was conducive to the piety and devotion of the Faithful, and since this move did not concern any points of doctrine, nor was this move conducive to any form of heresy or impiety.  Lastly, the practice of saying Mass in the catacombs, and so forth, was a point that brought about due to necessity, because of the Roman Persecutions - not to preference.  

The Traditional Mass was held in the back of jeeps during WWII, in Spain in the 30's in was held in private houses out in the middle of woods to avoid persecution. In Ireland, for over 500 years, it was held in the swamps (Persecution Laws of Ireland and England ). Today, in many places, the Traditional Mass is said in private homes - because no Church buildings are available. Architecture and structure is not one of the major problems Traditional Catholics have with the Conciliar church. If Shawn had taken his time to study our position and Church history, he would have seen that our problems with the Conciliar Church go much much deeper than architecture, and he also would have seen that it was not at all uncommon for Catholics, during times of persecution, to have Mass said in private homes.

All the complaints about the "High Altar" common to current "traditionalist" objections would have caused a Christian of the first few centuries to look at the objector with a degree of profound puzzlement. After all, there was no "High Altar" used in celebrating Mass but instead a smaller table-form was the altar of Mass in the earliest time periods. Yet to the self-styled "traditionalist" the absence of a "High Altar" is anathema.

In the first place, the example set by the Christians of the "first few centuries" cannot be used to support Shawn's position in this case since, as we have seen above, what they did was due to necessity - not preference.  They did not say Mass on "a smaller table form" because they thought this was conducive to the honor of God, but simply because they couldn't hide a High Altar on a moment's notice.  The practice of using a "High Altar" developed out of a deep respect for God and the Holy Sacrifice.  There is absolutely no excuse for reverting to the table-form, and tearing the High Altar's out of hundreds of thousands of Catholic Churches world-wide - and, in some cases, using them as a curbstones in parking lots, or simply throwing them in a dumpster.  This is nothing more than an example of profound disrespect towards the Holy Sacrament.  

Although Traditionalists have always understood that, out of necessity, it might be necessary to use a table, or a jeep, or an air-plane wing, or something along those lines, as we have explained above.  What we cannot understand is why people would prefer a table to a High Altar - which, in our opinion, provides more reverence to God, and is very symbolic of the importance of the event taking place on the Altar -, and would tear the High Altar out of Churches where they were already in existence and in use.  

The Early Christians would have looked at Shawn with puzzlement if he mentioned 1) Crucifixes, 2) the Bible, 3) female altar girls, 4) the Rosary, and so forth. This does not mean that having Crucifixes is wrong, nor does it mean that we should return to the Early Church practice of removing the Corpus of Christ from the Cross, and just keeping a bare Cross - like the protestants do. All that means is that at that time it was a new development. It does not mean that these things are wrong, nor does this mean that we should return to the Early Church practices. Furthermore, these are also exterior matters. Not matters of doctrine, nor matters which pertain to the liturgy per se. Nor are they a major problem. If the only problem Traditional Catholics have with the Conciliar church is merely architecture, then there wouldn’t be much to disagree about. The problems run much deeper than merely such exterior matters.

The early Church "traditionalist" would also have scoffed at the idea of moving worship from private homes to larger church buildings making a claim along the lines of "well Our Lord never commissioned His Apostles to celebrate Mass in big church buildings now did He???"

As was pointed out above the moving of Worship to "larger church buildings" was not a move that was conducive to impiety, or conducive to heresy.  In fact, this move was one which was conducive to the reverence paid to God.  Secondly, as was also pointed out above, the primary reason why "larger church buildings" were not used in the early centuries is because of the Roman Persecutions - not a matter of preference.  Thirdly, it is ridiculous to state that Traditional Catholics would be upset with the change mentioned above, because, after all, Christ never stated where the Apostles were supposed to say Mass, in private homes or otherwise.  He only stated that they were supposed to say it.   

The arguments about changes of the Mass forms along the lines of replacing certain liturgical sections are ones that boomerang back at the "traditionalist" for one very good reason: such modifications are not at all uncommon throughout history. Where is the Te Igitur, Secret, Gloria, or Nicene Creed in the pre-Nicene Masses??? They are not to be found.

And Shawn’s argument here boomerangs back in his direction. The Secret, Gloria, Nicene Creed, and so forth, were not added to a liturgy created on the spur of the moment by a Pope. They were added over a period of time, as the Liturgy developed. With the Novus Ordo Missae everything was added or subtracted by a crowd of liturgists, who decided that it was a good idea to have four "canons," instead of one, and give the Priest the option to say whichever one he wanted to.  

In other words, one was developed over the wisdom of time, with the aid of the Holy Ghost, while the other was created overnight on the spur of the moment, with the aid of Archbishop Bugnini. One developed over a period of nearly 2,000 years, while the other was created within a decade. Furthermore, the addition of the Gloria and the Credo and so forth, were put there so 1) people would know the Catholic Faith, and 2) to praise God. Whereas the creation of the Novus Ordo Missae does not seem to focus on God and His Glory,  but, rather, seem to focus on the glory and honor of man. As can be seen from the fact that 1) most Masses are said in the vernacular (for man, not God), 2) most Masses are said facing the people, 3) we now have quite a few "optional" parts of the Mass, where people can decide for themselves if they are going to honor God, or if they’re not, 4) right in the middle of the mass, after the Consecration, the "Rite of peace" came in, where we all get to wander around the Church and concentrate upon man while ignoring God upon the Altar. All of these innovations were brought in not for the greater honor and glory of God, but for man.  We shall deal with each of these individually further on in this refutation.

A large number of the little distinctive are absent from the ancient Masses of the first few centuries. This should not surprise since the Tridentine Rite received much of its current structure in the late 6th century in the Gregorian reforms of Pope Gregory the Great (590-604) and the Tridentine Rite did not exist in the substantial form we have it now before the 11th or 12th century.

Shawn’s statements above are "comments that betray a profound degree of historical ignorance." As the Catholic Encyclopedia 1913 stated:

"We come now to the end of a period at the reign of St. Gregory I (590-604). Gregory knew the Mass practically as we still have it. There have been additions and changes since his time, but none to compare with the complete recasting of the Canon that took place before him. At least as far as the Canon is concerned, Gregory may be considered as having put the last touches to it. (2)

The Mass of St. Gregory’s time was the Mass "practically as we still have it." As Father Jungmann said in his book "The Mass of the Roman Rite,"

Later on, in the course of our study of various Mass-elements, we will encounter only a few modifications by Gregory the Great (590-604) - chiefly in the Kyrie, Pater noster, preface and Hanc igitur; but these are for the most part a return to older and simpler forms. (3)

As Reverend John T. McGuire, in his book "The Mass Presented to Non-Catholics," pointed out:

"By the end of the sixth century, during the reign of Pope Gregory the Great, the canon was already in its present form.  Of this we are certain.  But probably it was already crystallized in its present form in a much earlier period." (p. 49)

Hence we see that the structure of the Mass, and the canon itself, was in place prior to Pope Gregory the Great's reign - and Pope Gregory the Great only changed a few minor parts of the Mass.   

Numerous additions were made in the first centuries of the second millennium including adding the "filioque" to the Creed and making the Creed a fixture of all Masses (11 century), the introduction of Low Mass for the first time (12th century), and other modifications through the 13th and 14th centuries. This culminated in the Old Roman (or Tridentine) Rite of the 15th century (represented by the Roman Missal of 1474) that was identical to the Roman Missal promulgated by Pope St. Pius V in 1570. That these changes were made does not seem to disturb the "traditionalist" whom (for some reason) believes that the Church was justified in making previous liturgical modifications but no longer is.

In the first place, these were gradual changes that took place between the eleventh century and the sixteenth century, a period of several hundred years - not like the creation of four "canons" in less than a decade.  In the second place, all the above developments were perfectly orthodox, and were made for good and sound reasons.  Whereas there does not seem to be a reason for the advent of the Novus Ordo Missae and the discarding of the Traditional Mass. In the third place, there is a difference between making liturgical modifications and overhauling the Mass and creating a completely new one, as Pope Paul VI did.  

Insofar as the filioque, the Creed, and so forth, are concerned, Shawn has given us no new information here. This is common knowledge.  As a matter of fact, he uses a very similar argument up above with the Kyrie and the Gloria.  This is a rehash of the argument given above by Shawn, although this version is longer and contains more names.  

Gradual development in the liturgy has always been accepted by Traditional Catholics, and we have no problem with this.  What took place under the reign of Pope Paul VI, on the other hand, was not a gradual development, but the manufacturing of a new rite.

In case I did not mention it earlier, consistency is not exactly a hallmark of "traditionalism" and this factor will become more explicit as we move through the subsequent sections of this treatise.

Here we see a personal shot against Traditionalism made by Shawn which has no basis in fact. Furthermore, as we shall see, Shawn isn't the one who should be throwing stones here - as the innovators themselves are not very consistent.

Now admittedly the Pauline Rite was the largest overhaul of the Mass liturgy at one time since the days of Pope Gregory the Great, but (as I have noted already) in Gregory's time a similar overhaul was done of the liturgies.

As we have already seen above, this is a good example of Shawn’s false history. Pope St. Gregory the Great did not add four new canons, or take away 70% of the old one.  The Reform that Pope St. Gregory the Great started was a minor one, when compared with the revolution which took place under Paul VI.  Furthermore, as Michael Davies noted in his book "A Short History of the Roman Mass":  

"The keynote of the reform of St. Gregory was fidelity to the traditions that had been handed down (the root meaning of the Latin word traditio is to hand over or hand down). His reform consisted principally of the simplification and more orderly arrangement of the existing rite, the reduction of the variable prayers at each Mass to three (Collect, Secret, and Postcommunion), and a reduction of the variations occurring at that time within the Canon, prefaces and additional forms for the Communicantes and Hanc Igitur. These variations can still be found on a very few occasions such as Christmas and Easter. His principal work was certainly the definitive arrangement of the Roman Canon. The Lectionary was also given a definitive form, but was still to undergo considerable change subsequently. The Order of Mass as found in the 1570 Missal of St. Pius, apart from minor additions and amplifications, corresponds very closely with the order established by St. Gregory. It is also to this great Pope that we owe, to a large extent, the codification of the incomparable chant that bears his name."

Hence we see that, compared to Pope Paul VI's "reform," the Reform of Pope St. Gregory the Great was a minor one, and was faithful to "the traditions that had been handed down."  In what way can this Reform of His Holiness, Pope St. Gregory the Great, be compared to the revolution of His Holiness, Pope Paul VI?

Lastly, though, we are glad to see that Shawn here all but admits that the Novus Ordo was not a development, but an overhaul - not at all what Vatican II requested, as we have seen above, and shall see again below.  

Undoubtedly if those of the SSPX were around at the time, they would have shrieked and screamed over the entire process calling Pope Gregory's modifications to have been "against tradition."

This is rather funny, because when Pope St. Gregory the Great added a few words to the Hanc Igitur, the people of Rome were outraged. According to Canon Hesse, they threatened to kill Pope St. Gregory the Great – because he had dared to touch liturgy (The New Mass Mess audiotape). Apparently, the Society of Saint Pius X was around then - maybe not in an organization as they are now, but as far as people who love the Traditional Mass like they do certainly were around. Yes, we can definitely find them in existence, even way back then.  

The "Michael Davies" of the late 6th-early 7th century would have written a series of books on "Pope Gregory's Mass", etc much as the self-styled "traditionalists" in every other period would have acted. I can see numerous parallels taking place actually but I think I have made my point.

As it is, the "Michael Davies of the late 6th-early 7th century" would not have written a series of books on "Pope Gregory's Mass", due to the fact that 1) Pope Gregory the Great's Reform was faithful to tradition and 2) the Mass was not substantially changed, and was, for the most part, left alone.  Secondly, as it is, Shawn cannot use the Reform of Pope St. Gregory the great to justify the revolution of Pope Paul VI.  Pope St. Gregory the Great did not create a new rite - after all the people of Rome wouldn't have allowed it - he reformed the Traditional Rite, making only relatively minor changes, as we have shown above.  

The overhaul of the liturgy (not to mention the inclusion of "Gregorian Chant" by this same Pope) would have seemed to be "novelties" by those with the Society mindset. The Gregorian reforms kept the essentials in structure of the Masses of the previous periods but there were differences in content, prayers, etc. Likewise, the Masses in the first few centuries were structurally similar in essentials but there were differences in content, prayers, etc much as the Masses of the 7th century and the Mass of the 16th century (Tridentine Rite) had differences in like manner. This is fundamentally no different then the contrast with the Pauline Rite and the Tridentine Rite.

As it is, Shawn's above statement is very repetitive.  Shawn almost repeats himself three times in a row.  Secondly, as we have already seen, Shawn's history concerning the Gregorian Reform is highly inaccurate.  And further down, when we examine the Mass, we shall see that there is no similarity between the Novus Ordo Missae (New Order Mass) and the Traditional Mass - and we shall also see that there are fundamental differences between the two "rites."  

Of course the Tridentine Rite was the "Novus Ordo" of the 14th-16th centuries.

As it is, this is yet another example of Shawn’s pseudo-history.  It seems Shawn is not only willing to overhaul the Mass, but he also seems to be attempting to overhaul history.  This has been more than amply shown above and below, the Traditional Mass was a restoration to the Mass of Fathers. Furthermore, it was essentially the same as that of Pope St. Gregory the Great - the Canon was the same, and many of the prayers surrounding the Canon were the same. Shawn’s statement above would have the reader believe that the Traditional Mass was a "New Order," whereas it wasn’t at all. As Pope St. Pius V makes very clear in Quo Primum.  Contrary to what Shawn is saying, "the 'Tridentine Mass' was not a 'Novus Ordo' of its own day, nor was it ever thought to be by anyone." (The Great Sacrilege)

Because of this, what creates the "traditionalist" reverence towards the Tridentine Rite is not that they believe that it is so much ancient and hallowed (since it differs in many significant ways from earlier liturgies), but because it is what they are used to and that is it.

Here we see Shawn attempting to crawl into the mind of the Traditionalist and analyze it. Allow me to provide a helping hand to Shawn and explain the Traditional Catholics’ reverence for this hallowed Mass. To begin with, it is the Mass of the Fathers and can be traced back to the Apostles. This alone is enough reason to give it the respect that it deserves, and Traditionalists certainly do respect the Mass because it "is so much [more] ancient and hallowed", contrary to what Shawn said above.  As Cardinal Gasquet stated:

"A Catholic, who sees in the living liturgy of the Roman Church the essential forms which remain still what they were 1,200, perhaps nearly 1,400, years ago, cannot but feel a personal love for those sacred rites which come to him with all the authority of centuries.  Any rude handling of such forms must cause deep pain to those who know and use them. For they come to them from God, through Christ and through the Church. But they would not have such attraction ire they not also sanctified by the piety of so many generations who have prayed in the same words and found in them steadiness in joy and consolation in sorrow." (F. Gasquet & H. Bishop, Edward VI and the Book of Common Prayer [London, 1890], p. 183.)

Cardinal Newman concurs:

"Granting that the forms are not immediately from God, still long use has made them divine to us; for the spirit of religion has so penetrated and quickened them, that to destroy them is, in respect of the multitude of men, to unsettle and dislodge the religious principle itself. In most minds usage has so identified them with the notion of religion, that the one cannot be extirpated without the other. Their faith will not bear transplanting." (J.H. Newman, Sermon "Ceremonies of the Chuch," included in Newman Against the Liberals: 25 Classic Sermons by John Henry Newman, selected from Parochial and Plain Sermons, with a Preface by Michael Davies, [Roman Catholic Books, P.O. Box 2286, Ft. Collins, CO 80522], p. 147.)

As Michael Davies pointed out in his booklet "A Short History of the Roman Mass":

Regarding the Traditional Mass of the Roman Rite, the "Tridentine" Mass, Father Fortescue concludes:

Since the Council of Trent the history of the Mass is hardly anything but the composition and approval of new Masses. The scheme and all the fundamental parts remain the same. No one has thought of touching the venerable liturgy of the Roman Mass, except by adding to it new propers.

His final assessment of the Missal of St. Pius V merits careful meditation:

There are many days still on which we say the Mass that has been said for centuries back to the days of the Gelasian and Leonine books. And when they do come, the new Masses only affect the Proper. Our Canon is untouched, and all the scheme of the Mass. Our Missal is still that of Pius V We may be very thankful that his Commission was so scrupulous to keep or restore the old Roman tradition. Essentially the Missal of Pius V. is the Gregorian Sacramentary; that again is formed from the Gelasian book, which depends on the Leonine collection. We find the prayers of our Canon in the treatise De Sacramentis and allusions to it in the IVth century. So our Mass goes back, without essential change, to the age when it first developed out of the oldest liturgy of all. It is still redolent of that liturgy, of the days when Caesar ruled the world and thought he could stamp out the faith of Christ, when our fathers met together before dawn and sang a hymn to Christ as to a God. The final result of our enquiry is that, in spite of unsolved problems, in spite of later changes there is not in Christendom another rite so venerable as ours.

Msgr. Klaus Gamber, one of the greatest liturgists of this century, asks in his book, The Reform of the Roman Liturgy, a very pertinent question concerning the motivation of the reform which followed Vatican II, but was in no way mandated by the Council:

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

Thanks be to God, the Tridentine Mass is not simply "the most beautiful thing this side of heaven" but the Mass that will not die. Just as the faithful of Milan refused to allow the Ambrosian Mass to be replaced by the Roman Mass, so the faithful of the Roman Rite have refused to abandon the Mass that is redolent of the liturgy "of the days when Caesar ruled the world and thought he could stamp out the faith of Christ, when our fathers met together before dawn and sang a hymn to Christ as to a God." Its renewed use is spreading throughout the world with every day that passes, and each year more and more young priests are ordained who are resolved to celebrate Mass only according to the Missal of St. Pius which is as certain to be the Mass of our children as it was the Mass of our fathers.

As the "Prayer," for the feast of Pope St. Pius V (May 5, according to the old calendar) - as found in the Traditional Liturgy, and said for years by thousands upon thousands of Priests, Bishops, Popes, Saints, and so forth - stated:

O God, Who didst vouchsafe to choose blessed Pius Thy chief bishop for the crushing of the enemies of Thy Church and the restoration of divine worship, make us to be defended by his watchful care and so to adhere to Thy service that, all the contrivances of our enemies being overcome, we may rejoice in everlasting peace. (The New Roman Missal, by Father Lasance, p. 1013-14)

Secondly, our reverence for the Traditional Mass is also based upon the amount of reverence that the Mass gives to God. The Dignity of God is upheld in the Traditional Mass, while the opposite is true with the New Mass. Here is the problem, and one of the many differences between Shawn and the Traditional Catholic. The Traditional Catholic believes that God has dignity, which dignity must be upheld. Whereas Shawn seems to deny this fact.

In his appendix, he provides an article by Dr. Art Sippo on Ecumenism. In this article, the doctor says:

When we try to preserve the dignity of God we forget that after the humiliation of the Incarnation and the Crucifixion, God has no dignity left to defend..... We do not need to defend God's dignity. He has already given that up for us and, frankly, he can defend himself if need be.

Hence, how in the world can Shawn even begin to believe that he understands the Traditional Catholic’s mind? With this type of fundamental differences, it becomes impossible for Shawn to understand the Traditional Catholics’ mind and the Traditional Catholics’ Love for God and the Traditional Mass, which uphold the Dignity of God.

The "traditionalist" in order to be consistent historically would have to have reacted in a similar manner towards not only the reforms of Pope Gregory the Great (and all reforms preceding the time of Gregory) but also all reforms subsequent to Gregory as well.

The keynote of the reforms of Pope St. Gregory the Great, as was pointed out by Michael Davies, was fidelity to what has been handed down, to tradition - not to mention the fact that the result of the Reform of Pope St. Gregory the Great was not a heretical protestant-friendly meal-service, while the result of the greatest overhaul in history (that of Pope Paul VI) was most certainly heretical, protestant-friendly, a meal-service, and bears very little resemblance to the Mass of the centuries.  As it is, though, the Novus Ordo Missae bears a striking resemblance to the Anglican Communion Service - I ask the reader to keep in mind the fact that hundreds and thousands of Saints have been martyred for refusing to attend Anglican prayer services.   

"Traditionalists" would have protested at Pope Pius V suppressing almost 2 dozen local Western Rites and promulgating the Roman Missal on the entire West with only a few exceptions (e.g. the Dominican and Ambrosian Rites).

As it is, Traditional Catholics would not have protested this move since Pope St. Pius V was eliminating the innovations that had crept into the Liturgy.  Quo Primum itself makes it very clear! The only rites that were abolished were those that weren't 200 years old, as of the writing of Quo Primum!  Therefore, the ones that were abolished were relatively new rites - period.  Furthermore, the result of the Reform of Pope St. Pius V was not a heretical service.  Hence, as the reader can plainly see, Traditional Catholics would not have protested this move of His Holiness, Pope St. Pius V.  

After all, according to the "traditionalist" this move would go against "tradition." 

No, of course not.  As we have already shown, the Reform of Pope St. Pius V was suppressing a few local rites, which were less than two hundred years old.  Hence, they were certainly not traditional rites of the Catholic Church - but were new ones.  And, as we have also shown above, the Reform of St. Pius V was in response to the protestant abuses, and the novelties which had crept into the Liturgy.  Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of Pope Paul VI's revolt. 

I covered tradition in a macro form earlier and later I will be covering it in a micro format when discussing the finer details of the Mass and explaining the erroneous views of the Society and other self-styled "traditionalists" on what is and is not authentic Tradition. Right now though, I wish to cover the Pauline Rite Mass and will examine the prevailing "traditionalist" mindset that I have alluded to here in subsequent sections of this treatise. However, I need to show the position of the Society and its Magisterial hierarchy towards the Revised Missal so that their position is clear. I present here the following statements from SSPX officers (and some statements from the Church Fathers and Councils I have interspersed in-between). I hope the point I am seeking to make here by doing this is obvious:

The point is most certainly obvious.  Shawn is here stating that his intention is to attack the Society of Saint Pius X.  As we feel that Shawn has misrepresented the Church Fathers, Councils, and the "SSPX officers" that he mentions above, we shall examine this portion of his "treatise" as well.  

As far as Traditionalists protesting the suppression of those rites, and the enforcing of the Traditional Mass as the uniform Rite of the West (with the exception of several "sub-rites," such as the Dominicans) goes, we have already examined this point above.  Traditional Catholics at that time would have understood the reasons for the suppression of those new local Western Rites, and the fact that in order to better combat the heresies of protestantism a uniform Liturgy was necessary.  But, as it is, the Novus Ordo Missae was not formed in order to combat the heresies of protestantism, but is, rather, a protestant-friendly meal-service - and most certainly cannot be considered a uniform liturgy, as is obvious by its very lack of structure (another protestant attribute). 

SSPX: "All these (pre Pope John XXIII) Popes have resisted the union of the Church with the revolution; it is an adulterous union and from such a union only bastards can come. The rite of the new mass is a bastard rite…"

As it is, I happen to have a copy of the book which Shawn here cites (Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre’s "An Open Letter to Confused Catholics," copyright 1986), and I read (and reread) page 116 which he gives as the source for this citation. Unfortunately, this phrase simply doesn’t exist. The page does not contain it anywhere. Nor does the page before or afterwards. We have scanned in this page and the one following it  (pg. 116-117) as a photograph (so there can be no claim of tampering) so the reader can see for themselves this citation does not exist in the book referred to by Shawn, "An Open Letter to Confused Catholics."  photograph of pg. 116-117  Hence, we have one of two choices.  Either A) Shawn completely fabricated this statement, and it is nothing more than a lie, set up to completely discredit the good Archbishop and the Society which he founded, or B) Shawn gave a false source for this citation, which would show that he did not research this citation properly - and would make one wonder where he got it, since he didn't do the research necessary to locate it.  As it is, whichever way we go this shows a lack of 1) honesty, 2) open-mindedness with regards to the situation at hand, 3) viable research. I would like to take this opportunity to remind Shawn, and the reader, of the following citation from Sacred Scripture:

A false witness shall not be unpunished: and he that speaketh lies, shall perish---Prov. xix 9

This citation does show that, at any time that we are going to bear witness against someone, we need to speak the truth. And we are responsible if we do not, and the result will not be good - and could mean, as the citation says, that our immortal soul will perish with the lies it concocted.

Council of Trent: [That no room may be left for superstition]; they shall by ordinance, and under given penalties, provide, that priests do not celebrate at other than due hours; NOR EMPLOY OTHER RITES, OR OTHER CEREMONIES AND PRAYERS, IN THE CELEBRATION OF MASSES, BESIDES THOSE WHICH HAVE BEEN APPROVED OF BY THE CHURCH…" [3]

As it is, at that time the Novus Ordo Missae wasn’t even in existence.  The Council of Trent was called to combat the errors of protestantism, and to clarify the Catholic position on the doctrines mentioned in the Sacred Council.  Whereas, the Novus Ordo Missae itself was 1) formulated with the help of six protestants, 2) ecumenically oriented, 3) structurally similar to protestant sects, 4) heretical, 5) favorable to use by protestants, and so forth.  All of which make it very clear that the Council of Trent did not have anything such as the Novus Ordo Missae in mind when it made the above statement.  In fact, I think that quite a few of the Council Fathers would have had a heart attack if they woke up one morning and saw the Holy Father saying the Novus Ordo Missae.

As Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci stated in their letter of 25 September 1969, along with a copy of the famous Ottaviani Intervention,:

1. The accompanying Critical Study is the work of a select group of bishops, theologians, liturgists, and pastors of souls. Despite its brevity, the study shows quite clearly that the Novus Ordo Missae--considering the new elements widely susceptible to widely different interpretations which are implied or taken for granted--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 22 of the Council of Trent. The "canons" of the rite definitively fixed at that time erected an insurmountable barrier against any heresy which might attack the integrity of the Mystery.

Hence, I find it quite ridiculous that Shawn would cite the Council of Trent to defend a "mass" which is a "striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass" as it was formulated in the Council of Trent.  

SSPX: "the sacraments are bastard sacraments. We no longer know if they are sacraments which give grace or do not give it…" [4]

The source given for this citation is the same as the above, page 116 of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre’s "An Open Letter to Confused Catholics," copyright 1986. As it is, this citation happens to be found in the same place as the one given earlier - in other words, not at all in the book. This is an example of what Matt1618 terms "A Tremendous Treatise.... powerfully documented". As was pointed out above, we have scanned in this page and the one following it (pg. 116-117) as a photograph (so there can be no claim of tampering). photograph of pg. 116-117

Secondly, we can excuse one accidental misquote. After all, Shawn is human and can make mistakes. Unfortunately, when we have multiple misquotes (so far, at least three from the Archbishop’s Open Letter), especially as far-fetched as these, we must doubt the honesty of Shawn and his source. To cite, yet again, Sacred Scripture:

There shall not enter into it (the new Jerusalem) any thing defiled, or that worketh abomination, or maketh a lie, but they that are written in the book of life of the Lamb.---Apoc. xxi 27

Council of Trent: IF ANY ONE SAITH, THAT GRACE, AS FAR AS GOD'S PART IS CONCERNED, IS NOT GIVEN THROUGH THE SAID SACRAMENTS, ALWAYS, AND TO ALL MEN, even though they receive them rightly, but (only) sometimes, and to some persons; LET HIM BE ANATHEMA. [5]

This all sounds very good, but the Sacraments being referred to here by the Council of Trent were the Traditional Sacraments. The new ones hadn’t been manufactured yet, and, as we have already shown, and shall show, the Mass and the Sacraments of the Novus Ordo represent a "striking departure" from the Catholic Theology of the Mass, as formulated by the Council of Trent.  

SSPX: "The priests coming out of the seminaries are bastard priests, who do not know what they are. They are unaware that they are made to go up to the altar, to offer the sacrifice of Our Lord Jesus Christ and to give Jesus Christ to souls." [6]

The same thing happened with this citation, which - allegedly - comes from the Archbishop’s book "An Open Letter Confused Catholics," page 116 and yet doesn’t appear in the book. Are we starting to see a pattern here? Three so-called citations from the Archbishop, in a row, which don’t appear in the reference which Shawn gives for them... if this were baseball, we’d be forced to follow the "three strikes and you’re out" principle. As was pointed out above, the pages in question have been scanned in as photographs, if the reader is interested in seeing these photographs, all he has to do is click on the following link:  photograph of pg. 116-117


Nowhere does the above (alleged) citation from the Archbishop deny that the intention to do what the Church does is necessary for the validity of the Sacrament, nor does it even mention their intention. Again we see Shawn pulling an (alleged) citation out of context.  Furthermore, we cannot overemphasize the fact pointed out above, that the Novus Ordo Missae is a departure from the Catholic Theology of the Mass, as the Council of Trent formulated it.  

SSPX: "Instead of signing useless petitions all those who want the traditional mass should join our ranks and show Rome a united front and boycott the new mass, the new clergy, in fine, this new religion..." [8]

There is nothing wrong with this statement.  This statement is perfectly correct, insofar as it suggests that Traditional Catholics should unite and show a united front towards the heretical new mass, and boycott it.  This statement does not deny the authority of Rome, it merely states that we should resist Rome in this instance - for more on our duty to resist, please read Appendix I. 


St. Ignatius, in the first sentence of his statement, points out to us that we must keep away from those evil plants which "Christ does not tend," because they were not planted by God. In this statement we see that he is ordering us to avoid heretics, and to keep away from them. Secondly, his statement concerning the Bishop applies only in the case with an orthodox Catholic Bishop. After all, if we were in England during the 16th century, and kept to Shawn’s theory concerning "obedience" to heretical bishops in matters which are contrary to the Faith, then we would all have apostatized and been on our way to hell. Thirdly, it is the Novus Ordo Missae that is destroying the unity of the Church, as we - and Shawn’s scholar - have already shown above.

Is the SSPX in Schism??? I cover this topic later on in this treatise. It can be argued though that Fr Jean Violette exhibits a schismatic mentality in his comments though.

As it is, whether the Society of Saint Pius X is in schism, or whether Father Jean Violette "exhibits a schismatic mentality in his comments" is outside the scope of our present refutation.  Secondly, the comments of Father Jean Violette really has no bearing on whether or not the Society itself is in schism.  For, after all, one Priest, or one Officer, of the Society could hold improper tendencies or heretical beliefs, but this would not justify the claim that all the Priests in the Society are schismatic.  But, as we shall see below, Father Violette, in the statements cited by Shawn, certainly does not hold any schismatic tendencies, or heretical beliefs.  

SSPX: "One of the conditions for the granting of the ‘favour’ is that the new mass be recognized as being as good as the traditional Mass... [10]

There is no such thing as "the traditional Mass." The Mass has been modified innumerable times throughout the centuries.

In the first place, Father Violette's use of the term "traditional" in reference to the Mass has no bearing on whether or not he has schismatic tendencies.  In the second place, whether or not the term "traditional" is used in reference to the Mass really doesn't prove a thing.  But let us consider the use of the term "traditional Mass."  

The Canon of the Traditional Mass "consists both of the words of God, and of the traditions of the apostles, and also of pious instructions of the holy Pontiffs." (Council of Trent, Chapter 4 Session XXII) The Traditional Mass consists of Tradition. It is full of Tradition.  It has been handed down to us over the course of the centuries!  As Michael Davies pointed out "the root meaning of the Latin word traditio is to hand over or hand down."  (A Short History of the Roman Mass)  That the Traditional Mass has been protected and handed down to us by our fathers is a point that is completely indisputable!  Father Fortescue himself refers to the Mass as "a sacred tradition" that has been handed down to us:

"All later modifications were fitted into the old arrangement, and the most important parts were not touched. From, roughly, the time of St. Gregory we have the text of the Mass, its order and arrangement, as a sacred tradition that no one has ventured to touch except in unimportant details" (The Mass: A Study of the Roman Liturgy, 1912, p. 173 emphasis ours)

This claim is sheer historical ignorance on the part of Fr. Violette. The Tridentine Rite was the "new order Mass" of the early Middle Ages. The Pauline Rite is the "new order Mass" (or Novus Ordo) now.

In the first place, we see here a direct, personal, attack on Father Violette - this has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not the Society of Saint Pius X is schismatic, or whether the Novus Ordo is legitimate.  

In the second place, the Traditional Mass was not the "new order Mass" of its day. For Shawn to make such an utterly ridiculous claim is nothing more than a person who lives in a glass house throwing rocks at his neighbor.  The Reform of Saint Pius V was brought about as a response to protestantism.  As Michael Davies stated:

The Missal of St. Pius V was compiled and published in obedience to the Fathers of the Council of Trent. Their intentions were well expressed by Fr. Fortescue:

The Protestant Reformers naturally played havoc with the old liturgy. It was throughout the expression of the very ideas (the Real Presence, Eucharistic Sacrifice, and so on) they rejected. So they substituted for it new communion services that expressed their principles but, of course, broke away utterly from all historic liturgical evolution. The Council of Trent ( 1545­ 1563), in opposition to the anarchy of these new services, wished the Roman Mass to be celebrated uniformly everywhere. The medieval local uses had lasted long enough. They had become very florid and exuberant; and their variety caused confusion!

The first priority of the Council of Trent was to codify Catholic Eucharistic teaching. It did this in very great detail and in clear and inspiring terms. Anathema was pronounced upon anyone who rejected this teaching, and the Fathers insisted that what they had taught concerning the Eucharist must remain unmodified until the end of time:

And so this Council teaches the true and genuine doctrine about this venerable and divine sacrament of the Eucharist, the doctrine which the Catholic Church has always held and which She will hold until the end of the world, as She learned it from Christ Our Lord Himself, from His Apostles, and from the Holy Ghost, Who continually brings all truth to Her mind The Council forbids all the faithful of Christ henceforth to believe, teach or preach anything about the most Holy Eucharist that is different from what is explained and defined in the present decree.

In its eighteenth session, the Council appointed a commission to examine the Missal, to revise and restore it "according to the custom and rite of the Holy Fathers." Doctor Fortescue considers that the members of the Commission established to revise the Missal "accomplished their task very well":

It was not to make a new Missal, but to restore the existing one "according to the custom and rite of the holy Fathers," using for that purpose the best manuscripts and other documents.

He makes particular mention of the liturgical continuity which characterized the new Missal. The Missal promulgated by St. Pius V is not simply a personal decree of the Sovereign Pontiff, but an act of the Council of Trent, even though the Council closed on 4 December 1563, before the commission had completed its task. The matter was remitted to Pope Pius IV, but he died before the work was concluded so that it was his successor, St. Pius V, who promulgated the Missal resulting from the Council, with the Bull Quo Primum Tempore, 14 July 1570. Because the Missal is an act of the Council of Trent, its official title is Missale Romanum ex decreto sacrosancti Concilii Tridentini restitutum ("The Roman Missal Restored According to the Decrees of the Holy Council of Trent"). This was the first time during the one thousand five hundred and seventy years of the Church's history that a council or pope had used legislation to specify and impose a complete rite of Mass.  (A Short History of the Roman Mass)

That the Mass codified by Pope Saint Pius V was not the "novus ordo" of it's day is also a fact that is evident from history.  To cite Michael Davies yet again:

It would be impossible to lay too much stress upon the fact that St. Pius V did not promulgate a new Order of Mass (Novus Ordo Missae). The very idea of composing a new order of Mass was and is totally alien to the whole Catholic ethos, both in the East and in the West. The Catholic tradition has been to hold fast to what has been handed down and look upon any novelty with the utmost suspicion. Cardinal Gasquet observed that:

Every Catholic must feel a personal love for those sacred rites when they come to him with all the authority of the centuries. Any rude handling of such forms must cause deep pain to those who know and use them. For they come to them from God through Christ and through the Church. But they would not have such an attraction were they not also sanctified by the piety of so many generations who have prayed in the same words and found in them steadiness in joy and consolation in sorrow.

The essence of the reform of St. Pius V was, like that of St. Gregory the Great, respect for tradition ­ there was no question of any "rude handling" of what had been handed down. In a letter to The Tablet, published on 24 July 1971, Father David Knowles, who was Britain's most distinguished Catholic scholar until his death in 1974, pointed out that:

The Missal of 1570 was indeed the result of instructions given at Trent, but it was, in fact, as regards the Ordinary, Canon, Proper of the time and much else a replica of the Roman Missal of 1474, which in its turn repeated in all essentials the practice of the Roman Church of the epoch of Innocent III, which itself derived from the usage of Gregory the Great and his successors in the seventh century. In short, the Missal of 1570 was, in all essentials, the usage of the mainstream of medieval European liturgy which included England and all its rites.

Writing in 1912 Father Fortescue was able to comment with satisfaction:

The Missal of Pius V is the one we still use. Later revisions are of slight importance. No doubt in every reform one may find something that one would have preferred not to change. Still, a just and reasonable criticism will admit that Pius V's restoration was on the whole eminently satisfactory. The standard of the commission was antiquity. They abolished later ornate features and made for simplicity, yet without destroying all those picturesque elements that add poetic beauty to the severe Roman Mass. They expelled the host of long sequences that crowded Mass continually, but kept what are undoubtedly the five best; they reduced processions and elaborate, ceremonial, yet kept the really pregnant ceremonies, candles, ashes, palms and the beautiful Holy Week rites. Certainly we in the West may be very glad that we have the Roman rite in the form of Pius V's Missal.

From the above, it is obvious that the Traditional Mass was a restoration, not the introduction of a completely new missal. As Father Fortescue said:

Essentially the Missal of Pius V, is the Gregorian Sacramentary, that again is formed from the Galasian book, which depends on the Leonine collection. We find prayers of our Canon in the treatise de Sacramentis and allusions to it in the 4th century. So our Mass goes back, without essential change, to the age when it first developed out of the oldest Liturgy of all. It is still redolent of that Liturgy, of the days when Caesar ruled the world and thought he could stamp out the Faith of Christ, when our fathers met together before dawn and sang a hymn to Christ as to a God. The final result of our enquiry is that, in spite of unsolved problems, in spite of later changes, there is not in Christendom another rite so venerable as ours. (4)

This is perfectly in agreement with His Holiness’s statement in Quo Primum, where he states:

We resolved accordingly to delegate this task to a select committee of scholars; and they...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 itself to the pristine form and rite of the holy Fathers. (5)

Thus, according to Father Fortescue and His Holiness, Pope St. Pius V, the Traditional Mass stems from the "form and rite of the holy Fathers," can be traced back as far as the fourth century, and the Traditional Mass itself was not the creation of a "new order of mass" but a restoration of the Mass used for centuries in Christendom by the Early Church Fathers and by the Latin Rite itself. As The New Catholic Dictionary (Vatican Edition, 1929) states:

As far as the Mass is concerned, it is practically the same today as in the time of Gregory the Great (590-604). It is the constant tradition that Gregory was the last to make any change in the Canon. (p. 833)

Hence, we see that it wasn’t the "New Order" of Pius V’s day, as Shawn erroneously claims. His statements are completely dishonest and ridiculous when one examines them in the light of reliable references such as the above.

There is no such thing as one Mass being "as good as" or "better" than another one: this is a purely arbitrary conjecture by Fr. Violette. The Mass when said according to the proscribed rubrics is infinite in its merits because the sacrifice offered is an unbloody re-presentation of the same sacrifice of Calvary: that of the Son of God who acts as both priest and victim with the human priest merely that of a proxy. Divers liturgies are merely different ways of worshipping and are certainly not wrong in and of themselves; otherwise millions of people for the first 15 centuries were in error (will Fr. Violette make this claim???). The various approved rites all have the same substance and structure. None is more or less valid or more or less "holy" than the other and comments of this sort are purely arbitrary.

Insofar as the merits of Christ are concerned, it is in doubt that they are even present at the Novus Ordo Missae, the validity of which Missae has been called into question by Traditional Catholic theologians. Furthermore, insofar as Shawn's statement that "there is no such thing as one Mass being 'as good as' or 'better' than another one" goes, this statement is operating under the assumption that the Novus Ordo Missae is 1) valid, 2) reverent, 3) orthodox, 4) a non-sacrilege.  If any one of these points are to be found in the Novus Ordo, then we must all admit that it is undoubtedly an inferior service.  For, after all, a sacrilegious mass cannot be held to be equal to the Traditional Mass in any way - it would be blasphemous to make such a statement.  

SSPX: "THIS INDULT IS AN INSULT. IT IS NOT FOR US...we do not accept the new mass as lawful...an adulterous union with its bastard fruits...we want the concubine gone...we hope and pray...for the condemnation and total disappearance of the new mass...the traditional mass...IS THE ONLY FORM OF WORSHIP ACCEPTABLE TO GOD. The new mass is not. [11]

This was followed up with quotations from Archbishop Lefebvre of unstated date: Regarding ‘"..our enemies on the other side...’celebrating the Tridentine Mass...THEY ARE BETRAYING US...they are doing the devil’s work.’ " [12]

In the first place, the above two citations have been thoroughly chopped to bits, and are from two separate letters. There are eleven sections taken out of the above citations. We have already seen an example of what Shawn can do to a citation, now we see his ability to completely chop up and paste them together in any form that he wishes.

In the second place, Father Violette - even with the numerous ellipsis - is perfectly correct.  The Indult is a compromise with the Novus Ordo, and the liberals who are currently in place in the Church.  As Dr. Coomaraswamy stated in his book "The Problems with the New Mass,":

Passing mention should be made of the changes mandated in the Missal of 1962 by Pope John XXIII, commonly called the "Mass of John XXIII." Though they appear now to be very minor by comparison to what came later on, many of the changes found in this Mass were significant, even radical for the time. In retrospect, I believe it can now be safely said that this Mass was to be used only for a time and that it was initially introduced 1) as a beginning step toward the Novus Ordo Missae; 2) to introduce the faithful to the idea that their time-honored rites could be changed, and 3) to determine how strong the resistance to the New Rite would be. The Mass of John XXIII became obsolete just three years after it was introduced, when a whole new group of additional changes was introduced to accustom us, as it would seem now, to accepting these liturgical changes that would eventuate in the New Order of the Mass.


Moreover, the 1984 "Indult" requires that those who take advantage of using this Mass accept without reservation 1) the "doctrinal soundness and legitimacy" of the New Order of the Mass and 2) all the teachings of Vatican II, and further, that they have no connection with groups that do not. Some Bishops insist that those attending these celebrations must first sign a statement to this effect. But even those who do not sign such a statement must implicitly accept the terms of the Indult. (The Problems with the New Mass, p. 76-77)

For those who are interested in reading more on this subject, we recommend that they read the article entitled "Answers on the Indult Mass," by Father Ronald Brown.  

Council of Trent: [That no room may be left for superstition]; they shall by ordinance, and under given penalties, provide, that priests do not celebrate at other than due hours; NOR EMPLOY OTHER RITES, OR OTHER CEREMONIES AND PRAYERS, IN THE CELEBRATION OF MASSES, BESIDES THOSE WHICH HAVE BEEN APPROVED OF BY THE CHURCH…" [13]

This quotation has been answered above, therefore we see no reason to go into it a second time here. 

SSPX: As to "conservative" Catholics: "...to associate in friendship or solidarity with them is implicitly to betray the Catholic Faith..." [14]

"...the fact that I refuse to cooperate with the Ecclesia Dei people...the Society of St Peter or Dom Gerard...I want nothing to do with them either...the Ecclesia Dei movement here in Australia...they must also agree that the new mass is good...and most of them accept the excommunication of Archbishop Lefebvre [15]

I did not know that Fr.Violette's private judgment was what determined what is and is not doctrine. Is not that what Protestants do (engage in private judgment of doctrine and practice)???

Nowhere does Father Violette, in the above alleged citations, claimed to determine doctrine or practice, or even refer to them. Instead, he states his private opinion concerning who he personally wishes to cooperate and associate with, and who he does not. This is indeed a private judgment, but he makes no private judgment on doctrine.  Furthermore, we, as Catholics, certainly do have a right to make private judgments as to who we wish to deal with.  After all, it can be hazardous to our soul, and dangerous to our salvation, to associate with heretics, and those who compromise the Catholic Faith.  As Sacred Scripture states:

St. Jerome had the following to say:

St. Jerome (died A.D. 420): "I have never spared heretics, and I have used all my energy to make the foes of the Church my own. I cannot spare heretics; I cannot refrain from showing myself a Catholic." ("Dialogue Against the Pelagians")

I think it is amply proven that Father Violette had the right to avoid heretics, compromisers of the Faith, and heretical services such as the Novus Ordo.

Secondly, it is also interesting to note that in order to get these citations Shaw had to make eight ellipsis. So not only did he pull them completely out of context, but he chopped them up eight times.

SSPX: "Mr Pickford says: ‘The Pope, the bishops in union with him and the vast majority of Catholics who worship God in a way other than the way employed by the Society are deemed to be in a new religion.’ Yes absolutely!... [16]

"Mr Pickford says: ‘Father Violette establishes his belief that what he holds as true religion is other than what the Catholic Church holds as true religion.’ I distinguish; what I hold as the true religion is other than (he actually means "what", F.J.L.) the Catholic Church held up to Pius XII (sic.!!!); I deny, the Catholic Church since Vatican II; I concede."(!!!)


In the first place, no Traditional Catholic (with the exception of the sedevacantists) has deserted the Chair of Saint Peter. We are loyal subjects of His Holiness, Pope John Paul II, and heartily condemn all those who reject his supremacy and his authority. No matter how bad Shawn attempts to twist the words of Father Violette (provided they are his words, and unaltered). 

Second of all, Father Violette nowhere declared that His Holiness, John Paul II, was not the Pope, or that he was not subject to him or that he did not accept his authority.  On the contrary, Father Violette, and all Society of Saint Pius X Priests pray for His Holiness at every Mass, as do all Traditional Catholic Priests.  What Father Violette was obviously saying, was that he did not accept as Catholic the changes that have occurred, and how they are not Catholic. This is perfectly correct. He did not state that he rejected the primacy of the Pope, nor did he state that he rejected the fact that His Holiness, John Paul II, was the Pope. 

Lastly, it is also important to note that Father Violette was speaking for himself alone. Not for the Society of Saint Pius X, nor for the entire Traditional Movement. Note that he says "I" and not "we."

Can. 751 Heresy is the obstinate denial or doubt, after baptism, of a truth which must be believed by divine and catholic faith. Apostasy is the total repudiation of the christian faith. Schism is the withdrawal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or from communion with the members of the Church subject to him. [19]

Father Violette did not obstinately deny or doubt a Truth which must be believed by divine and Catholic Faith, nor did he totally repudiate the Christian Faith, nor did he refuse submission to the Supreme Pontiff or withdraw from communion with the members of the Church subject to him - only those members of the Church who are heretical/liberal/compromisers, according to the teaching given us by the Sacred Scriptures, and St. Jerome. Hence, the above citation is irrelevant. The most Shawn could accuse Father Violette of doing was resisting certain changes in the Church made by various post-Conciliar Popes, for further information on this, and for more information on the fact that Catholics have the right and sometimes the duty to resist the Pope, we refer the reader yet again to Appendix I.

Vatican I: Session IV - July 18, 1870

First Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ:

Chapter 3. On the power and character of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff:

…8.) Since the Roman Pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole church,  and that in all cases which fall under ecclesiastical jurisdiction recourse may be had to his judgment. 

9.) If anyone says that: The Roman pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the church dispersed throughout the whole world:  let him be anathema. [20]

Denying the doctrinal teachings of an Ecumenical Council is heresy. Vatican I is an Ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church. Fr. Violette demonstrates a heretical and schismatic mentality in his views viz. the Catholic Church. How is he any different from the Syrian Monophysites after Chalcedon or Dollinger after Vatican I (to name two of many examples)??? They both denied the doctrinal teachings of an Ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church thus making them both (Dollinger and the Monophysites) heretics. 

In the first place, one of the primary differences is that the heretical sects mentioned above denied Doctrines of the Church, while Father Violette does not.  In the second place, the citation give above from Vatican I by Shawn refers specifically to the authority of the Pope, which authority Father Violette never denied in his statements! As a matter of fact, he never even mentions Pope John Paul II. In the third place, Father Violette did not refuse submission to the Pope - what he has done is refuse to accept various immoral and sinful changes that were made by the post-conciliar Popes to the Church. This is not a denial of the authority of the Pope, nor is this a withdrawal from submission to the Pope. Even Saints have done it (cf. Appendix I). As St. Robert Bellarmine said:

"Just as it as it is licit to resist the [Roman] Pontiff who attacks the body, so also it is licit to resist him who attacks souls, or who disturbs civil order, or, above all, him who tries to destroy the Church. I say that it is licit to resist him by not doing what he orders and by impeding the execution of his will; it is not licit, however, to judge him, to punish him, or to depose him, for these are acts proper to a superior." (6)

SSPX: "...when I said the Novus Ordo is intrinsically evil...what is meant is that the New Mass, as it was published in 1969, objectively, taken in itself, regardless of the priest, and not only the abuses which followed, is bad, is evil." [21]

Regarding the New Mass: "...it is of itself a danger to the faith and is intrinsically evil...I am denying what Mr Davies says you cannot: the New Mass is an official Mass of the Catholic Church."; (that is, he positively affirms that the New Mass is NOT an official Mass of the Catholic Church). [22]

Of course, these are two separate citations from two separate people. We see three ellipsis’s where sections are cut out, and the reader is also led to believe that they are both basically from the same source. Where one is a statement of Father Violette in a Letter to the Faithful, and the other is a statement of Father Peek in the Holy Cross Seminary Bulletin.  Both of which make use of the term "I," meaning that they are giving their personal opinions.  They are not speaking for the entire Society here, nor for all Traditional Catholics.  As it is, though, I see nothing wrong with either statement - even as they are given by Shawn.  

Not to keep beating a dead horse with the same club but:

Council of Trent: [That no room may be left for superstition]; they shall by ordinance, and under given penalties, provide, that priests do not celebrate at other than due hours; NOR EMPLOY OTHER RITES, OR OTHER CEREMONIES AND PRAYERS, IN THE CELEBRATION OF MASSES, BESIDES THOSE WHICH HAVE BEEN APPROVED OF BY THE CHURCH…" [23]

Not to keep beating a dead horse with the same club, but the Rites and Ceremonies which were referred to there, were the Traditional Rites and Ceremonies which are still used by the Society of Saint Pius X. Hence, this statement from the Sacred Council of Trent does not apply at all. These Ceremonies and Rites were most certainly approved! What fool would come forth and state otherwise? They were approved through centuries of usage by Saints and Popes and Bishops, they were approved by promulgations such as that of Pope St. Pius V, they were approved by Sacred Councils such as the Sacred Council of Trent.  Secondly, as  the letter by Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci stated, the very theology behind the Mass has been changed, and is no longer the theology of the Mass that is to be found in the documents of the Council of Trent.  

At least Michael Davies (unlike Fr. Violette) is not denying the authority of the Pope to promulgate (and celebrate in the latin or the authorized vernacular) a new liturgy.

Father Violette is not at all denying the authority of the Pope. What Father Violette was denying was that the Novus Ordo Missae was the official Mass of the Church. Period. He was not saying that the Pope didn’t have the authority to promulgate a NEW liturgy! Or that the Pope didn’t have the authority to say the Mass in whatever language he wished. But, as it is, Shawn’s statement above concerning the Novus Ordo Missae, and it’s being a "new liturgy" is a very interesting admission, especially considering the fact that he tries to twist statements referring to the Traditional Mass, to referring to this new liturgy. This is quite dishonest.

SSPX: "Our rejection of the Novus Ordo must be absolute... attend it?...only (as) for attending non-catholic functions...(a) sin...if he is aware of (it’s) nocivity (sic)...If I were ever to say the New Mass, know that I would be committing a mortal sin..." [24]

In the first place, the above citation contains numerous ellipsis (a count of six), Shawn was even forced to add words three times to make the citation flow properly.  In the second place, even as the citation is given above, it is perfectly correct.  After all, if the Novus Ordo is heretical, and a sacrilege, then it would most certainly be a mortal sin to say it.  

Pope Pius XII:


49. From time immemorial the ecclesiastical hierarchy has exercised this right in matters liturgical.




In the first place, the above citation from Pius XII’s Encyclical "Mediator Dei" is completely irrelevant, as Father Violette didn’t refer to any of the things referred to in His Holiness’s encyclical. Secondly, this Encyclical was referring to the Mass which Father Violette still says, namely, the Traditional Mass. In the third place, the Encyclical admits - in paragraph 50, which, incidentally, Shawn passed over - that various elements of the Sacred Liturgy are unchangeable, and that there are limitations to the changes that are allowed. The Pope cannot, for example, eliminate those elements of the Mass which are of divine origin, or change them. To cite paragraph 50:

The sacred liturgy does, in fact, include divine as well as human elements. The former, instituted as they have been by God, cannot be changed in any way by men. But the human components admit of various modifications, as the needs of the age, circumstance and the good of souls may require, and as the ecclesiastical hierarchy, under guidance of the Holy Spirit, may have authorized.

Hence, there are limitations to the changes which may effect the Liturgy. His Holiness further states in paragraph 59:

The Church is without question a living organism, and as an organism, in respect of the sacred liturgy also, she grows, matures, develops, adapts and accommodates herself (note, His Holiness does not state that she gives birth to an entirely different liturgy) to temporal needs and circumstances, provided only that the integrity of her doctrine be safeguarded. This notwithstanding, the temerity and daring of those who introduce novel liturgical practices, or call for the revival of obsolete rites out of harmony with prevailing laws and rubrics, deserve severe reproof.

Hence, we see that this is yet another limitation. The Doctrine of the Church must be safeguarded in the Mass, and the Divine Elements of the Sacred Liturgy cannot be changed in any way - both in meaning, as well as in form. Hence, we see that the Pope does have limitations in this regard. In the fourth place, the entire Encyclical makes it quite clear that the form of change that it is referring to is a "growth," a "development," not a brand-new liturgy manufactured by a commission. Hence, it doesn’t apply to the Novus Ordo Missae. If the reader were to read the section which was cut out by Shawn (namely, paragraphs 50-57) we would see that the authority to approve rites and such, was not necessarily the approval of brand-new liturgies, but, rather, as The Webster’s Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language says: "Any customary observance or practice." (p. 1237) Not a brand new "rite" as in an entirely new liturgy. Furthermore, paragraph 57 points out quite clearly that the Pope’s authority over the Mass is, rather, for the protection of the Mass, and not a complete elimination of it, and a starting out with a "clean slate." Or, as Shawn would say, an "overhaul." To cite paragraph 57:

57. The Church has further used her right of control over liturgical observance to protect the purity of divine worship against abuse from dangerous and imprudent innovations introduced by private individuals and particular churches.

SSPX: "The extermination of Jews by the Nazis could only be the doing of an anti-Christian regime. The Church for its part has at all times forbidden and condemned the killing of Jews even when 'their grave defects rendered them odious to the nations among which they were established.' " ...All this makes us think that the Jews are the most active artisans for the coming of antichrist." [26]

St. Paul: 13:4. Charity is patient, is kind: charity envieth not, dealeth not perversely, is not puffed up, 13:5. Is not ambitious, seeketh not her own, is not provoked to anger, thinketh no evil: 13:6. Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth with the truth.

In the first place, the citation from the Society, and the subsequent citation from St. Paul, have little or nothing to do with the Mass - which is the current topic. Hence, they are irrelevant. In the second place, we would like to state that the Bishop was being charitable. Compare the Bishop’s statements concerning the Jews, to the following statements from Sacred Scripture:

"... for you also have suffered the same things from your own countrymen, even as they have from the Jews, who both killed the Lord Jesus, and the prophets, and have persecuted us, and please not God, and are adversaries to all men; prohibiting us to speak to the Gentiles, that they may be saved, to fill up their sins always: for the wrath of God is come upon them to the end." (I Thessalonians 2:14-16 - for those who are wondering, this was also written by St. Paul and is a very charitable statement)

Acts 7:51-54 [DR] "You stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, you always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do you also. Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? And they have slain them who foretold of the coming of the Just One; of whom you have been now the betrayers and murderers: Who have received the law by the disposition of angels, and have not kept it. Now hearing these things, they were cut to the heart, and they gnashed with their teeth at him."

These are just a few of the charitable statements of Sacred Scripture concerning the Jews. Now let us turn to the charitable statements of some of the Saints, and see of they are similar to those of the Bishop:

Those of the seed of Abraham who live according to the Law of Moses and who do not believe in Christ before death shall not be saved; especially they who curse this very Christ in the synagogues; who curse everything by which they might obtain salvation and escape the vengeance of fire. (7)

Jews are cursed and covered with malediction. The curse has penetrated them like water in their bowels and oil in their bones. They are cursed in the city and cursed in the country, cursed in their coming in and cursed in their going out. Cursed are the fruits of their loins, of their lands, of their flocks; cursed are their cellars, their granaries, their shops, their food, the very crumbs off their tables! (8)

Of course, this list could easily be tripled without our having to do too much research on the matter, but our goal here is neither to attack the Jews, nor to defend the charitableness of the Bishop’s statement, but, rather, to defend the True Mass and to refute Shawn’s arguments in favor of the new one.

SSPX: (Regarding ‘The corruption of the Holy Mass’ spoken of by Archbishop Lefebvre in 1988)..."in the majority of churches still operating, it is the abomination of desolation and a mockery of the truth which have replaced the Holy of Holies..." [28]

Our Lord:

Matthew16:18. And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 

See also  Matt 28:19, Luke:22:31, John: 17:15. 

Can anyone honestly say that an officially promulgated Mass that was either illicit, doubtfully valid, sacrilegeously valid, or even an invalid Mass (in essence a Mass that was a true "abomination") would not be representative of the gates of hell prevailing over the Church???

Absolutely someone could say that. After all, the gates of hell would not be prevailing over the Church but, rather, over the Pope promulgating the illicit, doubtfully valid, sacrilegiously valid, or even invalid, Mass, and over those poor misguided souls who either attend it, or say it, or defend it. In the first place, the Church has never taught that the Pope is infallible when he promulgates a Mass (for further information on this, see Appendix II). In the second place, the Church does teach that there are limitations to what the Pope can do to a Mass - for example, he cannot change the Divinely instituted elements of the Mass, as Pope Pius XII explained (and which Shawn forgot to mention). In the third place, the Latin Rite itself could, theoretically, perish from the face of the earth completely, and yet the gates of Hell would not have prevailed, after all there are other rites out there with valid and non-sacrilegious Sacraments. The point is, the majority can become heretical - or semi-heretical -, as happened during the Arian crisis. As St. Athanasius said:

"Even if Catholics faithful to tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ." (Saint Athanasius)

The point is, even if the vast majority of Catholics are heretical, as long as there are a few who hold to the Truth, the gates of Hell have not prevailed. Did not Christ say that the gate that leads to Heaven is narrow, and few there are that even find it (Matthew 7:14)?

Can anyone honestly claim that Our Lord who promised to be with the Church "all days unto the consummation of the world" is not with the Church now???

This does not effect the fact that the vast majority of Catholics could fall into error, as we explained above. And furthermore, Christ’s Presence in the Church today is very well shown by the fact that not all Catholics have fallen for the new errors, but there are still many who are holding out. For example, the very Society of Saint Pius X that you mention above "... now has around 380 priest members and many priest friends as well as Religious communities, operating in 27 countries, with around 100 nuns, 50 Brothers, 53 oblates, 200 seminarians, 130 priories serving regularly over 600 Mass centres, with 2 universities, 12 other major schools, 50 primary schools and nine retreat houses." (9)

Of course, the Society of Saint Pius X is not the only group in the Traditional Movement. There are many more Priests, Brothers, Sisters, Oblates, priories, and so forth, in the Traditional Movement than are mentioned above.

If the Mass was truly a "blasphemy" then this is evidence that Our Lord abiding with His Church permitted the Church to bind error in heaven and further, that as He is with the Church all days is an accessory to this "abomination" of which the SSPX claims that the Pauline Rite Mass is.

In the first place, we have never said that the Mass was a blasphemy. We have said that the Novus Ordo Missae (the New Order of Mass) is a blasphemy, and is sacrilegious. But never that THE Mass is a blasphemy and sacrilegious. In the second place, not everything the Pope does falls under the ability to bind and to loose. If Shawn had any comprehension of the authority of the Pope, and its limits, he would have seen that the Pope has no authority to bind error. Hence, if the Novus Ordo Missae is erroneous, blasphemous, and sacrilegious, then anything the Pope may have done to promulgate it, or bind anyone to say/attend it, would be null and void, for the Pope cannot bind anyone to commit a sin. Hence, Shawn’s above argument falls to pieces. In the third place, I recommend that Shawn read Vatican I on the infallibility of the Pope, and it’s limitations, as well as Appendix II.

Further, it is evidence that Our Lord's prayer for Peter was not answered and that Peter's faith had failed (since Peter in the person of Pope Paul VI promulgated the New Rite of Mass).

In the first place, Our Lord’s prayer does not mean that Popes cannot 1) make a mistake, 2) commit sin and blasphemy, and 3) promulgate blasphemous and sacrilegious liturgies. Of the first two, there is quite a bit of proof that Popes have made mistakes and committed sin (and lived in sin) and so forth. Of the latter, there is no proof that a Pope is not capable of doing it.  

Further, the Father failed to grant the request of His Son who asked that the Apostles and their successors be "sanctified in truth" and that the Father should "keep them from evil." In short, why does the Society (and other radical self-styled "traditionalists") believe in the credibility of Jesus Christ at all if He cannot do what He says He will do???

In the first place, what we are seeing here is nothing more than what protestants do, private interpretation of Scripture. If what Shawn is saying here is true, then every Pope and Bishop is "sanctified in truth" and "kept from evil." Of course, this is utterly ridiculous! Bishop Arius was a heretic! The Bishops of England went into schism and apostatized from the Church, also falling into heresy! The Eastern Bishops also fell into heresy and schism!  What are we to think of the bad Popes that we have had?  Does this mean that Christ’s requests weren’t granted by the Father? And that Christ is not credible? Of course not! This means that we have free will, and that we can go against better judgment - and God help those who do. What Shawn is here proposing, is that every Pope and Bishop are basically "spiritual zombies," who cannot - no matter what they do - fall into heresy, sin, blasphemy, and so forth. This is certainly a rejection of the Church’s doctrine of Free Will.  Lastly, as St. Thomas Aquinas stated:

"Now sometimes the things commanded by a superior are against God, therefore superiors are not to be obeyed in all things." --  (Summa Theologica II-IIQ. 104)

St. Thomas further stated elsewhere:

"Where there is a proximate danger to the faith, prelates must be rebuked, even publicly, by subjects. Thus, St. Paul who was subject to St. Peter, rebuked him publicly."  (Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians 2:14)

Lastly, as Sacred Scripture stated:

Acts 5:29 [DR] But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men.  

SSPX: "Now in the Catholic religion it is the priest who celebrates Mass; it is he who offers the bread and wine. The notion of "president" has been borrowed directly from Protestantism…"

Justin Martyr:

Chapter LXV -- Administration Of The Sacraments.

Having ended the prayers, we salute one another with a kiss. There is then brought TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE BRETHREN bread and a cup of wine mixed with water; and he taking them, gives praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and offers thanks at considerable length for our being counted worthy to receive these things at His hands. [34]

I thought Protestantism came around in the 16th century not the 2nd.

In the first place, what the Archbishop is referring to is the protestant "notion" of President, not the use of the term "president" itself. If Shawn had read the article, he would have seen this! As a matter of fact, let me quote the sentences just before the statement cited by Shawn:

This tendency is connected with what we have discovered concerning the Real Presence: if there is no longer a sacrifice, there is no longer any need for a victim. The victim is present in view of the sacrifice. To make of the Mass a memorial of fraternal meal is the Protestant error. What happened in the sixteenth century? Precisely what is taking place today. Right from the start they replaced the altar by a table, removed the crucifix from it, and made the ‘president of the assembly’ turn around to face the congregation. The setting of the Protestant Lord’s Supper is found in Pierres Vivantes, the prayer book prepared by the bishops in France which all children attending catechism are obliged to use....

Indeed, this notion of presidency did come around in the sixteenth century, and not the second century. As the Random House College Dictionary defines the term "notion," "a general, vague, or imperfect conception or idea." (p. 910) And the protestant conception, or idea, of the term "president" has nothing to do with any Catholic interpretation which might be applied to the term, and certainly has nothing to do with what Justin Martyr was talking about.

Nevertheless, this should be sufficient to show the historical ignorance and schismatic tendencies of those within the SSPX.

As it is, it is quite obvious that it is not the Society of Saint Pius X that is historically ignorant.  In the second place, you cannot take a statement made by a single person - whether erroneous or not - and discredit an entire Society!  Thirdly, you cannot take a single citation - out of an entire book - claim to disprove it, and then wish to slander the author and call him historically ignorant!  Shawn is now going to claim that Archbishop Lefebvre is historically ignorant because of one citation, out of an entire book - which citation he did not prove historically innacurate -?  

They transgress the opinions of the Apostolic and other Church Fathers (Ignatius, Justin, Cyprian, etc.), the decrees of Ecumenical Councils (Trent, Vatican I), and are even rebuked by Pope Pius XII often hailed by them as "the last traditionalist pope." Now let us see if their arguments against the Revised Missal have any merit.

In the first place, we cannot overemphasize the fact that Shawn only quoted a handful of the officers of the Society of Saint Pius X.  Even if Shawn had been 100% correct in his rebuttal of the statements made by this handful of Society Priests, he could not claim that the entire Society of Saint Pius X, and the entire Traditionalist Movement, is in error - because of the statements of a few members of the aforesaid Society and Movement.  Rather, what we have seen, is not a rebuttal of these Priests, but, rather, misinterpretations of their statements, and misapplications of the statements of the Sacred Councils/Saints.  In essence, Shawn has accomplished nothing.  

Part II. Examining the Pauline Rite Mass:

The best thing to do is to reproduce the text of the Pauline Rite Liturgy and see if it is in substantial conformity to the Tridentine Rite in structure if not exact details.

As we shall see, the structure/content of the Novus Ordo, and the Traditional Mass, are not at all similar.  For example, the Traditional Mass only has one Canon, the Novus Ordo has four.  This alone is sufficient to disprove Shawn's "structure" argument.  

The following Pauline Rite Liturgy text is courtesy of Larry Nolte's online apologetics site. I got the text from the Tridentine Rite from another web site. Because the Pauline Rite Liturgy did not have the rubrics included at Mr. Nolte's site, I removed them from the text obtained at the Una Voce site for the purposes of a fair treatment of both sides so that the texts can be analyzed section by section for similarities of structure and content.

Due to the fact that a large portion of the rubrics of the Traditional Mass were eliminated, and in order to facilitate a more accurate comparison, we have replaced Shawn's text with a side by side comparison, without excluding any of the rubrics.  This side by side comparison is taken from The Latin Mass Society.

It’s important to note that the word "similar," does not mean that it is the same, but, rather, that it means "having likeness or resemblance, in a general way," (Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language, p. 1328) while the word "same" means "identical with what is about to be, or has just been mentioned" (ibid., p. 1264). Hence, we see that something can be similar, and yet not the same. Hence, the words and phrases used in the Novus Ordo Missae can be very similar, but that does not mean to say that they mean the same thing as those used in the Traditional Mass.

I also used my Pauline Rite Sunday Missal to add the parts that Mr. Nolte's article did not have in it. This section and the next are a "macro" look at the similarities and differences between the older Tridentine Rite and the Revised Missal (which I call the Pauline Rite) which replaced the Tridentine Ritual on November 30, 1969 as the principle rite in the Western Church.

As it is, Mr. Nolte's version of the Novus Ordo 1) was missing parts, 2) was dedicated to defending the Novus Ordo scripturally, and 3) was not intended for such a comparison as Shawn is using it for - as is shown by the fact that it was inaccurate, and was missing parts which were added by Shawn from his own personal missalette.  Why Shawn would use this particular version for his article is beyond me, considering the fact that there are quite a few - more accurate - side by side comparisons available from the internet.  

Before we begin a line by line examination of the Novus Ordo Missae, I am going to present some preliminary arguments against the Novus Ordo Missae, and prove that the very foundation of the Novus Ordo is based upon heresy.  

Definition of Sacrilege —

A sacrilege is the violation, profanation, or desecration of any person, place, or thing which is sacred and consecrated to God.

Obviously the adoration of God is sacred, and of the utmost importance, and as the Mass is the most perfect way in which one can adore Him (being, as it is, the unbloody Sacrifice of Calvary), to desecrate or profane it is certainly a sacrilege, as we're sure the reader will agree. But is the Novus Ordo Mass sacrilegious? Let us examine it closer: IF there were something inherently offensive to God in the Novus Ordo (we're not talking about the sinfulness and/or extra-rubrical actions of the priest, we're talking about those things which are inherent in the Novus Ordo itself), it would then be sacrilegious as the Mass, which is supposed to be the highest, most perfect and sacred act of adoration which man can perform, would then be profaned.

Regardless of whether or not there is a valid consecration, if there were something inherently offensive to God in the Mass it would be sacrilegious. For instance, in a Satanic Black Mass there is a valid consecration: but all agree that to attend such a travesty would be the grossest act of sacrilege imaginable.

But does the New Mass contain such "offenses" to God? Let’s see...

Definition of Heresy —

Heresy is the denial of divinely established Truth, and/or the affirmation of error in place of that Truth.

Our Blessed Lord has declared in the plainest language in Sacred Scripture that He is the Truth (10). Consequently, as heresy is the denial of Truth, heresy is a denial of Christ. Our Blessed Savior has further declared that, if anyone denies Him, He will deny them before His Father in Heaven.(11)

Everyone, including the Protestant, agrees that the denial of Christ is evil, and undoubtedly offensive to God. If one were to attempt to worship and adore God while at the same time denying Him, one would be engaging in the fruitless effort of making a "house divided against itself" stand, something which Jesus assures us is impossible;(12) such a thing would be the grossest hypocrisy, and a grave sin on the part of those who participate in the denial. The adoration, by the act of denial of Christ, would then be profaned and desecrated.

The Ultimate Crime? —

It is a fact, and we shall prove it here, that the New Mass is founded upon heresy, contains heresy, and is conducive to nothing but heresy. Thus, as heresy is a denial of Christ, and as the denial of Christ is a great sin, and as to deny Him while "adoring" Him is clearly a profanation and violation of the most perfect act of worship man can perform (i.e., the Mass), we must conclude that the New Mass is a sacrilegious event, and consequently mortally sinful for those who attend it.

— The Foundation —

Keeping that in mind, let us proceed. The fact that the very foundation of the New Mass is the product of at least three condemned heresies is incontestible. Assuredly there will be those of bad-will and dishonest tendencies who will disagree with this premise, but we are confident that there is no one who can refute the arguments presented here - including Shawn -, we invite them to try, however.

Modernism —

The Heresy of Modernism holds that truth and the doctrines of the Church change with the times, are subject to changing interpretations, and that new doctrines and understandings can and do arise from man’s intellect and will, regardless of what God has revealed.

Condemned: First Vatican Council; (13) Pope St. Pius X (14)

Proof: "Revising the pre-existing text [of the Mass] becomes more delicate when faced with the need to update content or language, and when all this affects not only the form, but also doctrinal reality. This [revision] is called for in light of the new view of human values, considered in relation to and as a way to supernatural goods... Expressions recalling positions or struggles of the past are no longer in harmony with the Church’s new positions. An entirely new foundation of Eucharistic theology has superseded devotional points of view or a particular way of venerating and invoking the Saints. Retouching the text [of the Mass], moreover, was deemed necessary to bring to light new values and new perspectives" (15)

In other words, with the New Mass the innovators are clearly attempting to "overwrite" Catholicism with Modernism. The "content" of the Mass has been "updated" to reflect the new "doctrinal reality" of the Modernists. Now, the focus has been shifted from God to "new human values". No longer does the Mass represent a strong fortress against the errors of the Protestants and other heretics; now, the Mass has been altered, and those statements which are offensive to non-Catholics, or "which no longer are in harmony with the Church’s new positions" have been sliced off. And, what is even more frightening, with the New Mass is introduced "an entirely new foundation of Eucharistic theology!" How brazen the heretics are!

If nothing else, this alone should convince the reader that, as this is the foundation upon which the New Mass was built and created, the pillar upon which it stands, it certainly could not have come from the "pillar and ground of Truth", but must of come from the "the father of lies".

Finally, as Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci observed in their "Short Critical Study of the New Order of Mass":

"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 forever." (16)

This is a perfect description of Modernism: truths that have always been believed can be changed or ignored.

The Heresy of Americanism —

The heresy of Americanism attempts to "water down" the "hard sayings" of Christ and His Church, so as to make them less "threatening" or offensive to non-Catholics.

Condemned: Pope Leo XIII (17)

Proof: "We must strip from our Catholic prayers and from the Catholic liturgy everything which can be the shadow of a stumbling block for our separated brethren, that is for the Protestants " (18)

If the author of a certain book were to approach you and say: "We must strip from our books and articles everything which can be a shadow of a stumbling block for those who don’t patronize our works", we can rest assured that this author certainly intends to incorporate this view into his own writings. Of course, even had Bugnini, the author of the New Mass, never uttered this statement, the fact that everything in the Mass which is a stumbling block for "our separated brethren" HAS been removed, speaks volumes. It is for this reason that Bro. Max Thurian, one of the six Protestant divines who participated in concocting the New Mass, was able to say: "With the new liturgy, non-Catholic communities will be able to celebrate the Lord’s Supper with the SAME PRAYERS AS THE CATHOLIC CHURCH!"(19) Indeed, this is certain proof that, not only has the heresy of Americanism been adopted and incorporated in the New Mass, but the fact that non-Catholics can use the SAME prayers without being offended proves that the New Mass can NOT be an unequivocal profession of the Catholic Faith. Therefore, since we pray as we believe (lex orandi, lex credendi), we cannot pray with the New Mass in Protestant Fashion and still believe as Catholics. This also proves that the New Mass has implicitly (if not explicitly) abandoned the Catholic dogma that the Mass is the unbloody Sacrifice of Calvary (20) — The logic follows thus: IF this dogma is offensive to non-Catholics, then the New Mass certainly cannot be affirming it clearly, as the Protestants have no problem using our prayers for their "Lord’s Supper." Let it also be noted that an implicit denial of a Catholic Truth is far more dangerous than an explicit one; just as a wolf in sheep’s clothing is far more lethal than one who doesn’t bother to disguise himself.

The Heresy of Ecumenism —

The heresy of Ecumenism attempts to unite all religions at the expense and sacrifice of religious truth.

Condemned: Pope Pius XI (21)

Proof: One of the most striking proofs of the ecumenical nature of the New Mass is found in the fact that six Protestant ministers [Dr. George, Canon Jasper, Dr. Shepherd, Dr. Kunneth, Dr. Smith, and Brother Max Thurian.(22)] participated in its fabrication. It is important to note here that they didn’t merely "observe", as some claim, but that they had an active place in the Concilium, which was responsible for drawing up the New Mass. In 1967, Cardinal W. W. Baum, who was executive director of the American Catholic Bishop’s Commission on Ecumenical Affairs, admitted in the June 27, issue of The Detroit News:

"They (the six Protestant ministers) are not simply there as observers, but as consultants as well, and they participate fully in the discussions on Catholic liturgical renewal. It wouldn’t mean much if they just listened, but they contributed."

Thus, from the outset, ecumenism has dominated the atmosphere of the New Mass. Here are a number of revealing statements from various individuals concerning this issue.

The December 22, 1972 issue of The London Catholic Herald quoted a prominent Anglican minister as stating:

"Today’s liturgical study has brought our respective liturgies to a remarkable similarity, so that there is very little difference in the sacrificial phrasing of the prayer of oblation in the Series Three (Anglican "Mass") and that of Eucharistic Prayer II in the Missa Normativa (New "Mass")"

It is interesting to note that, as the New "Mass" is so "similar" to the Anglican "Mass", what are we Catholics to say of the hundreds of Martyrs in England during the Protestant Revolt who shed their blood, endured great hardships and trials, and even lost their very lives because they refused to attend the Anglican "Mass"? Now, as if the blood of these martyrs were worthless, we dare to conform the Catholic Mass to that of the Anglicans! (It is worth noting that the Anglican "Mass" of the 16th century is far more orthodox and reverent than that of the 20th century, having undergone several "revisions" and "renewals") Are we not, in all truth, declaring by this action that these holy martyrs shed their blood for NOTHING? Such a position is clearly a violation of the first commandment — degrading and blaspheming the saints, their lives and their martyrdoms in such a manner is hardly something that is pleasing to God.

The Anglican Bishop of Southwark has stated on several occasions that he greatly admires the N.O. Mass, uses it himself, and would like to see it generally available to Anglicans at least as an alternative. He has also "concelebrated" Mass with Catholic priests when traveling on the continent! (23)

Perhaps what is even more revealing concerning the "ecumenical" nature of the New Mass is a key statement from M. G. Siegvalt, a professor of dogmatic theology in the Protestant faculty at Strasbourg: "... nothing in the renewed Catholic Mass need really trouble the Evangelical Protestant."(24)

Who can honestly say that the New Mass is orthodox, when even the heretics find it acceptable? Evangelicals are known for their strong opposition to the idea of the Mass being the Sacrifice of Calvary. If this New Mass doesn’t even "trouble the Evangelical Protestant", can we truly believe that the New Mass is unequivocal when it comes to the dogma of the sacrificial nature of the Mass?

As if in answer to this question, Jean Guitton, a close friend of Pope Paul VI and a lay-observer at Vatican II, quoted a Protestant journal as praising the manner in which the new Eucharistic prayers had "dropped the false perspective of a sacrifice being offered to God." (25)

Even the Protestants can see that the New Mass no longer clearly professes itself to be a sacrifice. This becomes even more evident when we consider the fact that most "Catholics" today deny the sacrificial nature of the Mass. We see clearly the ravages of the heresy of Ecumenism: rather than preach the dogma of the sacrificial nature of the Mass clearly and unequivocally, the reformers have succeeded in nearly expunging this idea from the New Liturgy.

In 1970, a French Protestant theologian wrote:

"If one takes account of the decisive evolution of the Eucharistic liturgy of the Catholic Church, of the option of substituting other Eucharistic prayers for the Canon of the Mass, of expunging (l’ effacement) of the idea that the Mass is a sacrifice, and of the possibility of receiving communion under both kinds, then there is no further justification for the Reformed Churches forbidding their members to assist at the Eucharist in a Catholic Church" (26)

We see that the ecumenical gestures of the revolutionaries have "payed off", not only in the sense that the N.O. Liturgy is non-offensive to Protestants and other heretics, but also insofar as it "caters" to the "common celebration of the Eucharist" between both Catholics and non-Catholics. But to what extent? We ask the reader to examine the following brief list, then ask himself the question: Is the New Liturgy a Catholic Mass or a Protestant service?

The True Mass

Protestant Communion Service

The New Mass

Latin Language



Much of the liturgy inaudible

The entire service audible

The entire service audible

Only two readings

Generally three readings

Generally three readings

No lay readers

Lay readers used

Lay readers used

Clearly performing solemn rites upon an altar facing east

A meal served upon a table often facing the congregation

A meal served upon a table often facing the congregation

Kneeling through long periods of the service, particularly at reception of communion

Little kneeling. Communion received standing

Little kneeling. Communion received standing

The People receive holy communion on the tongue

Communion given in the hand

Communion given in the hand

Communion received only under one kind

Communion received under both kinds

Communion received under both kinds

Frequent liturgical reference to the doctrines of sacrifice and the True Presence

Little or no reference to the offering of any sacrifice beyond that of the congregation itself. Some references to the Body and Blood of Christ which could give the impression of belief in the true presence

Little or no reference to the offering of any sacrifice beyond that of the congregation itself. Some references to the Body and Blood of Christ which could give the impression of belief in the true presence

An atmosphere of reverence and respect throughout the ceremony

A "casual" atmosphere throughout the service

A "casual" atmosphere throughout the service

One can easily see that the heresy of ecumenism has dictated most, if not all the "changes" in the Mass.

"Christian unity" at the expense of Catholic Truth — downgrading (Americanism) and expunging (Ecumenism) Catholic doctrines concerning the Holy Sacrifice (among other doctrines), simply for the sake of making Protestants "feel at home"; who can deny that the New Mass is steeped in these heresies?

As a closing comment to this section, let us hear the words of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, which were recorded in the May, 1974 issue of World Trends:

"All these changes [in the Mass] have but one justification, an aberrant senseless ecumenism that will not attract a single Protestant to the Faith but will cause countless Catholics to lose it, and will instill total confusion in the minds of many more who will no longer know what is true and what is false"

With thousands of Catholics leaving the Church annually, and even fewer entering her, we cannot help but wonder at how prophetic the archbishop’s words were.

With the above as a sort of introduction to the Novus Ordo Missae, let us continue on to a line by line examination of this Great Sacrilege.


1. Rev. Adrian Fortescue, as cited in the Ottaviani Intervention, footnote 1

2. Catholic Encyclopedia 1913

3. Vol. I, p. 58

4. The Mass – A Study of the Roman Liturgy. Adrian Fortescue. Longmans, Green & Co. London. 1950. p. 213

5. Quo Primum Tempore, July 5, 1570

6. St. Robert Bellarmine: De Romano Pontifice, Lib. II, c.29.

7. St. Justin the Martyr, FLORILEGIUM PATRISTICUM, Rauschen, 1911

8. St. Agobard - after reading this one, we can see that the Bishop was truly being charitable

9. What is the Society of Saint Pius X? 

10. St. John 14:6

11. St. Matthew 10:33

12. Matthew 12:25

13. Dnz. 1800, 1818

14. "Pascendi Dominici Gregis" Sept. 8, 1907. Dnz 2071-2109; "Lamentabili", July 6, 1907 Dnz. 2001-2065a

15. These words were written by Fr. Carlo Braga, assistant to Msgr. Annibale Bugnini (who was later exiled by Pope Paul VI from Rome to Iran for his ties with Freemasonry — ironically, his "Mass" was kept), Co-Author of the New Mass. Fr. Carlo Braga was responsible for putting the finishing touches on the revisers’ work immediately before the new Missal went to press. His words here express well the "spirit" and purpose of the reformers. Carlo Braga, "Il ‘Proprium de Sanctis’," Ephemerides Liturgicae 84 (1970), 419

16. "The Ottaviani Intervention", Cardinal A. Ottaviani and Cardinal A. Bacci. Tan Books and Publishers, p. 27-28

17. The Encyclical Testem Benevolentia Nostrae Concerning New Opinions, Virtue, Nature and Grace, with Regard to Americanism. Pope Leo XIII, January 22,

18. Annibale Bugnini, 33rd degree Freemason and co-author of the New Mass. L’Osservatore Romano, 19 March, 1965

19. From the pamphlet: "62 Reasons Why We Cannot Attend the New Mass", compiled by the priests of the Diocese of Campos, Brazil

20. Session XXII, Canon I, Council of Trent

21. The Encyclical Mortalium Animos, On Fostering True Religious Unity. Pope Pius XI, January 6, 1928.

22. Itináraires, December 1973 Issue.

23. The Catholic Herald, 15 December, 1972

24. Le Monde, 22 November, 1969

25. La Croix, 10 December, 1969

26. Le Monde, 10 September, 1970

27. Letters and instructions of St. Ignatius

28. Pope Paul’s New Mass, Michael Davies, Angleus Press 1980, p. 262

29. Matt. 26:28; Luke 22:20

30. Heb. 9:28

31. "The Catechism of the Council of Trent", Tan Books and Publishers, 1982, pp. 227-228