From an email written in the evening of March 15, 2009:
hope I wasn't too abrupt in my final sentences on the phone call right before
we both had to rush off to do some errands a few hours ago. In writing a follow up,
it's taken so much time, I've decided to finally turn this into an "OPEN
LETTER TO DR. ROBERT SUNGENIS AND DR. SCOTT HAHN." This is partially because I
don't want to put many of the people I have met and am friends with on the
spot with an OPEN LETTER. I am addressing it to Dr. Robert Sungenis because I
have a great respect for his intellect and some of his other works. I am
addressing this Open Letter to Dr. Scott Hahn because he clearly has a brilliant mind, and is
considered a kind of "patron saint" in defending the New Mass, Vatican II, and
the "Vatican II Popes". This particular "Open Letter" was occasioned by our
conversation earlier. I have listed at the end longer articles I have written,
with extensively cited documentation, from which this article is condensed.
Naturally, I would be glad to see a coherent response from anyone on the
subject below. - Jim Condit Jr.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
(Updated on July 20, 2010, to include more original sources so that the reader doesn't have to look up critical material that is referenced.)
OPEN LETTER TO:
DR. ROBERT SUNGENIS AND DR. SCOTT HAHN
(and anyone else who wishes to get involved)
MEN IN WHITE
What follows may at first appear to be bold and overreaching statements coming from a mere Catholic layman, but please do not make me the issue. I am just a reporter -- and either my "reporting" on this matter is true, or not. If it is not true, then this Open Letter should be easy to refute. The problem for those trying to refute this Open Letter, is that I am "reporting" on what was said by unquestionably true Popes such as Pope Eugene IV, Pope St. Pius V, Pope Pius IX, Pope Leo XIII, and on indisputably true Councils such as the Council of Florence, the Council of Trent, and the First Vatican Council.
The title of this Open Letter, "MEN IN WHITE" is a play on the phrase "Men in Black". The use of the latter phrase began to be popularized in the 1970s in "conspiracy literature" contending that secret government agents dressed in black suits were noticed at many important events, such as the 1963 Kennedy Assassination. The abbreviation for these men was "MIBs". The legend is that these Men in Black are deep cover, undercover, psy-ops operatives. In recent years a movie entitled, "Men in Black", starring Will Smith and Tommy Lee Jones, was made by Hollywood, playing on this concept, and spoofing it.
Our subject matter here, in sharp contrast, is of the utmost gravity. Popes have been recognizable as "men in white" for centuries. The question before us could not be more serious: just because a man is holding forth from the Vatican dressed in white, and claiming to be the Pope -- does that necessarily mean he is?
End of Preface
WE SHOULD TRUST THE CHURCH
First, let me state that I TRUST THE CHURCH. I trust Holy Scripture. I trust the Council of Florence. I trust the Council of Trent. I trust all the true Popes from St. Peter to this day -- and simultaneously I follow the Church in anathematizing, condemning, and separating myself from all the anti-Popes of the last 2000 years -- 41 major antipopes in all prior to 1958 -- some of which held the Vatican while the true Pope languished or wandered in exile, most prominently Anacletus II from 1030 to 1038 -- while Pope Innocent II wandered in exile until St. Bernard of Clairvoix came to his aid.
Please let me plead something else here, for the comeback often thrown by
those good Catholics desperately, and against their deepest instincts and
fears, trying to salvage the "Vatican II Popes" -- is that those advancing the
reasoning I am herein advancing are prideful, extreme, arrogant, "like Martin
Luther", etc. etc.
Please note: true Popes are bound by the words of Christ and the solemn pronouncements of previous Popes. So -- when Pope Pius XII says our Lady was assumed into Heaven in an ex cathedra pronouncement - that binds all future Popes. No future Pope can say that our Lady was NOT assumed into heaven, and that her body and bones are still buried somewhere on earth. If a future man occupying the Papal Chair said that, we would know that he was a usurper. But the same applies if a man occupying the Papal Chair contradicts previous Popes in a matter involving the Church's infallible "ordinary and universal magisterium." And this is exactly what Paul VI, and the "Vatican II Popes" following him, have done in the matter of the Mass, and specifically in regards to falsifying the form of the consecration of the wine in "New Mass in English".
THE FOCUS OF THIS OPEN LETTER, AND THE LOGIC BEHIND IT
The focus of this Open Letter is an understanding of the of the Church's
infallibility under her "ordinary and universal" magisterium, as defined
infallibly at the First Vatican Council in 1870, -- in relation to the FORM of
the consecration of the wine in the Holy Mass.
The logic might be viewed as building in this way:
1. The Church is infallible under her extraordinary magisterium (ex cathedra definitions and solemn definitions in a General Council AND in her "ordinary and universal" magisterium, as taught infallibly by the First Vatican Council, in harmony with the 2000 year tradition of the Church. (We are focusing in this Open Letter on the Church's infallible "ordinary and universal magisterium.")
2. The Church's "ordinary and universal" magisterium covers and includes the prayers of the Mass, the sacraments, canon law, the canonization of saints, the parts of General Councils that are not solemn definitions, and the daily life of the Church, even prayers promulgated by the Pope for use by the Faithful. No true Pope can lead the faithful into sin in any of these matters. (We are focusing in the Open Letter on the consecration of the wine.)
3. Based on items #1 and #2, the prayers of the Mass must faithfully express the doctrine and beliefs of the Church, and must never express something that is contrary to what the Church holds or believes. Pope Leo XIII, for instance, tells us in his encyclical ,"Satis Cognitum", translated into English as, "On the Unity of the Church", that the Mass is the foremost expression of the Church's "ordinary and universal magisterium", and that prayers of the Mass must be perfect. (We are focusing in this Open Letter on the Church's infallible rulings for 2000 years that "for many" must be used in the consecration of the wine because it expresses the Church's doctrine in this place, and that "for all" must not be used in the consecration of the wine because expresses something the Church does not believe regarding the consecration of the wine in Mass.)
4. The Church has consistently held for 2000 years that the substance of the form and matter of the sacraments have come to us from Christ and the Apostles (taught infallibly by Pope Eugene IV, and also stated by St. Thomas Aquinas in the Summa), and that the Church has no right whatsoever to innovate on anything relating to the substance of the sacraments, see quotes below from Pope St. Pius X, among others. (We are focusing in the Open Letter that Paul VI mandated "for all" in the consecration of the wine in all English speaking countries, and virtually the whole world in 1974, thus changing the substance of the form of the consecration of the wine in such as way as to contradict the meaning of the words of Christ Himself in Holy Scripture at the Last Supper, and 2000 years of Popes; this is something a true Pope could never do.)
5. The Church has consistently held for 2000 years that the words "for many" must be part of the consecration of the wine in the western rite, because Christ used this phrase at the Last Supper, as recorded in Holy Scripture, to express the grace of this sacrament. While Christ's death on the cross was sufficient for all, only many take advantage of the fruit of the Passion. The Eucharist, which effects grace only to the "many" who cooperate with it, does not effect grace to that faction of mankind who do not cooperate with the grace of the Eucharist. See below for the clear explanation of this teaching in the Catechism of the Council of Trent. (We are focusing in this Open Letter that Paul VI's mandated change to "for all" which expresses a heretical notion in the consecration of the wine, because it contradicts the Church's doctrine that "for many" expresses the grace of this sacrament in the consecration of the wine in the western rite.)
6. The Church has specifically condemned the use of the words "for all" in the consecration of the wine in the western rite, stating in the Catechism of the Council of Trent, that the words "for all" must not be used in this place. The reason for this is because the words "for all" do not signify the grace of the sacrament. As Pope Leo XIII and others tell us, a sacrament must signify what it does, and do what it signifies. The words "for all" falsify the grace of the sacrament. and thus express something contrary to what the Church holds, i.e., that the fruits of the Passion are applied to all, rather than to only the many that cooperate with the graces of the Eucharist. As Fr. Cartechini teaches in his imprimatured and authoritative work on this subject, " . . . the Church cannot permit that things should be said in the liturgy in her name that are contrary to what she herself holds or believes.” Therefore, the Catechism of the Council of Trent, as well as De Defectibus by Pope St. Pius V, as well as the entire history of the Church, teach us that the change of Christ's words in the consecration of the wine from "for many" to "for all" is a substantial change, is a heretical change in that place (the consecration of the wine), is a falsification of the form of the consecration of the wine, invalidates the sacrament, and could never be imposed by a true Pope. (We are focusing in this Open Letter that Paul VI imposed "for all" on virtually the entire world in 1974, thus contradicting the teaching of the Church, as well as invalidating the New Mass by purporting to permit something to be said in the liturgy in the Church's name which is contrary to what the Church herself holds and believes.)
7. Paul VI mandated the use of "for all" in the consecration of the wine in
the English translation, and other vernacular translations, of the New Mass in
1974 -- thus contradicting 2000 years of Popes and 2000 years of Church
rulings, as well as falsifying the words of Christ Himself at the Last Supper
as recorded in Holy Scripture. In doing so, Paul VI made a change in the
consecration of the wine which touched on the SUBSTANCE of the form of the
sacrament. In doing so, Paul VI inserted something into his New Mass which is
contrary to what the Church holds and believes regarding the consecration of
the wine. We know that the mistranslation of "for all" touched on the
SUBSTANCE of the sacrament of the Eucharist, because the Catechism of the
Council of Trent actually said, 400 years in advance of Paul VI's "New Mass",
that the words "for all" were NOT to be used in the form of the consecration
of the wine. By this brazen falsification and violation of Church rulings and
teachings, Paul VI made his "New Mass" an invalid act, into a sacrilege, as
well as into false worship, objectively a mortal sin against the First
Commandment. Paul VI thus led the faithful into sin by purporting to mandate
the attendance at his New Mass in English for the fulfillment of one's Sunday
obligation in the USA, and elsewhere. This same mistranslation was approved
for the consecration of the wine in the native language of almost every
country in the world, if not every country. So Paul VI led Catholics worldwide
into sin by mandating this mistranslation into the English version of his New
Mass, as well as the other vernacular versions. From 1974 to 1983, the New
Mass in English was the only form of "public worship" allowed in the USA, and
I suspect the same held for all the other countries of the world as well. Thus
Paul VI did what no true Pope has ever done, or could ever do: introduce and
then mandate a Mass that led the faithful into sin. (In this Open Letter we
are focusing on the fact that no true Pope could
ever mandate prayers for the Mass which expressed teachings contrary to what
the Church holds, as Paul VI did. And that what Paul VI did has been upheld by the
"Vatican II Popes" which followed him, namely, John Paul I, John Paul II, and
Benedict XVI. Thus, these "Vatican II Popes" cannot be true Popes, but must be
anti-popes. And the "Vatican II Church", which they led and lead, cannot be
the Roman Catholic Church, but must be the counterfeit Church foreseen by
Blessed Anna Catherine Emmerick, Cardinal Manning, Bishop Sheen, Fr. Sylvester
Berry, Fr. Hermann Kramer, and many others. Such a counterfeit church was also
foretold by Our Lady of Lasalette in 1846 when she stated, "The Church will be
in Eclipse, the world will be in dismay", and, "Rome will lose the Faith . .
." Many of these prophecies are compiled in "Prophecies for Searching Souls",
referenced at the end of this Open Letter.)
There is more extensive documentation on all these points in a 90 page pdf entitled, "Why the Conciliar Church cannot be the Catholic Church, and Why the New Mass cannot be the true Mass", found here:
So let's begin examining the evidence.
THE ORDINARY AND UNIVERSAL MAGISTERIUM
The application of the Church's infallible "ordinary and universal magisterium", solemnly proclaimed at Vatican Council I, is not a "close call" as the late Michael Davies and many other traditional minded Catholics have contended. I say this with good friends, and people I greatly respect, amongst those who have so contended.
The First Vatican Council, under Pope Pius IX, promulgated the following in 1870, binding on all Catholics:
"Wherefore, all those things are to be believed by Divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the written or unwritten word of God, and which are proposed by the Church as Divinely revealed, either by a solemn definition or in the exercise of its ordinary and universal magisterium" (emphasis added) -- from Session III, Chapter 3
Catholics are generally clear on what "by her solemn judgment" means; these are the ex cathedra pronouncements from the Popes on subjects concerning Faith and Morals, such as Pope Pius IX's teaching on the Immaculate Conception (1854), or Pope Pius XII's teaching on the Assumption of the Blessed Mother (1950) -- and -- the solemn definitions and pronouncements of General Ecumenical Councils signed by the Popes, which often end in "Let him be anathema", or something to that same effect.
But what is meant by "the ordinary and universal magisterium" as solemnly
taught by the First Vatican Council? By that is meant those things governing
the essentials in the daily life of the Church, including the rites of Mass,
canon law, the canonization of saints, and even prayers promulgated by the
Pope for use by the faithful.
RULE OF POPE ST. HORMISDAS
Here is what Pope Leo XIII said in
section 13 of this same encyclical, "Satis Cognitum" (On the Unity of the
"In the formula of Catholic faith drawn up and proposed by Hormisdas, which was subscribed at the beginning of the sixth century in the great Eighth Council by the Emperor Justinian . . . this same is declared with great weight and solemnity. 'For the pronouncement of Our Lord Jesus Christ saying: 'Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,' etc., cannot be passed over. What is said is proved by the result, because the Catholic Faith has always been preserved without stain in the Apostolic See' (Post Epistolam, xxvi., ad omnes Episc. Hispan., n. 4)."
The "Hormisdas" referred to by Pope Leo XIII in the quote above -- is Pope St. Hormisdas (514-523). This Pope became known throughout the centuries for "The Rule of Hormisdas", which was widely cited at the First Vatican Council 1350 years later, as early written proof that the Catholic Faith has always been preserved without stain in the Church of Rome (the Apostolic See under the Bishop of Rome) and that it was well known that all the other churches had to conform to the Faith of the Church of Rome. (In this case, Pope Hormisdas was requiring some churches in the east to remove names from the canon of the Mass unless they were approved for inclusion in the canon by the Church of Rome, indicating that all the other churches must conform in so important a matter to the faith of the Church of Rome.)
Please note again the phase which Pope Leo XIII quotes in his encyclical from Pope St. Hormisdas, "What is said is proved by the result, because the Catholic Faith has always been preserved without stain in the Apostolic See."
In harmony with Pope St. Hormisdas
and all true Popes, the First Vatican Council under Pope Pius IX promulgated
this infallible statement:
“For in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been preserved unblemished, and sacred doctrine been held in honor.” (Session 4, Chapter 4, paragraph 2; The First Vatican Council, 1870)
Here is what Pope St. Hormisdas stated in response to innovations (i.e., adding to the canon of the Mass the names of individuals who had not been approved by Rome) in the Canon of the Mass by certain Bishops in one of the eastern rites:
“The first means of safety is to guard the rule of strict faith and to deviate in no way from those things that have been laid down by the Fathers. And indeed the words of Our Lord Jesus Christ: “Thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church” [Matthew 16:18], cannot be disregarded; these things which were spoken are demonstrated by the results, for the Catholic religion has been preserved ever immaculate (i.e. without stain) in the Apostolic See. . . .
“From this hope and faith we by no means desire to be separated and, following the doctrine of the Fathers, we declare anathema all heresies, and, especially, the heretic Nestorius, former bishop of Constantinople, who was condemned by the Council of Ephesus, by Blessed Celestine, bishop of Rome, and by the venerable Cyril, bishop of Alexandria . . .
“Following, as we have said before, the Apostolic See in all things and proclaiming all its decisions, we endorse and approve all the letters which Pope St Leo wrote concerning the Christian religion. And so I hope I may deserve to be associated with you in the one communion which the Apostolic See proclaims, in which the whole, true, and perfect security of the Christian religion resides. I promise that from now on those who are separated from the communion of the Catholic Church, that is, who are not in agreement with the Apostolic See, will not have their names read during the sacred mysteries. But if I attempt even the least deviation from my profession, I admit that, according to my own declaration, I am an accomplice to those whom I have condemned. I have signed this, my profession, with my own hand, and I have directed it to you. -- Hormisdas, the holy and venerable pope of Rome.” (Comment: Please note that the translator here is different from the translator used by Pope Leo XIII quoted above, but the sense is exactly the same.)
This formula, signed by Pope St. Hormisdas himself, was sent to the offending Bishops in the eastern rite who were adding names of persons to the Canon of the Mass who had not been declared Saints by Rome. These Bishops were directed to sign the formula to indicate their conformance to the Faith, to the rulings of the Pope and to the Holy See in Rome.
It is significant that Pope St. Hormisdas is not only asking the eastern Bishops addressed to declare their unity and obedience to the Apostolic See, but he is wanting to declare his own unity and obedience to his predecessors in the Papacy.
While this has been the
case for the Pontificates of all the true Popes from St. Peter to Pope Pius
XII in 1958 -- it has NOT been the case in the purported "pontificates" of
Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI since 1958. This is
indicative that these men are usurpers -- and antipopes -- and that the
Vatican was taken over by its age-old enemies at the spoiled conclave of 1958;
that we are living in the "Eclipse of the Church" predicted by Our Lady of
LaSalette in 1846 -- an eclipse from which the Church will emerge in God's own
THE MASS IS COVERED UNDER THE CHURCH'S INFALLIBLE "ORDINARY AND UNIVERSAL"
MAGISTERIUM, AS EXPLAINED IN
IMPORTANT 1951 BOOK ON THE "ORDINARY AND UNIVERSAL" MAGISTERIUM IMPRIMATURED BY
POPE PIUS XII
I present this section to back up the statements in the above paragraph from an authoritative source.
The following is part of a transcript made from a speech given by Catholic scholar Mr. John Daly entitled, “The Impossible Crisis”, delivered in the USA in New York City in 2002:
“There are a great many books that cover the different ways in which the Church teaches the faithful and the different ways in which her teaching binds them, but the main guide I want to use in this topic is one that very few of you will have heard of – and yet it has the very highest authority. It’s called De Valore Notarum Theologicarum – On the Meaning of Theological Qualifications - by Fr Sixtus Cartechini. The special significance of this work is that it was written for the use of the Roman Congregations in evaluating the orthodoxy or heterodoxy of different doctrines. It was published at the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome in 1951. It is based on the standard doctrines of the great theologians and of the popes themselves on these topics, and it immediately became a standard work and remained so until John XXIII decided that the era of condemning false doctrines was at an end.
“I shall rely on Fr. Cartechini very heavily, because what he says is standard teaching. Anyone who doubts what he says can check it in countless other sources.
“The first three chapters of Fr. Cartechini’s work are about defined dogmas – extraordinary Magisterium. Chapter 4 is called What the Ordinary Magisterium is and how dogmas can be proved from it, or concerning divine and Catholic faith founded on the Ordinary Magisterium. The title is already eloquent – it tells us that dogmas, requiring the highest assent of faith, can be proved from the Ordinary Magisterium as well as the extraordinary. (Note: Emphasis via bold words added by this writer for this article.)
“Fr. Cartechini explains that there are three different ways in which the ordinary Magisterium can communicate to Catholics what they must believe as of faith.
“First, he says, the ordinary Magisterium is exercised through its express doctrine communicated by the pope or by the bishops to the faithful throughout the whole world without the use of formal definitions. And he gives a list of doctrines concerning faith and morals infallibly taught by the ordinary Magisterium as divinely revealed. Several of them are simply proposed in papal encyclicals.
“Secondly, he says, the ordinary Magisterium is exercised by the implicit teaching contained in the Church’s life or practice. He points out that the Church here follows Christ Himself who also taught certain points by His acts, for instance the duty to honour His Mother Mary. And under this head he refers especially to the colossal doctrinal status of the liturgy. “The liturgy does not create dogmas, but it expresses dogmas because in her manner of praising God or praying to Him the Church expresses what and how and according to what concepts God wants to be publicly worshipped….[so] the Church cannot permit that things should be said in the liturgy in her name that are contrary to what she herself holds or believes.” (p.37) (Note: Emphasis via bold words added by this writer for this article.)
“Fr. Cartechini also mentions the Church’s laws as a source of infallible teaching of the ordinary and universal Magisterium though the Church’s life and practice. “…, neither general councils nor the pope can establish laws that include sin…and nothing could be included in the Code of Canon Law that is in any way opposed to the rules of faith or to evangelical holiness. (Note: Emphasis via bold words added by this writer for this article.)
(End of quote from that 2002 speech by Mr. John Daly)
I have bolded much of the material quoted above from Mr. John Daly. Please note that Fr. Cartechini's important work was given an imprimatur under Pope Pius XII in 1951, meaning that nothing in the book is contrary to faith and morals. The fact that this book was being imprimatured for the use by seminary teachers and bishops and priests -- for those in authority in the Church who would be teaching others, -- gives it a double-imprimatur, if that were possible.
Let's especially notice that Fr. Cartechini is quoted above by Mr. Daly as
saying that, ". . . the Church cannot permit that things should be said in the
liturgy in her name that are contrary to what she herself holds or believes."
Yet, as we will see in this article, this is EXACTLY what Paul VI enforced worldwide and imposed on the faithful in 1974 with his insistence that all the faithful accept whatever translation their national bishops' conference came up with for his "New Mass." Thus, in the United States, the New Mass in English falsified the words of Christ in the consecration of the wine, and purported to say in the Church's name in the most sacred part of the liturgy -- something contrary to what the Church herself holds and believes.
Specifically, Paul VI approved and enforced an English translation which
changed Christ's words in the consecration of the wine from "for many" to "for
all men", later modified to "for all." This translation had already been
specifically forbidden by, among others, the Council of Florence, Pope St.
Pius V in his De Defectibus in 1570, and all the Pontiffs before and since.
Every Pope from 1570 until Pope Pius XII published Pope St. Pius V's "De
Defectibus" in the front of the missals used by the priests in all parish
churches in the western rite. So it wasn't just Paul VI against Pope St. Pius
V -- it was Paul VI against all the true Popes of the last 400 years, and in
reality of the last 2000 years.
POPE LEO XIII CONDEMNS PAUL VI's "NEW MASS" 73 YEARS IN ADVANCE BY TELLING US THAT THE PRAYERS OF THE MASS ARE COVERED UNDER THE CHURCH'S INFALLIBILITY -- AND MUST BE PERFECT
We can find that the "New Mass" of Paul VI was condemned in advance, among other places, by Pope Leo XIII in his 1896 encyclical, Satis Cognitum (entitled in English, On the Unity of the Church). Commenting on the First Vatican Council and its phrase, "ordinary and universal magisterium", Pope Leo says this in paragraph 9:
"For this reason the Fathers of the Vatican Council laid down nothing new, but followed Divine revelation and the acknowledged and invariable teaching of the Church as to the very nature of faith, when they decreed as follows: ‘All those things are to be believed by Divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the written or unwritten word of God, and which are proposed by the Church as Divinely revealed, either by a solemn definition or in the exercise of its ordinary and universal Magisterium’ (Sess. iii., cap. 3). Hence, as it is clear that God absolutely willed that there should be unity in His Church, and as it is evident what kind of unity . . . It is then undoubtedly the office of the church to guard Christian doctrine and to propagate it in its integrity and purity. But this is not all: the object for which the Church has been instituted is not wholly attained by the performance of this duty. For, since Jesus Christ delivered Himself up for the salvation of the human race, and to this end directed all His teaching and commands, so He ordered the Church to strive, by the truth of its doctrine, to sanctify and to save mankind. But faith alone cannot compass so great, excellent, and important an end. There must needs be also the fitting and devout worship of God, which is to be found chiefly in the divine Sacrifice and in the dispensation of the Sacraments, as well as salutary laws and discipline. All these must be found in the Church, since it continues the mission of the Savior forever. The Church alone offers to the human race that religion - that state of absolute perfection - which He wished, as it were, to be incorporated in it. And it alone supplies those means of salvation which accord with the ordinary counsels of Providence." (emphasis added)
End of Quote about the First Vatican Council and its phrase, "ordinary and universal magisterium" in Pope Leo XIII's encyclical, Satis Cognitum.
Pope Leo, in explaining the First Vatican Council, explicitly states that the Church's mission encompasses solemn definitions of the Faith -- but he then says, "But this is not all . . ."
So what else is necessary? Pope Leo tells us: "There must needs be also the fitting and devout worship of God, which is to be found chiefly in the Divine Sacrifice and in the dispensation of the Sacraments, as well as salutary laws and discipline."
In other words, the Mass, the sacraments, and Canon Law also come under the infallibility of the Church under her "ordinary and universal magisterium", as defined by the First Vatican Council.
And common sense, logic, and the Divine Constitution of the Church demands this.
Where would be a Divinely constituted Church if we could not be sure that any liturgy she promulgates is safe to attend, without fear of being led into sin?
Where would be an indefectible Church if we could not be sure that when she canonizes a Saint -- that the Saint we are to pray to is in Heaven, and not in Hell?
Where would be an indefectible Church if she could issue Canon Laws that led the faithful into sin? (Please note that both Fr. Catechini and Pope Leo XIII, as well as Pope Pius VI in his Apostolic Constitution "Auctorem Fidei" in 1794, state that the Church could never issue a Canon Law that led the faithful into sin. This is a subject for another paper regarding the 1983 "Code of Canon Law" promulgated by John Paul II.)
Of what use would the Church be to her members if she could direct the faithful to attend a rite of Mass which caused the faithful to objectively sin by committing a sacrilege, and/or attending false worship contrary to the First Commandment?
Thankfully, Pope Leo assures us that the Church cannot issue a rite of Mass for the faithful to attend which would intrinsically cause the faithful to commit a sacrilege or a sin. The Pope assures us that the Church cannot issue a Canon Law which would lead the faithful into sin. And thereby he assures us, by implication here, that the Church cannot canonize a Saint who is not in heaven, or even promulgate a prayer that would lead the faithful into error.
Pope Leo XIII so assures us when he says: "All these must be found in the Church, since it continues the mission of the Savior forever. The Church alone offers to the human race that religion -- that state of absolute perfection -- which He wished, as it were, to be incorporated in it." (emphasis added)
As one commentator put it: "Sinners in the Church? Yes. A sinning Church? Never. (Note: Members of the Church, even Popes, of course, sin. But the Church herself cannot sin when promulgating official teachings, rites of Mass, canon laws, etc.)
Let us re-emphasize this all important point: Pope Leo XIII is telling us that Divine worship, especially the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and the Sacraments, fall under the Church's infallibility in her ordinary and universal magisterium, as proclaimed at the First Vatican Council.
Pope Leo further states in this encyclical, in harmony with all other Church documents which deal with this point, that the Church must be everywhere and always unified in essential matters, and here he states that the Church must bring both the Faith (as a whole, and in all its parts) and the liturgy (the daily life of the Church) to the world in -- "that state of absolute perfection" -- which Christ willed.
Furthermore, Pope Leo teaches this about the nature of the unity of the Church in paragraph #4 of the same encyclical: "Wherefore, by the will of its Founder, it is necessary that this Church should be one in all lands and at all times." Thus, as we have seen, by approving and enforcing the "New Mass" in English, Paul VI was not "one" with the Church in all lands and at all times", but rather approved and enforced a schismatic liturgy, which no true Pope could ever do. Paul VI did a work that only an anti-pope could do: impose a schismatic "mass" upon the faithful. And here is what Pope Leo XIII has to say about the crime of schism in his encyclical 'Satis Cognitum", or "On the Unity of the Church", paragraph #10:
In which judgment St. John Chrysostom concurs: "I say and protest (he writes) that it is as wrong to divide the Church as to fall into heresy" (Hom. xi., in Epist. ad Ephes., n. 5). Wherefore as no heresy can ever be justifiable, so in like manner there can be no justification for schism. "There is nothing more grievous than the sacrilege of schism....there can be no just necessity for destroying the unity of the Church" (S. Augustinus, Contra Epistolam Parmeniani, lib. ii., cap. ii., n. 25).
Yet, as we have seen above, Paul
VI approved and enforced a schismatic liturgy in his "New Mass" in English in
1974. His "New Mass", in the falsifying of Christ's words in the consecration
of the wine, contradicted all the true liturgies of the Church, the Catechism
of the Council of Trent, "De Defectibus" of Pope St. Pius V, amongst every
other authoritative teacher and teaching of the Church, -- and last but not
least, the words of Christ Himself in the Gospels, and the Church's infallible
teaching about the meaning of Christ's words at the Last Supper.
THE FORM OF THE CONSECRATION OF THE WINE CAME TO US FROM CHRIST AND THE APOSTLES; POPE ST. PIUS V SPOKE FOR ALL POPES SINCE ST. PETER -- AND WAS ENDORSED BY EVERY POPE AFTER HIM UP TO POPE PIUS XII
Therefore, based on all the above, I trust the solemn promulgation of St. Pius V regarding the consecration formula of the wine in the western rite of the Church, in his De Defectibus (Concerning Defects when saying Mass). In protecting the consecration formula of the wine, Pope St. Pius V said that any deliberate substantial change in meaning invalidates the consecration, and any deliberate change at all, even if it does not amount to a substantial change in the meaning -- is a mortal sin. Thus, we can conclude, trusting and following St. Pius V as a true Pope, enunciating what all the other true Popes held from St. Peter to Pope Pius XII -- that a deliberate, substantial change in the meaning of the consecration formula would both invalidate the Mass, AND be a mortal sin because of the sacrilege involved.
St. Thomas Aquinas said in his Summa Theologica that the exact consecration formula used in his time came directly from Christ and the Apostles. And St. Thomas's Summa was placed on the altar at the Council of Trent, right next to the Holy Bible. St. Thomas also said that leaving out ANY part of the consecration of the wine invalidated the sacrament. His writings do not rise to the authority of the Council of Florence, or the Council of Trent, or of the Papal promulgation and enforcement of the consecration of the wine formula of all the Popes from St. Peter to St. Pius XII -- but I thought I would mention this because St. Thomas is often falsified and misquoted by those (hopelessly) trying to salvage the sacrilegious and invalid New Mass in English, as well as all the other vernacular versions, which contain the same mistranslations (and that includes the French and Polish version, despite some recent assertions to the contrary).
Why do I say that St. Pius V was simply promulgating what the Church held from St. Peter to St. Pius V? Because when St. Pius V ruled that Our Lord's words "for many" must be retained, and that any substantial change in this phrase would be both a mortal sin and would invalidate the sacrament, he was holding what all the Popes since St. Peter held, according to St. Thomas Aquinas. And --- every Pope from 1570 until 1958 published St. Pius V's "De Defectibus" in the front of the Sacramentaries or Missals used by priests everywhere in the world in the western rite. So it isn't just Pope St. Pius V against Paul VI -- it's all the Popes from St. Peter to Pope Pius XII against Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI, -- the "Vatican II Popes."
THE CHURCH HAS ALWAYS USED FOR MANY IN THE CONSECRATION OF THE WINE
THE CHURCH HAS ALWAYS FORBIDDEN THE USE OF THE WORDS "FOR ALL" IN THE FORM OF THE CONSECRATION OF THE WINE IN THE WESTERN RITE
Here is exactly what the Catechism of the Council of Trent says in forbidding
the use of "for all" in the consecration of the wine:
“The additional words for you and for many, are taken, some from Matthew, some from Luke, but were joined together by the Catholic Church under the guidance of the Spirit of God. They serve to declare the fruit and advantage of His Passion. For if we look to its value, we must confess that the Redeemer shed His Blood for the salvation of all; but if we look to the fruit which mankind have received from it, we shall easily find that it pertains not unto all, but to many of the human race. When therefore (our Lord) said: For you, He meant either those who were present, or those chosen from among the Jewish people, such as were, with the exception of Judas, the disciples with whom He was speaking. When He added, And for many, He wished to be understood to mean the remainder of the elect from among the Jews and Gentiles. WITH REASON, THEREFORE, WERE THE WORDS "FOR ALL" NOT USED, as in this place the fruits of the Passion are alone spoken of, and to the elect only did His Passion bring the fruit of salvation.” (The Catechism of the Council of Trent, TAN Books, 1982, p. 227.) [Note: Christ uses the words “for many” in St. Matthew 26:28; St. Mark 14:24; also, emphasis has been added using bold and capital lettering in the above passage.]
Thus, the Catechism of the Council of Trent, commissioned by Pope St. Pius V and other Popes of that time under the auspices of St. Charles Borromeo to explain the mind of the Fathers of the Council of Trent, tells us that the change in translation of "pro multis" from "for many" to "for all" is a substantial change of meaning, and one that is forbidden. Why is it forbidden? Because it changes the MEANING of what Christ said. It changes the “res sacramenti”, or the “reason for the sacrament”, or the “Substance of the sacrament.” As Pope Leo XIII taught, amongst numerous other Catholic authorities over the last two millenia, the sacrament must signify its effect. The sacrament must do what it signifies, and signifies what it does. “All men” does not signify the effect of the grace of the sacrament of the Eucharist, which grace is “for many” – that is, for the many who cooperate with the grace of the sacrament. The Council of Trent explains this very clearly. Christ died for all men, and God wills that all men be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth (1 Timothy; Ch 2, v 4), but sadly only “many” of the human race cooperate with the grace of this sacrament, and hence the use of “for many” by Christ at the Last Supper. (This could not be clearer, yet many pretend not to understand it, because they realize that once they admit this simple truth based on these simple facts, the entire "house of cards" of the counterfeit church of Vatican II collapses and disappears like the dust of a crushed moth.)
Conclusion: The change from “for many” to “for all” is a substantial change, which violates the substance of the sacrament of the Eucharist, something no true Pope has ever done, or could ever do. Said another way, to use “for all” does not signify what the sacrament effects, and therefore comes under the “invalidity” principle laid down by Pope Leo XIII in his 1896 encyclical, Apostolicae Curae.
Pope Leo XIII emphasizes this point in paragraph #24 in his 1896 encyclical,
“In the examination of any rite for the effecting and administering of Sacraments, distinction is rightly made between the part which is ceremonial and that which is essential, the latter being usually called the “matter and form”. All know that the Sacraments of the New Law, as sensible and efficient signs of invisible grace, ought both to signify the grace which they effect, and effect the grace which they signify. ... That form consequently cannot be considered apt or sufficient for the sacrament which omits what it ought essentially to signify.” (Emphasis added)
Pope Leo XIII was talking above about the sacrament of Holy Orders in 1896, but we can see that the principle applies to the “New Mass” English translation as well, since Pope St. Pius V taught through the Catechism of the Council of Trent that “for reason therefore” are the words ‘for all” not used, i.e., because they do not describe the grace of the sacrament. Thus, for this reason as well, the failure to express the grace of the sacrament, is the “New Mass” in English invalid according to the entire history of the teachings of the Church up until 1958. (Readers are referred to Patrick Henry Omlor’s article, “Res Sacramenti”, for an in depth treatment of this subject.)
Conclusion: If you say that “all men” in the consecration of the wine signifies the grace of the sacrament, then you are committing objective heresy, as the Catechism of the Council of Trent and Pope St. Pius V, among other Church authorities, defined that “for many” signifies the grace of the sacrament, i.e., the sacrament of the Eucharist is not efficacious for all, but only for many. If you say that “for many” and “for all” mean the same thing – then you are contradicting the entire history of the Church, and especially the Catechism of the Council of Trent and Pope St. Pius V.
We might add that when the Catechism of the Council of Trent says, “with reason, therefore, were the words ‘for all’ not used” – we might well ask: “Not used by Whom?” And the answer is: NOT USED BY CHRIST HIMSELF.
So, as Fr. Cartechini wrote, "the Church cannot permit that things should be said in the liturgy in her name that are contrary to what she herself holds or believes.” But Paul VI permitted in the English translation of his "New Mass" something to be said in the very heart of the consecration which is blatantly contrary to what the Church holds and believes, based on the very words of Christ Himself from Holy Scripture, and infallibly and consistently taught by the Church down through the centuries.
(Please see email to myself from John Daly at the end of this article, if you wish to learn of more sources through which to study about the Church's infallibility under the auspices of her "ordinary and universal magisterium.")
ADD POPE LEO ON A SACRAMENT MUST DO WHAT IT SAYS, AND SAYS WHAT IT DOES
THE CHURCH HAS NO RIGHT WHATSOEVER TO INNOVATE ANYTHING TOUCHING ON THE SUBSTANCE OF THE SACRAMENTS (St. Pius X)
In the letter, “Super quibusdam” (September 29, 1351), Pope Clement VI taught:
“The Roman Pontiff regarding the administration of the sacraments of the Church, can tolerate and even permit different rites of the Church of Christ, always without violating those which pertain to the integrity and necessary part of the sacraments.”
The Council of Trent, session XXI, Chapter 2:
“The Council declares furthermore that this power has always been in the
Church, that in the administration of the Sacraments, without violating their
substance, she may determine or change whatever she may judge to be more
expedient for the benefit of those who receive them or for the veneration of
the Sacrament, according to the variety of circumstances, times and places.”
Pope Saint Pius X in the letter Ex Quo Non (Dec. 26, 1910);
“It is well known that to the Church there belongs no right whatsoever to innovate anything touching on the substance of the Sacraments.”
And finally, on Nov. 30, 1947, Pope Pius XII issued the Apostolic Constitution Sacramentum Ordinis which reiterates and clarifies the same principle as the Council of Trent teaches, that:
“ … the seven sacraments of the new law have all been instituted by Jesus Christ Our Lord, and the Church has no power over the ‘substance of the sacraments’, that is over the things which, as the sources of revelation witness, CHRIST THE LORD HIMSELF [Bishop Lazo's emphasis] decreed to be preserved in a sacramental sign.” (Dz. 3857)
Emphasizing what these Popes have said: In the confecting of the sacrament two things must be distinguished –the substance and the ceremonies. The ceremonies may change, but the substance never changes. The substance is the MATTER AND THE FORM.
To restate: what the Church and the Popes ruled for 2000 years, following the very words of Christ at the Last Supper, was the form for the consecration of the wine in the western rite for Holy Mass, and MUST BE the form for the consecration of the wine in the western rite for Holy Mass, was blatantly contradicted and falsified by anti-pope Paul VI when he imposed and enforced the New Mass in English in 1974, telling every Catholic in the world that if they were in the USA or any other English speaking country, they they could (and MUST) fulfill their Sunday obligation by attending the "New Mass in English" with the falsified consecration form. (The New Mass in English was enforced exclusively for public worship from 1974 to 1983 in English speaking countries -- and allowed as the norm of "worship" from 1974 to this very day. Even if the translation is corrected in 2010 or after, it does not change the fact that true Popes could never have allowed or imposed this falsified worship on Catholics for even one second in any country.) This "New Mass in English" was purporting to be a universal law for all Catholics in a matter (the Mass) which falls under the Church's infallibility in her "ordinary and universal magisterium". To lead Catholics into sin by directing them to attend such false and sacrilegeous worship in even one parish, let alone one diocese or one country, in violation of the First Commadment -- is something a true Pope has never done, and COULD NEVER DO. Thus, the unavoidable conclusion is that Paul VI (1963-1978), John Paul I (1978-1978), John Paul II (1978-2005), and Benedict XVI (2005 - ?) are anti-popes -- because they have upheld and enforced the "New Mass in English" since 1974 with its falsification of Our Lords words in the consecration. It's as simple as that, but the conclusion is so enormous, so "unthinkable" -- that most people simply flee the situation and refuse to consider the evidence, which follows. (For this reason, I have included a possible explanation in this Open Letter, which indicates how this has happened, and how the situation will be resolved; I do not want to leave the impression, in spite of this apocalyptic turn of events, that the Church has failed, or that Christ has failed in His promise. FAR FROM IT! When this crisis is resolved, the Church will be exalted in the sight of all doubters, as one of the prophecies says. It is our job as confirmed Catholics to be Soldiers of Christ, face the truth no matter how unsettling it may be at first glance, and prepare for the Church's coming triumph -- the triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, as foretold at Fatima, by St. Louis de Monfort, and by many other authoritative Catholic sources..)
This is not a matter of nitpicking over anything and everything a Pope, or the Church has done, after the manner of Protestants and Modernists, -- this is a matter of being slammed with the realization that if we accept what the "Vatican II Popes" have done in certain matters, we must necessarily deny and violate what previous, unquestionably true Popes have promulgated and ruled upon in matters touching on both infallibility and indefectibility. In this OPEN LETTER, I am focusing on what has been done by the "Vatican II Popes" in the matter of the form of the consecration of the wine in Holy Mass, a matter covered under the Church's infallible "ordinary and universal magisterium" as solemnly and infallibly defined by the First Vatican Council under the great Pope Pius IX, the longest reigning Pope in history (1846-1878), in harmony with the consistent teaching of the Church for 2000 years..
So, when Pope St. Pius X says that the Church has "NO RIGHT WHATSOEVER to innovate ANYTHING touching on the substance of the sacraments", when the Council of Trent says in session XXI, chapter 2, that the Church may never violate the substance of the sacraments, when the Catechism of the Council of Trent, says that “In our Sacraments … the form is so definite that any, even a casual deviation from it renders the Sacrament null” . . ., when the Council of Florence defined the form of the consecration of the wine to necessarily include Our Lord's words "for many", when Pope St. Pius V declared that the form of the consecration of the wine in the western rite must contain Our Lord's words "for many", when he further declared that any change in the essential meaning of the words render the consecration null and void, and even a minor change which does not effect the meaning is a mortal sin if deliberately done, and, furthermore, when the Catechism of the Council of Trent specifically explains the minds of the Pope and the Fathers of that Council when it teaches that "for reason, therefore, are the words 'for all' NOT USED" in the consecration of the wine, when St. Thomas Aquinas stated in the Summa that the form of the consecration in the Holy Mass comes to us from Christ and the Apostles, when “for many” was defined as an essential part of the consecration of the wine in the Western Rite by the Council of Florence, signed by Pope Eugene IV, in Session 11, Feb. 4, 1442, in the document “Cantate Domino”, and when Pope Eugene IV further stated on that occasion that, "THE FORM OF WORDS which the holy Roman Church, relying on the teaching and authority of the apostles Peter and Paul, has always been wont to use in the consecration of the Lord's Body and Blood . . ." -- I wish to plead here that I, and those who advocate this position, are not being prideful, arrogant, or "like Martin Luther", for we are not making up anything, innovating anything, or even making any judgements on our own, except to trust and adhere to the solemn rulings and promulgations of the Church for 2000 years in this aspect of her "ordinary and universal magisterium." And if we do not have our God-given reason for this purpose -- to apply previous Church rulings to this serious of a matter, what do we have it for?
THE TWO CONTRADICTORY FORMULAS: THE TRADITIONAL LATIN MASS VS. PAUL VI's "NEW MASS IN ENGLISH" ON THE CONSECRATION OF THE WINE
Here is the form for the consecration of the wine in the western rite, which St. Thomas Aquinas and Pope Eugene IV tell us explicitly came down to us from Christ and the Apostles, and which is upheld, by implication, and explicitly used in the Holy Mass, by all the Popes for the last 2000 years:
"FOR THIS IS THE CHALICE OF MY BLOOD, OF THE NEW AND ETERNAL TESTAMENT: THE MYSTERY OF FAITH, WHICH SHALL BE SHED FOR YOU AND FOR MANY UNTO THE REMISSION OF SINS." (This can be verified by getting ahold of the any of the Sunday Missals used worldwide in Catholic parishes before 1958.)
And here is the form of the consecration of the wine in the sacrilegious New Mass in English, which anyone can verify by walking into any parish Church in the USA and looking at the Missalette, as this Open Letter is updated in July 2010:
“The day before he suffered he took bread in his sacred hands and looking up to heaven, to you, his almighty Father, he gave you thanks and praise. He broke the bread, gave it to his disciples, and said: Take this, all of you, and eat it; this is my body which will be given up for you. When supper was ended, he took the cup. Again he gave you thanks and praise, gave the cup to his disciples, and said: Take this, all of you, and drink from it: this is the cup of my blood, the blood of the new and everlasting covenant. It will be shed for you and for all so that sins may be forgiven. Do this in memory of me.” (End of quote from New Mass in English). (Emphasis added)
Could there be a more blatant, deliberate, and disrespectful violation of Our Lord's words, the meaning of the sacrament as defined by the Church, common sense, and basic intelligence than this mistranslation, now in practice for 41 years in the "Vatican II church", and enforced as "law" since at least as far back as 1974?
There is a common objection that is usually brought up at this point, and it should be responded to here.
This objection is that the language Our Lord spoke, namely Aramaic, did not have a word for "all", so He had to be content with using a word meaning "many" at the Last Supper when instituting the Eucharist.
The answer is that this assertion is blatantly and maliciously false.
Here is a
table showing that Aramaic, and Greek, and Latin all have words for both "all"
and "many", as does any civilized language:
Aramaic: many = ‘saggi’an; all = kol, or kolla;
Greek: many = polloi; all = olio; “all” in ancient Greek was also apan;
Latin: many = multus-a-um; all = omnis, omne;
The exposing of the ecclesiastic charlatans who made this more than absurd "defense" of mistranslating Our Lord's words in the consecration of the wine, and thus distorting His meaning, can be found both in Fr. James Wathen's 1971 book, "The Great Sacrilege", and in Patrick Henry Omlor's article, "The Charlatans", which article begins on page 350 of the PDF of "The Robber Church" book, linked at the end of this Open Letter.
However, as Fr. Wathen points out in "The Great Sacrilege", the possible meaning of words in Aramaic, Greek, or Latin is not relevant to the point here under discussion. The only relevant point in this discussion is what the Church ruled Our Lord said when He instituted the Eucharist at the Last Supper. And the Church has undeniably ruled that Our Lord said "for many", and not "for all", as can be proven to any honest person by consulting the Council of Florence, the Catechism of the Council of Trent, St. Alphonsus de Ligouri, St. Thomas Aquinas, or De Defectibus by Pope St. Pius V, among countless other authoritative Catholic sources. Furthermore, "for many" expresses the grace of the sacrament of the Eucharist, and "for all" does not. So the use of "for all", specifically condemned for use in the consecration by the Catechism of the Council of Trent, invalidates the sacrament, as also ruled by Pope St. Pius V in De Defectibus. So the ramifications of this question could not be more serious, and we cannot permit anyone to get away with shoddy scholarship on this issue.
No one denies that words can sometimes have more than one meaning. But in this case it is a stretch to say that the relevant words in any of these languages can mean BOTH many AND all. But even if such were the case, the Church has settled the question on what "pro multis" means in the consecration of the wine. The Church has ruled consistently and infallibly for 2000 years that Our Lord said and meant "for many" in the consecration of the wine.
THE 1974 DOCUMENT OF PAUL VI, APPROVING, ENFORCING, AND IMPOSING THE "NEW MASS" IN ENGLISH ON THE FAITHFUL
I am indebted to the article, "Did Paul VI 'Illegally Promulgate' the Novus Ordo?" by Rev. Anthony Cekada for the information in this section about the 1974 document wherein Paul VI mandated the use of whatever vernacular translation -- (vernacular means "local tongue" such as English for the USA, England, Australia or New Zealand, French for France, Italian for Italy, etc.) -- the bishops' conference in each nation came up with for his "New Mass". Unless there is some error in the article by Rev. Cekada that I was not competent to detect, it is a devastating exposition of how Paul VI purported to use the exact same Papal language and authority, and often the exact same words, as was used by Pope St. Pius V to promulgate the Tridentine Mass 4 centuries ago. The imposition of the New Mass in the strongest legal terms is repeated one way or another from 1969 to 1974, as the article demonstrates. Here is where you can find the original article, and I would recommend that everyone seeking the truth read it:
Here is a condensation of several of the key points that concern us here, and let me begin by quoting directly from this article:
Begin Quote from the Rev. Cekada article:
there is the Notification Conferentia Episcopalium (28 October 1974).
This specifies again that when a bishops’ conference decrees that a translation of the new rite is obligatory, "Mass, whether in Latin or the vernacular, may be celebrated lawfully only according to the rite of the Roman Missal promulgated 3 April 1969 by authority of Pope Paul VI."
emphasis on the word “only” (tantummodo) is found in the original.
Ordinaries must ensure that all priests and people of the Roman Rite, “notwithstanding the pretense of any custom, even immemorial custom, duly accept the Order of Mass in the Roman Missal.”
Again, it is obvious that the New Mass has been duly promulgated and is obligatory: there are no exceptions.
(End quote; just to be as clear as possible, the words in maroon above, and also within the quotation marks, are Fr. Cekada quoting form the original Paul I IV document issued in 1974, Conferentia Episcopalium.)
Paul VI's sneering “pretense of any custom, even immemorial
custom” – as if the immemorial custom of the Church was a devious excuse or
pretense (!!!) to avoid Paul VI's sacrilegious New Mass in English, which
falsified the very words of Christ, thus exemplifying one of the two definitions of
false worship, i.e., mixing error with truth in the worship of the true God,
as taught and explained in Fr. Heribort Jone's "Moral Theology", or any theology book on
this subject imprimatured before 1958.)
From this document it is clear that the “New Mass” of Paul VI, including the translations of the "New Mass" by each nation's bishops' conference, had been duly promulgated and made "obligatory" for all Catholics for public worship: there are no exceptions.
(Anecdotal experience from many parts of the USA confirm this date of 1974 as the time Paul VI and his comrades chose to impose the New Mass exclusively on priests offering Mass for the faithful. In Cincinnati, Ohio, Fr. Carl A. Piepenbrier had been saying the Tridentine Mass at Old St. Mary's Church in downtown Cincinnati. In 1974 he came out one Sunday and stated that he had been ordered by the man using the name and title, "Archbishop Bernardin" to say only the New Mass in Latin from now on. At this point, several alert people from Greater Cincinnati asked Fr. Francis Fenton of Bridgeport, Connecticut to come into Cincinnati and say the Tridentine Mass and explain to people what was happening. Fr. Fenton rallied some eight priests and thousands of the Faithful across the USA to adhere to the true Mass during this very dark period for the Church circa 1974 to 1990, thus emulating faithful Catholics who had to do the same under Henry VIII in England, the persecution in Japan which lasted for 200 years, and under the persecution of Communism in half the world in the 20th century. "Archbishop Bernardin", he who could never condemn pro-abortion politicians by name, issued a directive that no one in the Cincinnati Archdiocese was to let Fr. Francis Fenton onto Church property to say the Tridentine Mass -- that Mass which Pope St. Pius V, anticipating future persecutions, had decreed in 1570 was the right of every priest to say, and that a priest could never be forced to say any other Mass. Again, Pius V's decree was ratified by every Pope after him right up to Pope Pius XII. And when one understands the problems with the "New Mass", even the "New Mass" in Latin, then one can see the wisdom of Pope St. Pius V's decree in this matter. But let us return to the focus of this paper: the falsified consecration of the wine in the "New Mass" in English.)
Thus, we see Paul VI purportedly imposing his “full authority” worldwide to require the faithful to attend the vernacular translations, such as the New Mass in English, which falsify the words of Christ and therefore cause the faithful to be objectively sinning against the the First Commandment by attending false worship, as well as attending invalid masses (since the "for all" translation changes and falsifies the substantial meaning of the consecration of the wine expressly forbidden by the Church, as is demonstrated elsewhere in this paper,. This substantial change and falsification of the form of the consecration of the wine, then, leads the faithful into objective sin (the sin of false worship, against the First Commandment), something, as has been shown based on the infallible decree of the First Vatican Council under Pope Pius IX, --, no true Pope could ever do when issuing and imposing a rite of Mass on the faithful.
Again, relying on the infallible decree of the First Vatican Council signed by Pope Pius IX in 1870, this is something that no true Pope could ever do, and that no true Pope has ever done: issue a rite of mass that leads the faithful into sin, or causes them to sin.
So, for our purposes in this Open
Letter, it is now clear that Paul VI and those who have followed him are the
objective schismatics, not the Catholics that have refused to go along with
this "Great Sacrilege", to borrow the title of the late Fr. James Wathen's
book, published in 1971.
TRUE POPES NEVER CONTRADICT EACH OTHER ON ESSENTIAL MATTERS, WHETHER IN SOLEMN
DEFINTIONS OR IN THE ORDINARY AND UNIVERSAL MAGISTERIUM
The Rule of Hormisdas indicates by implication that true Popes do not contradict each other on essential matters, but rather agree, as each successively fills the place of Vicar of Christ. Clearly, it would be violence against the infallibility and the indefectibility of the Church if a later Pope contradicted Christ or earlier Popes on a matter already defined which was an essential matter of Faith or morals, or an essential matter pertaining to the "ordinary and universal magisterium", i.e., the daily life of the Church. Since no true Pope ever contradicts his predecessors in essential matters, then Pope St. Hormisdas teaches, ". . . the Catholic Faith has always been preserved without stain in the Apostolic See."
In section 13 of his encyclical Satis Cognitum, Pope Leo XIII says:
It was necessary that a government of this kind, since it belongs to the constitution and formation of the Church, as its principal element that is as the principle of unity and the foundation of lasting stability - should in no wise come to an end with St. Peter, but should pass to his successors from one to another. . . . For this reason the Pontiffs who succeed Peter in the Roman Episcopate receive the supreme power in the church, jure divino. "We define" (declare the Fathers of the Council of Florence) "that the Holy and Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff hold the primacy of the Church throughout the whole world: and that the same Roman Pontiff is the successor of St. Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, and the true Vicar of Christ, the head of the whole Church, and the father and teacher of all Christians; and that full power was given to him, in Blessed Peter, by our Lord Jesus Christ to feed, to rule, and to govern the universal Church, as is also contained in the acts of ecumenical councils and in the sacred canons" (Conc. Florentinum).
And elsewhere in section 13 of the same encyclical, Pope Leo emphasizes the necessary unity of the Popes down through the ages in essential matters in this way:
The pronouncement of the Council of Chalcedon on the same matter is present to the minds of all: "Peter has spoken through Leo" (Actio ii.), to which the voice of the Third Council of Constantinople responds as an echo: "The chief Prince of the Apostles was fighting on our side: for we have had as our ally his follower and the successor to his see: and the paper and the ink were seen, and Peter spoke through Agatho" (Actio xviii.).
And, again, the First Vatican Council, Session IV, Chapter 4:
So the fathers of the fourth
council of Constantinople, following the footsteps of their predecessors,
published this solemn profession of faith: "The first condition of salvation
is to maintain the rule of the true faith. And since that saying of our lord
Jesus Christ, You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church  ,
cannot fail of its effect, the words spoken are confirmed by their
consequences. For in the Apostolic See the catholic religion has always
been preserved unblemished, and sacred doctrine been held in honour. Since
it is our earnest desire to be in no way separated from this faith and
doctrine, we hope that we may deserve to remain in that one communion which
the apostolic see preaches, for in it is the whole and true strength of the
Christian Religion  . . . .
To satisfy this pastoral office, our predecessors strove unwearyingly that the saving teaching of Christ should be spread among all the peoples of the world; and with equal care they made sure that it should be kept pure and uncontaminated wherever it was received. . . .
For the holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles.
Indeed, their apostolic teaching was embraced by all the venerable fathers and
reverenced and followed by all the holy orthodox doctors, for they knew very well that this see of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Saviour to the prince of his disciples: I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren  . (end of quote from the First Vatican Council, Session IV, Chapter 4.)
And this, also from the First Vatican
“Hence, too, that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by Holy Mother Church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding. (Vatican I, Dogmatic Constitution of the Catholic Faith, Chapter 4, On Faith and Reason)
So, the First Vatican Council, under Pope Pius XI, teaches that the meaning of a sacred formula, once established, is never to be weakened under any pretext of deeper understanding. Yet, as we have seen, Paul VI did this when he approved and enforced the "New Mass" English in 1974. He not only weakened the formula for the consecration of the wine, but he blatantly contradicted 2000 years of Catholic teaching and practice, and the words of Christ Himself. (See
And from the time of St Peter the Apostle, the first Pope, until the end of the Pontificate of Pope Pius XII in 1958, in keeping with the constant Church teaching on the infallibility and indefectibility of the Church:
* No Ecumenical Council signed by a true Pope ever contained an error on Faith or morals.
* No later Pope ever contradicted his predecessors on an already defined matter either in the extraordinary magisterium (solemn definitions of true Ecumenical Councils signed by true Popes, and ex cathedra pronouncements of previous Popes) or in the ordinary and universal magisterium (rites of Mass, canon law, canonization of Saints, or promulgated prayers, - anything officially promulgated for the daily life of the Church).
* Every rite of Mass approved by Rome has
been without error, without stain or blemish, and in complete harmony with
THERE ARE OTHER INSURMOUNTABLE PROBLEMS WITH THE VATICAN II CHURCH THAT ARE NOT COVERED IN THIS OPEN LETTER
In this paper we will not be focusing on the other manifold problems touching on the Church's infallibility and indefectibility which have resulted from what has been promulgated by those occupying the Vatican structures since 1958.
For instance, we will not be focusing on:
* the problems with the stated anti-Catholic intention embodied in article 7 by those who constructed the New Mass, which seems to disqualify the New Mass in Latin as a valid Mass in light of the principles laid down by Pope Leo XIII in his 1896 Bull Apostolicae Curae (On the nullity of Anglican Orders);
* the problem with the moral teaching on Religious Liberty found in the Vatican II document, Dignitatis Humanae;
* the expression of the Arian heresy in Eucharistic Prayer number I during the first fifteen years or so of the appearance of Paul VI's New Mass;
* the falsification of the definition of the phrase "Mystery of Faith" in the English version of the consecration in the New Mass;
* the ambiguity introduced into the formula in the Latin version of the New Mass regarding the phrase "Mystery of Faith", as the Church has decreed that once a formula for sacred expressions has been established, that it cannot be weakened or altered under any pretext whatsoever (exact from from the First Vatican Council is below). Pope Pius VI also stated in his Apostolic Constitution, "Auctorem Fidei", in 1794 that, "“In order to expose such snares, something which becomes necessary with a certain frequency in every century, no other method is required than the following: Whenever it becomes necessary to expose statements which disguise some suspected error or danger under the veil of ambiguity, one must denounce the perverse meaning under which the error opposed to Catholic truth is camouflaged.”
* The impossible problems with the so-called "offertory" in the New Mass, both in Latin and in English;
* the heresy in the Vatican II document, the Decree on Ecumenism, Unitatis Redintegratio, that, " . . . the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them [the separated Churches] as means of salvation." Anyone can read this for themselves in Vatican II's Decree on Ecumenism, "UNITATIS REDINTEGRATIO", section 3, paragraph 4. While Christ may use something a protestant minister says (that is true) to confer ACTUAL GRACE on someone listening, it is preposterous [and heretical] that Christ would use the separated churches as a means of salvation, as the Church has always held that all schismatic churches are by their very nature an attack on the One, True Church established by Christ. All protestant churches scatter rather than gather with Christ (St. Luke, Ch. 11, v. 23), are against Christ rather than with Him (St. Luke, Ch. 11, v. 23). Furthermore, the establishment of each of the schismatic, protestant churches are satanic attacks on the "One fold, one Shepherd" (St. John, Ch. 10, v 16) and "One Lord, one Faith, one Baptism." (Ephesians, Ch. 4, v 5)
My reason for including this partial list of insurmountable problems with the "Vatican II Popes", the "Vatican II church" and the "New Mass" -- is because I want to make it clear that the one issue which is the focus of this open Letter is not the only unexplainable action of those occupying the Vatican structures since 1958 -- but even one violation of the Church's infallibility and indefectibility is enough to disqualify them as true Popes and/or representatives of the Church -- just as one heresy is enough to ascertain that a vision or apparition is not of God.
Other authoritative sources regarding many of these matters and more can be found in these works:
* "De Valore Notarum Theologicarum" – On the Meaning of Theological Qualifications - by Fr Sixtus Cartechini (referenced below)
* "The Ordinary Magisterium of the Church Theologically Considered" by Dom Paul Nau
"Les Degrés d'autorité du Magistère by Fr. Bernard Lucien, which is
unfortunately only available in French
* "The Robber Church", which is the compiled essays and works of Patrick Henry Omlor, referenced at the end of this Open Letter; Mr. Omlor hits head on many of the issues raised in this Open Letter, or related to these issues, in an impressive and exhaustively documented manner. (We have also linked separately at the end of this letter, Omlor's "Questioning the Validity of the Masses using the New, All English Canon" (1968, foreword by Fr. Lawrence Brey).
There is also the recently published book which treats many of these subjects
and related subjects, "Work of Human Hands", by Rev. Anthony Cekada, which can
be found here:
http://www.philotheapress.com/store/work-of-human-hands/ -- The first
three chapters can be read for free online.
MORE ON HOW THE RITES OF MASS ARE COVERED UNDER THE CHURCH'S INFALLIBLE "ORDINARY AND UNIVERSAL MAGISTERIUM"
Now, the come back may be made thusly: "But previous Popes can't bind future Popes on matters of discipline or on changes in the rites of Mass." What is suggested, and what I believe is herein proved, from all of the above is that the mistranslation of "pro multis" in the consecration to "all men" instead of Our Lord's words "for many" is not merely a matter of discipline, but that it contradicts Our Lord and all the true Popes from St. Peter to Pope Pius XII --- on a matter covered by the Church's infallible "ordinary and universal magisterium", namely, an essential element (the form of consecration of the wine) involved in the daily life of the Church, upon which the faithful must be able to rely without fear, as coming from a Church that is both infallible in essential matters, and indefectible, based on the promise of Christ.
Next, those trying to salvage the "Vatican II Popes" might seek this refuge: "Who says the rites of Mass are covered under the Church's infallible "ordinary and universal magisterium"? Jumping over the common sense conclusion that an infallible and indefectible Church could never lead the faithful into sin in a rite of Mass, we have cited one prominent example among many: In paragraph 9 of his encyclical "Satis Cognitum (On the Unity of the Church)", Pope Leo XIII quotes Vatican Council I's ruling on the Church's infallibility under the extraordinary magisterium AND under the "ordinary and universal magisterium", and then states that the rites of Mass fall under the Church's "ordinary and universal magisterium.".
With that foundation laid, the following conclusion is justified: By enforcing this glaring error for the last 40 years, the "Vatican II Popes" have, from the Vatican itself, and holding forth as if they represented the Holy See of the Roman Catholic Church, led the vast majority of the faithful into objective mortal sin, Sunday after Sunday after Sunday. How? Since 1969, the "Vatican II Popes" have told the faithful that we could individually fulfill our Sunday obligation by attending the New Mass in English (or other vernacular languages), with the false and previously condemned "all men" mistranslation in the form of the consecration of the wine.
Why is the New Mass in English, with the false translation of "pro multis" (that is, "for all" instead of Our Lord's words, "for many") in the consecration of the wine, leading the faithful into sin?
1. Because this false translation is mixing error with truth in the worship of the true God, one of the very definitions of False Worship, a mortal sin against the First Commandment (See "Moral Theology" by Fr. Heribort Jone, or any approved moral theology book.)
2. Because this false translation is a sacrilegious affront to God, i.e., "treating a holy person, place or thing with disrespect", and in this case treating the holiest thing on earth with disrespect, namely, the consecration of the Mass.
3. Because this false translation invalidates any Mass at which it is said, according to all Papal and other rulings of the Church from St. Peter to Pope Pius XII.
No true Pope could lead the faithful into sin by telling us that we can fulfill our Sunday obligation by attending a sacrilegious and invalid a Mass, containing a blatant falsehood contradicting Our Lord Himself in Holy Scripture, as well as directly contradicting the Catechism of the Council of Trent and all the other sources named above, Papal and otherwise. But this is what the "Vatican II Popes" from Paul VI in 1969 until Benedict XVI in 2010 have done every Sunday, everywhere in the world, now going on 40 years. (The defense that the New Mass in Latin does not contain this mistranslation is irrelevant, because the "Vatican II Popes" told Catholics everywhere in the world that they could fulfill their Sunday Obligation by going to the ENGLISH version of the New Mass (with the evil mistranslation), as well as all the other vernacular Masses. True Popes can not do this, as it leads the faithful into sin in a matter, the Mass, covered under the Church's infallible "ordinary and universal magisterium", as defined at the First Vatican Council.)
In one article a few years ago attempting to salvage the "Vatican II Popes", it was stated that since the French and Polish vernacular translations did not contain the "all men" false translation, that this meant the New Mass in the native languages did not violate the Church's "ordinary and UNIVERSAL magisterium" -- because the error was not "universal." First of all, I want to deny the assertion here that this error was not contained in both the French and the Polish vernacular translations from 1969 until the present -- but that's a dispute for another time and place.
However, the correct application of the Church's "ordinary and universal magisterium" means that the Pope and the Church cannot lead the Faithful into sin with a Mass, a Canon Law, or a novena or prayer promulgated for even one diocese. In other words, if every diocese in the world was using the Tridentine Mass in the western rite, a true Pope could not tell the faithful in even one diocese, such as the diocese of Cincinnati, Ohio, that any of the faithful could fulfill his or her Sunday obligation by attending the New Mass in English when in Cincinnati. Why? - Because that would constitute a universal law for all the faithful if and when they were in Cincinnati. The Pope couldn't issue and enforce an officially promulgated rite of Mass which led even one person into objective sin.
And yet, the "Vatican II Popes" have told every Catholic in the world, for forty years, that they can fulfill their Sunday obligation by attending the false, sacrilegious, and invalid New Mass in English (or other vernacular versions). This a true Pope could never do, and that's one reason, among many, why the "Vatican II Popes" cannot be true popes, but must be usurping antipopes.
IF THE RULING COMES FROM THE CHURCH, CATHOLICS CAN TRUST IT, AND GLADLY HAVE AN ATTITUDE OF TRUST
another concept (which I've already used near the beginning of this Open
Letter) stated by Mr. John Daly in his 2002 talk in New York city: As Catholics
we have an attitude of trust in what the true Church and her true Popes
promulgate. We will be eager to give internal and external assent to Her
teachings and disciplines.
Having been born in 1953, I actually remember this attitude of Catholics towards the Church, from 1958 until 1967. I was born in the last years in which one would be old enough to remember this prevailing condition. In those days we never heard of a dispute between a bishop and a bishop, a bishop and a pope, a priest and a bishop, a priest and a priest, or a priest with a nun, or a nun with a nun. The teachings of the Church still prevailed, undisturbed by all the innovations, heterodoxies, heresies, and "changes" which would fall like an avalanche on the priests, bishops, and faithful after the close of the alleged Second Vatican Council.
Those who by stages became aware that "the changes" at first didn't "feel right" when measured against the "Sensus Catholicus" (the Catholic Sense), and then later realized that there were "smoking guns" in "the changes" that could not possibly have come from a true Pope or the true Church -- have allowed ourselves to be put on the defensive too easily.
Once we saw changes that directly contradicted the rulings of past Popes and Holy Scripture, we should have emphasized that we believed and trusted in the teaching of the true Popes down through the ages.
And we should have emphasized that it was because we believed Holy Scripture and the teachings and rulings of past Popes and Councils signed by them, and because we believe in the infallibility and indefectibility of the Church -- that we could not accept nor obey the new rulings, teachings, and promulgations coming from the "Vatican II popes" which contradicted the rulings, teachings, and promulgations already established by the certainly true Popes from St. Peter to Pope Pius XII (1939-1958).
Let us hear from the infallible teaching of the First Vatican Council on this point:
God cannot deny himself, nor can
truth ever be in opposition to truth. . . .
Therefore we define that every assertion contrary to the truth of enlightened faith is totally false  .
Furthermore the church which, together with its apostolic office of teaching, has received the charge of preserving the deposit of faith, has by divine appointment the right and duty of condemning what wrongly passes for knowledge, lest anyone be led astray by philosophy and empty deceit  . Hence all faithful Christians are forbidden to defend as the legitimate conclusions of science those opinions which are known to be contrary to the doctrine of faith, particularly if they have been condemned by the church; and furthermore they are absolutely bound to hold them to be errors which wear the deceptive appearance of truth.
For the doctrine of the faith
which God has revealed is put forward not as some philosophical discovery
capable of being perfected by human intelligence, but as a divine deposit
committed to the spouse of Christ to be faithfully protected and infallibly
Hence, too, that the meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by Holy Mother Church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding.
May understanding, knowledge and wisdom increase as ages and centuries roll along, and greatly and vigorously flourish, in each and all, in the individual and the whole church: but this only in its own proper kind, that is to say, in the same doctrine, the same sense, and the same understanding  .
(Session III, Chapter 4, footnotes referenced are not included here, but can be found in the documents of the First Vatican Council.)
So, from this it is clear that the Church's liturgies or rites of Mass -- all of them -- must be in perfect conformity with the Faith and Holy Scripture, because the Church tells us that we can attend any of these liturgies of Mass to fulfill our Sunday obligation.
while Catholics of the Western Rite should attend the Tridentine Mass where
possible, if one of us were visiting Lebanon and could only find a true
Maronite Rite Mass to fulfill our Sunday obligation -- we have the assurance
of Holy Mother Church that our attendance at the Maronite Rite would be
acceptable and praiseworthy, and would fulfill our Sunday obligation. And
under what category is the Church infallible when she promulgates a liturgy of
Mass? Answer: Under her "universal and ordinary magisterium" as defined by
Vatican Council I, and reiterated here by Pope Leo XIII.
Thus, these Popes (Pius IX and Leo XIII, as well as all of their true Predecessors back to St. Peter, erect an impossible barrier against any future usurpers of the Chair of Peter who would attempt to promulgate a Mass with a falsehood in it. For to mix error with truth in the worship of the true God -- is the very definition of false worship (See Fr. Jone's "Handbook of Moral Theology", or any other book on moral theology with an imprimatur before 1958).
USURPERS OF THE VATICAN AND THE CHAIR OF PETER ARE NOT THE HOLY SEE, CAN NOT BE THE POPE, AND THEREFORE ARE NOT IN UNITY WITH THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
Now, it is clear from all Church history, and Church law, and common sense -- that USURPERS of the Vatican do NOT become the Church of Rome. Furthermore, it is clear that the true Pope, or true government of the Church (the Holy See), does not cease to be the Church of Rome just because the Pope or Holy see are driven out of the Vatican and the city of Rome, or prevented from exercising control of the Vatican.
Many people when they see evidence such as is presented in this paper, absurdly and ahistorically proclaim that God would never permit usurpers to take over the Chair of Peter, for that would mean that "the Gates of Hell" would have prevailed.
With compassionate understanding for those who make such a statement out of desperation to cling to the pathetic fantasy that the Vatican II church is the true Church, or that the "Vatican II Popes" are true popes rather than antipopes, -- it must be driven home emphatically that there are MANY examples in Church history where usurpers have occupied the Vatican for a time, while simultaneously driving the true Pope and and the Holy See out of Rome.
One clear historical example is the case of Pope Innocent II and antipope Anacletus II. This drama took place from 1130 AD to 1138 AD. Anyone can look this case up in the 1908 Catholic Encyclopedia, among other places. When Pope Honorius II died on February 13, 1130, Pope Innocent was elected the next day, February 14, 1130, by a commission of cardinals that had been appointed by the dying Pope during his illness. Honorius II had appointed this commission of 8 cardinals because he was aware that Cardinal Pierleone (who became antipope Anacletus II) had bribed the other 17 cardinals.
The reason the 8 upstanding cardinals were able to act first was because they had taken the dying Pope to a castle. When Honorius II died late on the night of February 13, they elected Cardinal Gregory Papareschi as Pope Innocent II the next day at noon. Pierleone's faction caught wind of this development and elected him at 6 PM on the same day. Both were crowned on February 23, 1130. Within a few days, all the powerful families of Rome were won over to the unholy cause of the antipope, Anacletus. The true Pope fled into exile, and moved throughout Europe for the next eight years. In 1138, with the powerful help of St. Bernard of Clairvaux and St. Norbert of Magdeburg, who had persuaded King Lothair of Germany to come to the Pope's aid. Innocent II gained control of the Vatican in 1138. The retaking of the Vatican was without bloodshed, in part because the antipope died as Lothair's forces were gathering around the city of Rome and the Vatican. St. Bernard led the true Pope into the Vatican, at which point his God-given eloquence was instrumental in persuading the adherents of Anacletus to recognize the authority of the true Pope.
All of Anacletus's rulings were condemned and declared null and void.
There have been at least 41 other major antipopes, some of whom occupied the Vatican while the true Pope languished, or wandered, in exile.
(The following is a wrap up of the this open letter, and contains much of the first version of this open letter, which was a more rapid fire listing of issues and concepts. The above was added to bring the authoritative documents before the readers eyes, without the reader having to leave the paper to search out the documents referred to. Some of what is below is redundant of what is above, but at this point I have left it in.)
HOW COULD THIS HAVE HAPPENED?
What is shown in this paper, is that, with the advent of the "Vatican II Popes" we are forced to choose between the Faith of the Holy See and the church of Rome as constituted from St. Peter and Pope Pius XII -- and what has been promulgated since 1958 by the "Vatican II Popes." The contradiction caused an unprecedented epidemic of nervous breakdowns among priests in the 1960s, to say nothing of loss of vocations and defections from religious life, as all religious where being asked to walk in two directions at the same time: the direction in which they had been taught up until Vatican II, and the contradictory direction being demanded by the ruthless anti-pope, Paul VI, agent of Freemasonry and Talmudic Judaism.
And, indeed, until 1958 -- there has never been a rite of Mass with an error in it, or which led the faithful into sin, -- never been a General Council signed by a true Pope that had any error on Faith or morals in any of its document, or which led the faithful into sinful opinions on Faith and Morals -- there has never been an error regarding Faith and Morals in Canon Law, or a canon law that led the faithful into sin --- a saint canonized who has not been in Heaven before the canonization -- or even a prayer or novena promulgated by the Holy See that contained an error in Faith and Morals, or which led the faithful into sin. Why? Because all of these aspects of the daily life of the Church are covered under her infallible "ordinary and universal magisterium", as solemnly and infallibly defined by Vatican Council I, and signed by Pope St. Pius IX in 1870. This aspect of the Church's infallibility is not well known or understood, as is the Church's infallibility in her "extraordinary magisterium" - which includes ex cathedra definitions -- but it is there and just as important, nonetheless. (The extraordinary magisterium includes ex cathedra definitions, or the solemn definitions of General Councils, in union with a true Pope.)
Since 1958, we, the faithful, have been deluged with an avalanche of contradictory examples in the rite of Mass and canon law, as well as some parts of the documents of Vatican II, promulgated and protected by the "Vatican II Popes". What is the answer to this? The answer is quite simple: the "Vatican II Popes", by any application of reason and Faith in light of the Church's universal and ordinary magisterium, are not Popes, but have somehow stolen onto the Chair of Peter as Usurpers. That such a period would come has long been prophesied by Catholics Saints and Scholars, and by our Lady herself, especially at Lasalette ("The Church will be in eclipse; the world will be in dismay.")
What follows are comments on how this could have happened, and we can live through this period violating the infallibility and/or indefectibility of the Church:
This is the great value of the work of Mr. Gary Giuffre of Texas. Some of his research is found in the articles on www.October1958.com -- "Comments on the Eclipse of the Church and the White Smoke of October 26, 1958"; "Scripture Scholars, Ancient and Modern"; "Warnings from Heaven Suppressed"; -- and now there are two more articles available, "The Popes and the Dove" and "An Ominous Anniversary" -- both of which can be found linked at the bottom of the article, "Comments on the Eclipse of the Church . . .". One need not accept every nuance or conclusion of these articles to acknowledge that they put forth the only plausible explanation to date of what has happened since 1958.
Here is another page which lists these five articles by Mr. Giuffre in a suggested reading order: www.realnews247.com/crisis_in_the_church.htm
Why do I say the only plausible explanation? Because what the "Vatican II Popes" have done, promulgated, and officially protected, make all the other explanations impossible -- because if the actions and rulings of the "Vatican II Popes" are accepted, all explanations flowing from this premise violate either the infallibility of the Church, the indefectibility of the Church, or both.
To paraphrase a Sherlock Holmes aphorism: "When all other explanations are impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." Since the Church is infallible and indefectible, then -- if the "Vatican II Popes" have violated infallibility or indefectibility, -- then the conclusion must be that the "Vatican II popes" are not true Popes, but are antipopes.
Hence the value of Mr. Giuffre's investigation and research. There is no question that the 1958 was the "scene of the crime". There is no question that with the emergence of John XXIII on the Papal Balcony on October 28, 1958 (to the wild cheers of the world Judeo-Masonic press) -- two days after the five minutes of still unexplained white smoke emanating from the Sistine Chapel chimney, that the Vatican was "under new management", a management that began departing subtly but swiftly from the Faith of the Roman Catholic Church as held for the previous 20 centuries. In the thesis that the spoiled conclave of 1958 began the Eclipse of the Church as predicted by Our Lady of LaSalette -- we have a mystery that we cannot yet explain or resolve. But we are not holding a position which violates either the infallibility or the indefectibility of the Church -- as are those who try and salvage Paul VI, his New Mass in English, and the "Vatican II church".
By the way, I do support all the concepts and ideas in the five articles by Mr. Giuffre referred to above -- but I must quickly add that the thesis is not yet proven, as Mr. Giuffre would also readily admit. There are also facts which are yet to be ascertained, such as exactly what happened in the 1958 conclave, and what kind of pressure was brought to bear on the cardinals, if any, in the wake of that conclave.
I might add that it stands to reason that if the Church is to be
in eclipse, as Our Lady of LaSalette prophesied, then the takeover of the
Vatican would have to last many decades, and not just a few years, -- and
that the deception involving the takeover of the Vatican would have to be so
diabolically clever that it would not be easy to discover in all its parts.
So the objection that Mr. Giuffre and his allies have not been able to yet
explain everything that has happened, and how it happened -- is a very, very
weak objection at this point. Let's continue.
While this is not decisive, if anyone wishes to review all the prophecies
collated in the book "Catholic Prophecy" by Yves Dupont, published by TAN, he
or she will notice that the exile of the Pope is referred to every few pages
all throughout the book -- as part of the latter day crisis of the Church
culminating in the great chastisement -- followed by the arrival of the Great Monarch
and the Holy Pope in what Dupont says will be the "Great Peace", or the
Triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
Another article which shows that Mr. Giuffre's thesis fits the prophecies has
been referred to above, the article "Warnings from Heaven Suppressed."
A page about more of these prophecies which seem to support Mr. Giuffre's
thesis can be found here:
And this page may be of interest to those who want to get an idea of what Yves
Dupont's book "Catholic Prophecy" says:
But we need not rely on prophecies
to ascertain to our minds today that the "Vatican II Popes" are not Popes. We
can do that based on the facts presented in this Open Letter. I might
interject here, that if the Catholic principles presented herein are not
appropriate to apply right now, in our day, -- what did God give us a mind
for? What are our Confirmation graces for -- to be soldiers of Christ when the
Church is under attack? When is the Church more under attack than when
usurpers have somehow found a way to occupy the Vatican? What does it mean "to
deny known truth" if the facts and arguments presented hereine are not to be
applied right now?
"CATHOLIC PROPHECY" BY DUPONT
And this essay, which I put together in 2007, is an attempt to update "Catholic Prophecy" by Yves Dupont (who passed away circa 1975), since we had by then observed 36 years of what had actually happened since Dupont and Tom Nelson of TAN books published "Catholic Prophecy" in 1971. Here is where you can find that attempt:
While this is not decisive, if anyone wishes to review all the prophecies collated in the book "Catholic Prophecy" by Yves Dupont, published by TAN, he or she will notice that the exile of the Pope is referred to every few pages all throughout the book -- as part of the latter day crisis of the Church culminating in the great chastisement -- followed by the arrival of the Great Monarch and the Holy Pope in what Dupont says will be the "Great Peace", or the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
Another article which shows that Mr. Giuffre's thesis fits the prophecies has been referred to above, the article "Warnings from Heaven Suppressed."
A page about more of these prophecies which seem to support Mr. Giuffre's thesis can be found here:
And this page may be of interest to those who want to get an idea of what Yves Dupont's book "Catholic Prophecy" says:
But we need not rely on prophecies
to ascertain to our minds today that the "Vatican II Popes" are not Popes. We
can do that based on the facts presented in this Open Letter. I might
interject here, that if the Catholic principles presented herein are not
appropriate to apply right now, in our day, -- what did God give us a mind
for? What are our Confirmation graces for -- to be soldiers of Christ when the
Church is under attack? When is the Church more under attack than when
usurpers have somehow found a way to occupy the Vatican? What does it mean "to
deny known truth" if the facts and arguments presented hereine are not to be
applied right now?
And now, everything else -- all the outrages of the last few decades emanating from the Vatican fall into place. The mental torture is over. All the actions of the counterfeit church (to use the words of Blessed Anna Catherine Emmerick, who saw among other things the priest facing the people when saying Mass) will someday stand condemned, and the world, without knowing it, awaits a Divine house cleaning of the Vatican, and the restoration of a true Pope.
Let me here quote what I believe is the most perceptive line written since 1958 with regard to the crisis in the Church:
"This false church of darkness could not deceive the faithful if it did not present to the world its own false 'pope' or succession of false 'popes' as the 'legitimate' authority in the Catholic Church." (From "The Pope who will wear Red" by Gary Giuffre, 1989.)
How bad will things get? The prophecies, if they apply to our time (and I believe they do), indicate that things will get pretty bad, followed by the complete triumph of the Church, which "will be exalted in the sight of all doubters."
Here are few prophecies for our consolation through this period:
--- from paragraph 33 in "Catholic Prophecy", compiled by Yves Dupont, 1971: St. Nicholas of Fluh, circa 1520: “The Church will be punished because the majority of her members, high and low, will become so perverted. The Church will sink deeper and deeper until she will at last seem to be extinguished, and the succession of Peter and the other Apostles to have expired. But, after this, she [the Church] will be victoriously exalted in the sight of all doubters.
Blessed Mary of Agreda, 17th century: “An unusual chastisement of the
human race will take place towards the end of the world. . . . It was revealed
to me that through the intercession of the Mother of God all heresies will
disappear. The victory over heresies has been reserved by Christ for His
Blessed Mother . . . Mary, more than ever, must shine in mercy, might, and
grace in order to bring unbelievers into the Catholic Faith. The power of Mary
in the latter days will be very conspicuous. Mary will extend the reign of
Christ over the heathens and the Mohammedans, and it will be a time of great
joy when Mary is enthroned as Mistress and Queen of Hearts.” (found in
"Catholic Prophecy" by Yves Dupont)
(My comment: Notice that Mary of Agreda says that an unusual chastisement will take place TOWARDS the end of the world – and that through the Mother of God all heresies will disappear. This indicates that Yves Dupont’s interpretation of where we are in the first years of the 21st century may be right: that we are in the “beginning of the end” as referrenced by Christ in St. Matthew, chapter 24, -- the winding down of the 5th period of the Church (from Martin Luther and the Protestant revolt until the Great Chastisement, still ahead), which will end with the Great Chastisement, followed by the Peace of Fatima in which Our Lady of Fatima vanquishes all heresies, i.e., the sixth period of the Church. According to Blessed Bartholomew Holzhauser -- see pages 36 to 44 in Catholic Prophecy by Dupont -- the sixth period of the Church will last until the seventh period begins, the coming of anti-Christ and the end of the world.)
St. Louis-Marie Grignion De Montfort (18th century): “The power of Mary over all devils will be particularly outstanding in the last period of time. She will extend the Kingdom of Christ over the idolaters and Moslems, and there will come a glorious era when Mary is the Ruler and Queen of Hearts.” (found in "Catholic Prophecy" by Yves Dupont)
Sister Marianne, a holy nun who lived in the convent of the Ursulines in Blois during the early 19th century (found in "Catholic Prophecy" by Yves Dupont):
“Such extraordinary events shall take place that the most incredulous will be forced to say: ‘Truly, the finger of God is here.’ There shall be a terrible night during which no one will be able to sleep. But these trials shall not last long because no one could endure them. When all shall appear lost, all will be saved.”
Nursing Nun of Bellay, given around 1820 at which time it was entrusted to Fr. Fulgence, the chaplain of the Trappist Monastery of Notre-Dame des Gardes, near Angers: “A saint raises his arms to Heaven; he allays the wrath of God. He ascends the throne of Peter. At the same time, the Great Monarch ascends the throne of his ancestors. All is quiet now. Altars are set up again; religion comes to life again. What I see now is so wonderful that I am unable to express it.” (found in "Catholic Prophecy" by Yves Dupont)
(My Comment: Why do the Altars have to be set up again? Because they were discarded in use, if not literally, when anti-pope, marrano, anti-Christ Jew, and agent of Judeo-Masonry, namely Montini, using the name Paul VI, -- plopped his Masonic table to suit his Masonic "New Mass" in the middle of almost all the sanctuaries of all the parish churches of the world. For the replacing of Altars with tables in Catholic parishes, see "Who's been changing the inside of Roman Catholic churces?" at http://www.realnews247.com/altar_comparison_pictorial.htm )
regard to the current state of Catholic parishes worldwide, consider this
quote from Pope Pius XII (reigned as Pope from 1939 to 1958):
“I am worried by the Blessed Virgin’s messages to Lucy of Fatima. This persistence of Mary about the dangers which menace the Church is a Divine warning against the suicide of altering the Faith, in her liturgy . . . A day will come when the civilized world will deny its God, when the Church will doubt as Peter doubted. She will be tempted to believe that man has become God . . . In our churches, Christians will search in vain for the red lamp where God awaits them, like Mary Magdalene weeping before the empty tomb, they will ask, ‘Where have they taken Him?’. . . I hear all around me innovators who wish to dismantle the Sacred Chapel, destroy the universal flame of the Church, reject her ornaments and make her feel remorse for her historical past” (from the book by Msgr. Georges Roche, Pie XII; Devant L’Histoire, Éditions Robert Laffont, S.A., 6 place Saint-Sulpice, Paris, 1972, pages 52-53).
* * * * *
Lest we end on too somber a note, allow me to close with my favorite quote about this period we are living through from the late Benedictine monk, Fr. Urban Snyder:
“The Church is the Mystical Christ and as such must relive through the ages the mysteries of the Saviour’s life, Good Friday not excepted. Calvary is the essence of the mystery of Redemption . . .
“. . . those writers do a great disservice to souls who assert that this or that thing cannot happen to the Church, or the Papacy, or the majority of the faithful. When Peter spoke like that, the Lord said to him: ‘Get thee behind Me, Satan.’ Mutatis mutandis, anything can happen to the Church, and in fact may be predicted to happen, if it happened in the life of Our Lord. For the Church is His Mystical Body and the disciple is not above the Master . . .
“It follows therefore that the Church can be betrayed and made a prisoner; can be buffeted, spat upon, be made to look a fool; she can be defamed, abandoned, condemned; she can be damaged structurally and disfigured, like the Lord’s physical members were; in a word, she can be crucified and [seemingly] put to death – but not for long!
“From three o’clock on Good Friday until three A.M. on Easter was only thirty-six hours. And as there was a faithful remnant left to Jesus even then, so will it be in the Good Friday of the Church; there will be a faithful few to wait in sorrow for the Church’s Resurrection, which will burst like lightning upon God’s enemies.” (From Kyrie Eleison Newsletter, 19 March 1974)
End of quote. End of this OPEN LETTER.
For a more complete documentation regarding this subject matter, see the 90 page pdf linked here:
And be sure to the sources for further research below, especially the works of Mr. Patrick Omlor, and the email sent to me on August 13, 2008 by Mr. John Daly.
Jim Condit Jr.
March 15, 2009
(updated July 24, 2010)
PO Box 11339
Cincinnati, Ohio 45211
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
All of the following articles can be found on the right hand column of the home page of www.realnews247.com --
The following articles exist, but can undoubtedly be improved:
About the falsification of the definition of Mystery of Faith in the English version of the "New Mass"
Why the mistranslation of "pro multis" into "for all" invalidates the New Mass in English, as well as makes it false worship, objectively a mortal sin against the First Commandment, -- and a sacrilege.
The Document on Religious Liberty in Vatican II, signed by Paul VI, has a false moral teaching in it, contradicting past Papal documents on the same subject; the "ordinary and universal" magisterium guarantees us that a true Pope can never sign a document of an Ecumenical Council which contains an error on Faith or morals.
The deliberate and malicious Invalidation of the rite for the consecration of bishops by antipope Paul VI; after Pope Pius XII had ruled on the essential words in the centuries old formula to consecrate bishops in 1947, Paul VI purported to promulgate a "new" formula for the consecration of bishops in 1969 (only 22 years later!) which changed EVERY LAST WORD of the age-old formula used by the Church from time immemorial -- with the exception of the word "and". (!!!) Now one can see why the "bishops" of the Vatican II church are so bad.
* * * * * *
Here are some further articles about the
current crisis in the Church:
This article is called "Prophecies for Searching Souls", and is basically a compilation of prophecies in one place from Yves Dupont's book, "Catholic Prophecy", and from the slide show of on the current crisis in the Church given several times over the last two decades by Mr. Gary Giuffre.
This article is a letter to my brothers and sisters about the first two pages of Catholic Prophecy, which summarize in broad strokes what Dupont tells us the Catholic Prophecies indicate are happening, and will happen, in this, our day -- the latter half of the 20th century and the first part of the 21st century.
This article is an attempt to update the book "Catholic Prophecy" by Yves Dupont in light of the 36 years that I had actually witnessed since 1971 when the Dupont book was published; the title of this article is, "Pope Leo XIII's Vision of Satan's 100 Years of Increased Power, and the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary."
(Five key articles related to the 1958 conclave and the still unexplained five minutes of white smoke emanating from the Sistine Chapel from 5:55 PM to 6 PM Rome time on October 26, 1958, -- linked on one page; the articles are: Comments on the Eclipse of the Church and the White Smoke of October 26, 1958; The Popes and the Dove; Scripture Scholars, Ancient and Modern; Warnings from Heaven Suppressed; and An Ominous Anniversary; all these articles were written by Gary Giuffre; Gary and I co-wrote the commentary interspersed in the "White Smoke of October 26, 1958" article.)
* * * * *
The indispensable works of Patrick Henry Omlor on the current crisis in the Church:
"Questioning the Validity of the Masses using the New, All English Canon" (1968, foreword by Fr. Lawrence Brey) -- can be found here: http://www.the-pope.com/qtv.html
A compilation of all of Mr. Patrick Henry Omlor's works, under the title, "The Robber Church", can be found here:
(This is a book in PDF form, but be aware that the articles sometimes begin and end in the middle of a page, with the next article starting immediately. It will take a little effort to find where each article or chapter begins, but by using the table of contents and a little common sense, it should not be too hard. Once you ascertain where an article begins, you will find Mr. Omlor's careful and meticulous scholarship to be an indispensable contribution to understanding the current crisis in the Church.)
* * * * *
Finally, here is an email sent to me by Mr. John Daly, wherein he recommends some other sources on the "ordinary and universal magisterium":
“From: John DALY [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2008 4:53 AM
To: Jim Condit Jr.
Subject: Re: Question from Jim Condit Jr.
“Unfortunately most of the best material on the subject of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium is in French. One good study is Dom Paul Nau's The Ordinary Magisterium of the Church Theologically Considered. The English translation of this has been republished by the Angelus Press bound together with a study by Canon Berthod which is quite disastrous, but you could get the Angelus edition and just read the Nau part, ignoring the Berthod part. In French there is Fr Bernard Lucien's Les degrés d'autorité du magistère,( La Nef, 2007) which is as complete as they get. In Latin there is Cartechini's De notis theologicis which Tradibooks will shortly be republishing.
“I am also attaching my 2002 NY talk which contains a lot on this subject.
(Note : the passage quoted above in this Appendix III is from this 2002 talk.)
“Unfortunately I can't offer you a copy of the Michael Davies book, but I am intending to republish it in several parts, incorporating some adaptations. Again, keep your eye on http://www.lulu.com/tradibooks .
“Sorry not to be more helpful.
“In Dño et Dña,
(End of email from John Daly; and for the record, I found John Daly not only extraordinarily helpful, but also providing information that was indispensable to the credibility of this article entitled, "Men In White.")
NOTE: Even reading the descriptions of the 30 plus books which are offered by Mr. John Daly at www.lulu.com/tradibooks is worthwhile, and Mr. Daly gives us hopes that many more worthwhile books may be coming in the future.