New Mass Falsifies the Definition of “Mystery of Faith”
Compiled by Jim Condit Jr.
In one of the most blatant possible falsifications imaginable, Paul VI insisted on falsifying the definition of the ancient term “Mystery of Faith” in the consecration of the wine in his self-proclaimed "New Mass", issued in 1969.
Unlike the “all men” or, later, the “all” mistranslation of “pro multis” -- (which means "for many” in Latin, as defined by 2000 years of Catholic Popes and officially recognized teachers) -- in the consecration of the wine in the New Mass, which mistranslation was done only in the vernacular version (i.e., English, Spanish, etc.) of the New Mass, the “mystery of Faith” falsification was done in the Latin version of the New Mass as well.
The Church’s Infallibility under her “ordinary and universal magisterium” – and why this teaching means the “Vatican II Popes” (Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI) must be, in fact, Anti-Popes
Vatican I declared the Church to be infallible under two aspects: in her extraordinary magisterium (solemn definitions on Faith and Morals) and in her "ordinary and universal magisterium" (the daily life of the Church as promulgated for the faithful).
The “ordinary and universal” magisterium” includes every liturgy of Mass ever promulgated by the Church. It also includes every officially promulgated prayers, novena, disciplines, and canonized saints. (Where would the infallibility of the Church be if could direct the faithful to recite a prayer that contained heresy, or directed the faithful to pray for the intercession of a person who was not a saint in Heaven?)
Here we are focusing on the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass itself, which is, needless to say, the highest and most excellent worship and prayer in the Church.
Before we look at the quote from Pope Leo XIII’s encyclical, please consider this question: what good would the Church be as a guide if it could approve a rite of Mass for the purpose of fulfilling one’s Sunday obligation, -- if that rite of Mass led the faithful into objective sin? The Church would then not be an infallible guide for the faithful in the all important matter of worshipping God and fulfilling the First Commandment!
Clearly, when the Church proscribes a rite of Mass for the faithful, it must be “perfect” as Pope Leo XIII states below. It cannot contain any errors, especially not an error on faith or morals. (There are two definitions of False Worship in the imprimatured moral theology books prior to 1958: 1) worship of a false god (such as the Israelites worshipping the Golden Calf in the time of Moses); and 2) mixing truth and error in the worship of the true God (this is what the Protestants do, and, as we shall see, this is what Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI have done in their saying that the New Mass in the vernacular (English, Italian, etc.) fulfills one’s Sunday obligation.
As we shall see now, no true Pope could ever approve a rite of Mass that contains error or falsehood, and therefore leads the faithful into sin by breaking the First Commandment’s prohibition against false worship.
Pope Leo XIII covers this in his encyclical, "Satis Cognitum", usually entitled in English, "On the Unity of the Church." Here is a part of that Encyclical from paragraph 9:
By the way, Pope Leo’s encyclical, and all encyclicals of true Popes, fall under the Church’s infallibility on essential matters under her “ordinary and universal magisterium”, as defined below. Please note that Pope Leo XIII states that Vatican Council I taught nothing new, but followed both “divine revelation and the acknowledged and invariable teaching of the Church.”
Now, as Catholics, we will 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 the teachings of Her true Popes.
Begin Quote from Pope Leo XIII (in the first sentence of this quote Pope Leo is speaking of Vatican Council I, which took place circa 1870):
"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."
End of Quote from Pope Leo XIII from his encyclical Satis Cognitum. Let’s continue:
Pope Leo explicitly states that not only matters of Faith, but also matters of Divine worship, especially the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and the Sacraments, fall under the Church's infallibility (in Her "ordinary and universal magisterium), for he states in this encyclical 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.
So, from this it is clear that the Church's liturgies of Mass -- all of them -- must be in perfect conformity with the Faith, because the Church tells us that we can attend any of these liturgies of Mass to fulfill our Sunday obligation.
For instance, 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).
The term “Mystery of Faith” in the Consecration of the Wine had already been Defined by Holy Mother Church
Let us see what Pope St. Pius V re-affirmed was the formula for the consecration of the wine in "De Defectibus" issued in 1570:
"Defects on the part of the form may arise if
anything is missing from the complete wording required for the act of
consecrating. Now the words of the Consecration, which are the form of this
HOC EST ENIM CORPUS MEUM, and HIC EST ENIM CALIX SANGUINIS MEI, NOVI ET AETERNI TESTAMENTI: MYSTERIUM FIDEI: QUI PRO VOBIS ET PRO MULTIS EFFUNDETUR IN REMISSIONEM PECCATORUM
(English translation: "For This is My Body" and "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.")
If the priest were to shorten or change the form of the consecration of the Body and the Blood, so that in the change of wording the words did not mean the same thing, he would not be achieving a valid Sacrament. If, on the other hand, he were to add or take away anything which did not change the meaning, the Sacrament would be valid, but he would be committing a grave sin."
Let's stop here to note a few things:
1. In the true consecration of the wine, the term "Mystery of Faith" is surrounded by two colons (:). In the English language, a colon always is equivalent to an "equals" sign (=). So, Mystery of Faith equals or means, "This is the Chalice of My Blood, of the New and Eternal Testament" and it equals or means Christ's Blood "which shall be shed for you and for many unto the remission of sins." Perfectly clear, and fixed by the Church for 20 centuries when Paul VI appeared in the Vatican.
2. The still standing decree of Pope St. Pius V, -- which neither Paul VI, John Paul II, or Benedict XVI has ever rescinded, or even referred to -- states that if anyone changes the meaning of the words of consecration, that he not effect a valid sacrament. In other words, a substantial change of meaning would result in an INVALID sacrament. Please remember this when we look at what Paul VI did in the New Mass. Now, someone might object that one Pope can change what another Pope did. In many matters this is true, but NOT in regards to the substance of the sacraments. To cite one example of this teaching, Pope St. Pius X declared: "It is well known that to the Church there belongs no right whatsoever [emphasis added] to innovate anything touching on the substance of the sacraments (Pope St. Pius X, in the letter Ex quo, nono, Dec. 26, 1910). Other authoritative sources are cited near the end of this article on this teaching.
THE CONSTANT TEACHING OF THE CHURCH ON THE MEANING OF MYSTERY OF FAITH IN THE CONSECRATION
The Church, following the doctrine of Christ Himself, has consistently taught for 2000 years that the term "Mystery of Faith" in the consecration of the wine means the Real Presence of the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ veiled under the species of ordinary bread and wine.
The Catechism of the Council of Trent, -- compiled under the supervision of St. Charles Borromeo at the direction of the Council of Trent itself, promulgated by Pope St. Pius V in 1566, described by Pope Clement XIII (1758-1769) as containing a clear explanation of all that is necessary for salvation and useful for the faithful, recommended by Pope Leo XIII (1878-1903) for all seminarians, and prescribed by Pope St. Pius X (1903-1914) to be used by all priests in instructing the faithful -- taught that the term "Mystery of Faith" in the consecration of the wine meant the Real Presence of Christ under the appearance of the wine, or, transubstantiation.
Pope Innocent III (1198-1216) teaches that the term “Mystery of Faith” for the Latin Rite was given by Christ Himself to the Apostles, and from the Apostles to their successors.
St. Thomas Aquinas (writing over 12 centuries after the crucifixion of Christ, and several decades after the death of Pope Innocent III) teaches that the term "Mystery of Faith" in the consecration of the wine in the Western Rite comes to us directly from Christ and the Apostles.
In the 1960s and 1970s, and quite laughably, some Vatican II apologists have put forth theories -- without evidence -- to try and refute St. Thomas Aquinas and Pope Innocent III. These latter day theological-buffoons have stated, for instance, that “Mystery of Faith” was inserted into the Canon by a pious transcriber in the 7th century, and then somehow spread to every diocese in the world (despite the existence of elaborate controls to prevent the mistakes or innovations of transcribers from being adopted). Mr. Patrick Omlor -- a lay Catholic who took up the burden to defend the Church in writing against the assaults of the destroyers during and after Vatican Council II -- shows the absurdity of these post Vatican II claims in his important paper, “No ‘Mystery of Faith’: No Mass.” (By the way, this compilation is very heavily indebted to the research of Mr. Patrick Omlor, as we shall again acknowledge at the end of this essay.)
However, even if one were to grant, for the sake of argument, the absurd latter day theories that “Mystery of Faith” entered into the consecration of the wine centuries after the time of Christ, this would in no way diminish the falsity of what Paul VI did to the definition of "Mystery of Faith" in his New Mass in 1969.
For Vatican Council I made the following definition regarding the expression of the words of doctrinal formulas in Session III, Chapter 4, “On Faith and Reason”:
“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.” (End quote from Vatican Council I, 1870)
Well, as we are about to see, the term “Mystery of Faith” in the consecration of the wine is a formulation of the meaning of a sacred dogma “which has once been declared by Holy Mother Church.” We will further see that Paul VI in his “New Mass” abandoned “this sense” -- and, in fact, contradicted it. In other words, Paul VI did exactly what the Church had infallibly defined at the First Vatican Council must not be done. Thus Paul VI did what no true pope could ever do.
(If anyone needs to see the proof that the term “Mystery of Faith” is part of the essential form of the consecration of the Mass in the Latin rite, please see our companion paper, “The New Mass is Invalid Because of Substantial Change in Christ’s Words” in the right hand column at realnews247.com as well as Patrick Omlor's paper, "No 'Mystery of Faith': No Mass.")
The Meaning of the term “Mystery of Faith” in the Consecration of the Wine
Referring to the term “Mystery of Faith” in the consecration of the wine, the Catechism of the Council of Trent, teaches the following:
"In this place, however," teaches the Roman Catechism, "these words bear an import different from that which they have when applied to baptism; for here 'the mystery of faith' consists in seeing by faith the blood of Christ, veiled under the species of wine ..." (Part II, Chap. IV, Q. 23).
[To expand a little what was covered earlier in this article: “The Roman Catechism” is another name for the “Catechism of the Council of Trent”, which was first discussed at an earlier session of the Council of Trent circa 1546; the completion of this catechism was ordered by Pope Pius IV circa 1563 to explain the mind of the Church Fathers regarding the decrees of the Council of Trent; shortly before his death in 1565, Pope Pius IV put the great St. Charles Borromeo in charge of completing this catechism; this catechism was finally approved and promulgated in 1566 by Pope St. Pius V, after he had ordered a commission of doctrinal experts to go over the catechism one last time to ensure doctrinal accuracy.]
As gratefully acknowledged earlier, this short paper is relying heavily on the research of the excellent Mr. Patrick Omlor in his paper, “No ‘Mystery of Faith’: No Mass” (a link to this paper is given at the end of this paper), which is heartily recommended as a scholarly treatment of this entire subject. Mr. Omlor divided his paper into numbered paragraphs for easy reference, and, as he himself states, so that would be opponents could easily reference the paragraphs they are trying to refute.
Now we reproduce paragraphs 48 through 51 of the above mentioned paper by Mr. Omlor:
48. Pope Innocent III teaches likewise that the theological significance of these words in the sacramental form is their expression of the doctrine of the Real Presence of the true Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ in the Sacrament of the Altar:
"Yet 'mysterium fidei' is mentioned, since something is believed there other than what is perceived; and something is perceived other than what is believed. For the species of the bread and wine is perceived there, but what is believed is the truth of the Body and Blood of Christ and the power of unity and love." (From the doctrinal letter Cum Marthae Circa cited earlier, Denz. # 414).
49. Catholics believe that hidden under the consecrated species of Bread and Wine is the Real Presence of the Sacred Humanity and Divinity of Our Lord. Present sacramentally is the same true body of Jesus that was conceived in the womb of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the same body that came forth in the stable at Bethlehem, the same Jesus Christ Who as the Divine Infant was held in the loving arms of St. Joseph. The same Divine Infant Who was borne on the shoulders of St. Christopher and Who appeared to St. Anthony and lay upon his breast. Yes, what we receive in Holy Communion is the true Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of the same Jesus Christ Who suffered His dolorous Passion and Death on Calvary for us, Who rose from the dead on the first Easter and Who ascended into heaven forty days later. It is the same Jesus Christ Whom we will meet at the terrifying moment of our particular judgment, and Who at the end of time will come again to judge the living and the dead.
50. This is what is meant precisely and exclusively by the phrase "the mystery of faith" in the wine consecration of the Mass: our belief in the Real Presence of Jesus Christ -- right now --in the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist. Among those things that are NOT meant here are the truths of our faith that Christ has died, that He is risen, and that He will come again.
51. Although this may be getting ahead of what will be discussed later, it is expedient to mention at this point that Paul VI not only removed the words "the mystery of faith" from the sacramental form itself, but inappropriately brought them in later. He wrote: "The words Mysterium Fidei, taken from the context of the words of Christ the Lord, and said by the priest, serve as an introduction to the acclamation of the faithful" (Apostolic Constitution promulgating the NOM ). The "acclamation of the faithful" is "Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again."
* NOM stands for Novus Ordo Missae, or New Order of the Mass
(End of quote from Mr. Patrick Omlor)
(My note: there were several other acclamations of the faithful also in the New Mass,, but none of them said anything that a Protestant who denied the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist could object to. Thus, all the New Mass acclamations abandoned and/or weakened the sense of the dogma of the Real Presence that had already been defined by the Church, in direct violation of the First Vatican Council. However, even if only one of the acclamations (i.e., Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again) falsified the definition of Mystery of Faith in the consecration of the wine, this would be something that a true Pope could never do (i.e., mix error with truth in a rite of the Mass, thus making such a rite False Worship, and therefore, objectively speaking, a sin against the First Commandment.)
Paul VI Falsifies the meaning of the doctrinal term, “Mystery of Faith” in the consecration of the wine in his New Mass
Let us stop here to take a breath and face squarely what Paul VI (occupying and usurping the Chair of Peter from 1963 to 1978) did in his "New Mass" in 1969.
Let us reemphasize that in the last section we saw that the term “Mystery of Faith” in the consecration of the wine means the Real Presence of the Body and Blood of Christ under the species of bread and wine. There are other mysteries in the Roman Catholic Faith. The Catechism of the Council of Trent specifically states that another mystery of the Faith has to do with the taking away of original sin in the sacrament of Baptism. But in the consecration of the wine, the “Mystery of Faith” clearly and always refers to the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.
We have also seen that the Church ruled infallibly (and logically) at the First Vatican Council in 1870 that once a formula for the meaning of a dogma has been assigned and promulgated by Holy Mother Church that it is not to be weakened under any pretext whatsoever.
Furthermore, Paul VI actions regarding the term “Mystery of Faith” in the consecration of wine is further condemned by his own admission that he understood these things in the 1965 purported encyclical issued under his name, “Mysterium Fidei”, which in English means none other than, “Mystery of Faith.” (!!!)
For in that document Paul VI defined the Mystery of Faith in the consecration of the wine as the real presence of Christ – and – also quoted Vatican Council I that the words of a formulation of dogma, such as the form of the consecration of the wine, were never to be weakened under any pretext whatsoever. (!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)
When we consider the contradiction of Paul VI in "Mysterium Fidei", his purported encyclical, vs. Paul VI in his promulgation of the false definition of "Mystery of Faith" in his "New Mass", it calls to mind the observation of Pope St. Pius X in his encyclical against the Modernists: “But when they justify even contradictions, what is it that they will refuse to justify?”
But, in fact, Paul VI went far beyond merely weakening the meaning of the words “Mystery of Faith” in his New Mass (in Latin and in English), for he, in fact, completely falsified the meaning of these most sacred words.
We have already seen that Paul VI blatantly stated in his promulgation of the New Mass that he was taking the term “Mystery of Faith” out of the consecration formula where it had been, and placing it afterwards as an introduction for an acclamation by the Faithful.
In the English translation approved for the New Mass in this place, we find the following in any Missalette in the English speaking world: "Let us proclaim the Mystery of Faith: Christ has died, Christ has risen, Christ will come again."
This proclaimed meaning gives a false definition of the words “Mystery of Faith” in the consecration of the wine in the New Mass.
Let' look again at the English translation: "Let us proclaim the Mystery of Faith: Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again."
This proclamation of the faithful does not express the doctrine of transubstantiation. It does express other doctrines of the faith, but not the one already defined by the Church as the meaning of "Mystery of Faith" in the consecration of the Mass (namely, the Real Presence, or transubstantiation).
This "New Mass" definition of "Mystery of Faith" is therefore the exact type of weakening of a formulation of doctrine (already determined by the Church) which was condemned in Vatican I in 1870. (Again, it is, in fact, a denial of the already defined doctrine by way of substituting another set of truths in its place. Coincidentally, these other truths do not offend Protestants who deny the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, i.e., transubstantiation, as defined by the Church.)
To repeat for emphasis: tt is important to note that the above proclamation (i.e., Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again) is an option at every New Mass. So, even if the other three proclamations expressed the doctrine of transubstantiation (which they do not), then the inclusion of this false definition would make the "New Mass of Paul VI" sacrilegious (meaning not able to be attended without violating the First Commandment against false worship) and invalid as well (according to the still standing, never revoked, decree of Pope St. Pius V, "De Defectibus", which expressed the teaching of the Church from the time of Christ and the Apostles, and which furthermore was also promulgated and approved by every Pope from 1570 until 1958 in every publication of the Latin Rite Mass in the world).
To repeat, while there are three other options given for the proclamation of the term "Mystery of Faith" in the New Mass of Paul VI, none of them express the doctrine of transubstantiation, and all of them are perfectly acceptable to those who deny the doctrine of transubstantiation. Here is another:
In Latin: “Mysterium Fidei. Mortem tuam annuntiamus, Domine, et tuam resurrectionem confitemur, donec venias.”
[In English: “Mystery of Faith. We announce Your death, Lord, and we confess your resurrection, until you will come again.”]
Again, we have the proclamation of true doctrines, but not the doctrine expressed by the term "Mystery of Faith" in the consecration of the Mass. Again, Paul VI proclaims doctrines that Protestants who deny the Real Presence can also assent to. This is why the New Mass was used at the Protestant community of Taize, France, where the Tridentine Mass was never used, because it was unacceptable to that Protestant community due to its clear expression of the Doctrine of Transubstantiation.
As anyone can see, Paul substituted false meanings for the term “Mystery of Faith” in the consecration of the wine in the New Mass, both in the Latin and in the English version.
An Analogy for What Paul VI did to the term "Mystery of Faith" in the New Mass
Let us consider what one might do if he wanted to implicitly deny the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary. Instead of repeating accurately the defined dogma (1854, promulgated by Pope Pius IX) as, "Mary was conceived without Original Sin", one would issue a ceremony for all Catholics to participate in, which would state something like the following:
"Let us proclaim the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception: Mary was the Mother of Jesus Christ, the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity."
Now the following logical conclusions would be necessary:
a) The proclamation states a true doctrine, but not the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception;
b) by failing to express the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception as the Church had already infallibly defined it, the new formulation is a denial of the Church's doctrine;
c) Such a formulation, unlike the real doctrine, would be perfectly acceptable to Protestants who denied the Immaculate Conception.
d) Such a formulation would come under the sanction of the First Vatican Council, that once a formulation of doctrine was determined by Holy Mother Church, that the same signification must forever remain, and not be weakened for any reason whatsoever. (Again, in this example, and in the reality of what Paul VI did in his "New Mass" to the term "Mystery of Faith", we are dealing with an outright falsification of what the Church had already defined and formulated.)
Last Gasp Attempt to Defend the Vatican II Anti-Popes
In his book, "I Will Be With You Always", the late Michael Davies tried to salvage the Latin version of the New Mass, and Paul VI as a true Pope, by saying that the term "Mystery of Faith" refers BOTH back to the consecration of the wine AND forward to the coming acclamation of the faithful. This does not fit with what Paul VI himself, as noted above, said he was doing when he wrote in the promulgation of the New Mass: "The words Mysterium Fidei, taken from the context of the words of Christ the Lord, and said by the priest, serve as an introduction to the acclamation of the faithful." And, as noted before, at least one acclamation of the faithful simply falsifies the meaning of Mystery of Faith in the Consecration of the wine – something a true Pope could never promulgate.
However, for the sake of argument, if we conceded Mr. Davies' argument that the term "Mystery of Faith" in the New Mass might refer to BOTH the Real Presence in the consecration of the wine AND to acclamation of the Faithful which says something else, this would still be a weakening of the meaning that had once and for all been fixed by Holy Mother Church, and therefore a violation of the prohibition of such a weakening of a sacred formula by the First Vatican Council. In Paul VI’s New Mass, in the place of the clear. unambiguous formula of the Tridentine Mass cited and proven earlier in this article, we have an acclamation introduced by the term "Mystery of Faith" in the New Mass which has a different meaning than the already defined traditional meaning, thus at least creating an ambiguity, and unnecessary possible confusion in the minds of the poorly instructed, young children, or even the everyday Catholic.
The proof that this ambiguity was real is that the Protestant Community at Taize, France has used Paul VI’s New Mass for 40 years. This Protestant Community denies the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist as defined by the Catholic Church, and has never used, nor would ever use, the Tridentine Mass where “Mystery of Faith” clearly refers to transubstantiation. With the New Mass, this Protestant Community had no problem using the new position of “Mystery of Faith” in the Latin, because the formulation in the New Mass allows for the heretical interpretation. So, at best the New Mass consecration of the wine formula is ambiguous, which is exactly why the Church under the guidance of the Holy Ghost forbid any weakening or change of meaning in a sacred formula once it was established by Holy Mother Church.
Of course, in that book and all of his writings, Michael Davies avoided completely dealing with the blatant falsification of the term "Mystery of Faith" in the English version of the New Mass, because there is no defending that, as we have already shown. The acclamation of the faithful (Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again) is a blatant falsification and heresy in the English. The same goes for most, if not all, of the other vernacular translations of the New Mass.
And, as we have seen, and shall see again, a true Pope could not approve a false translation of "Mystery of Faith" in even one language for even one country in a rite of Mass which he promulgated for the faithful to fulfill their Sunday obligation. If all the rites of Mass in every country in the world was without blemish or error, but the New Mass with its falsification of the term “Mystery of Faith” in English was approved for the faithful to fulfill their Sunday obligation when living in, or visiting the USA – this is something a true Pope could never do. A man who did such a thing would have to be an anti-pope. (There is some theological speculation that a true Pope could fall into heresy, lose his office, and do such a thing. However, St. Robert Bellarmine said [1542-1621] that since such had never happened since the time of Christ, it was a strong indication that it never would happen. (See "Conclusions" for the likely explanation of why Paul VI was always an anti-Pope, and never a true Pope.)
For the Church through her true Popes is infallible with regard to every rite of Mass under the aspect of her "ordinary and universal magisterium" (which covers the daily life of the Church, especially in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass). Therefore, a true Pope cannot approve a rite of Mass, even for one country, which contains a falsehood in the worship of the True God, for such a rite of Mass would then lead the faithful into sinning (objectively) against the First Commandment when they tried to attend such a false worship service to fulfill their Sunday obligation.
So even if we conceded Mr. Davies' characterization of the Latin version of the New Mass, it in no way would save Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI from the fact that they approved the vernacular (English, Spanish, Italian) versions of the New Mass and told the faithful that they could fulfill their Sunday obligation by attending these false worship services. This a true Pope could never do, as we are instructed by Vatican Council I.
However, back to the Latin version of the New Mass: to repeat, regarding Mr. Davies' attempt to save the New Mass in Latin with regard to Paul VI's treatment of Mystery of Faith, his attempt goes against Paul VI's own explicit explanation of what he was doing, i.e., taking the phrase "Mystery of Faith" out of the consecration formula to have it serve as an introduction to an acclamation of the faithful.
A True Pope Cannot Falsify a Meaning in the Form of the Consecration of the Mass
What Paul VI did is easy to understand. He falsified the term “Mystery of Faith” in the consecration of the Mass.
According to the infallible “ordinary and univeral magisterium” of the Church, as referred to by Vatican Council I and Pope Leo XIII in his encyclical on the "Unity of the Church (Satis Cognitum)", a true Pope cannot lead the faithful into sin in a liturgy or devotion he has promulgated.
Because of the falsification of the term Mystery of Faith, -- used by the Church, according to St. Thomas Aquinas, for now 2000 years, found preserved in sacred texts as soon as the Church came out of the catacombs circa 400 A.D., and explicitly defined many times by the Church such as in 1202 by Innocent III, and by the Catechism of the Council of Trent in 1566, with the unanimous consent of all Popes before and after that time – Paul VI cannot be a true Pope, and neither can those purporting to be Popes after him, who have all upheld and imposed on the faithful this outrageous falsification of the key words in the very heart of the Mass in almost every parish in the world as a worship service which fulfills a Catholic's Sunday obligation to attend Mass.
a) Paul VI leads the faithful into objective sin by treating a holy thing with disrespect.
The New Mass in English is a sacrilege because it treats a holy thing, namely the central concept of the consecration of the Mass, with disrespect.
The definition of a sacrilege from Baltimore Catechism #2, 1941:
213. When does a person sin by sacrilege?
A person sins by sacrilege when he mistreats sacred persons, places, or things.
They have set thy sanctuary ablaze, they have profaned the dwelling of thy name on the earth. (Psalm 73:7) (End of passage from the Baltimore Catechism)
Needless to say, the falsification of the definition of the term “Mystery of Faith” in the consecration formula of the New Mass , (which can be verified by walking into any Catholic Church building in the USA and picking up a Missalette), resulting in an invalid sacrament according to the still standing decrees of the Church, is a serious mistreatment of a holy thing, and therefore a grave sacrilege, objectively speaking.
b) Paul VI made his New Mass into a perfect example of False Worship, a sin against the First Commandment.
The New Mass in
English is a sin against the First Commandment, i.e., is false worship, because
it mixes error in with the worship of the True God.
Any pre-1958 theologian with an imprimatur on his work could be picked out to understand the question of False worship, which is either the worship of a false God (Moslems), or mixing in error in the worship of the true God.
One citation: Father Heribert Jone, an eminent Catholic moral theologian, in his famous “Handbook of Moral Theology”, discussed the sin of "False Worship," which is one of the offenses against the First Commandment. He said that, “God is worshipped in a false manner if one mingles religious errors and deception with the worship of the true God.” (Newman Press: Westminster MD, 1961, p. 97).
Clearly this is what the New Mass in English does: mingles religious errors and deception with the worship of the true God – by falsifying the definition of the already defined term “Mystery of Faith” in the very consecration of the Mass.
c) According to the still standing, never modified document “De Defectibus” by Pope St. Pius V, such a falsification also renders the New Mass invalid, which no true Pope could ever do. (See our companion article, “New Mass in English is Invalid Because of Substantial Change in Christ’s Words”, for a complete documentation on this point regarding a second instance of falsification in the consecration of the wine in the New Mass, namely, with regard to the mistranslation in the English of the term "pro multis", which means "for many", but is translated "for all" in the New Mass, in direct contradiction of every decree of the Church on this subject for 2000 years, and most especially in contradiction of the Catechism of the Council of Trent.)
From points (a), (b), and (c) immediately above, it is clear that Paul VI could not be a true Pope, since he introduced a blatant falsehood into the very heart of the Mass, i.e., in the definition of the term "Mystery of Faith" in consecration itself.
Paul VI Made a Substantial Change in the Form of the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist, Something No True Pope Could Do
But one, especially one engulfed in the false religion and counterfeit church, or anti-church, of Vatican II – might well ask this question: But can’t a Pope make any changes he wants?
But the answer is, “No, a Pope cannot just make any changes he wants.” A true Pope is bound by the words of Christ, in the infallible rulings of the Church, both in her extraordinary pronouncements, or ex cathedra pronouncements, on faith and morals (i.e., the definition of the Immaculate Conception by Pope Pius IX in 1854), OR in her “ordinary and universal magisterium”, which covers every rite of the Mass, and all the other aspects of the daily life of the Church.
Here I again produce a few paragraphs directly from Mr. Patrick Omlor’s paper, “No ‘Mystery of Faith’: No Mass”, which show that no Pope can change the substance, or essential meaning, of the form of the sacraments:
85. Here are four pronouncements of the Magisterium of the Church that prove this claim:
 "[T]he 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 things which pertain to the integrity and necessary parts [emphasis added] of the sacraments" (from the letter Super quibusdam of Pope Clement VI, Sept. 29, 1351).
 "It [the Council] declares furthermore that this power has always been in the Church, that in the administration of the sacraments, without violating their substance [emphasis added], she may determine or change whatever she may judge to be more expedient for those who receive them or for the veneration of the sacraments, according to the variety of circumstances, times and places" (Council of Trent, Session XXI, Ch. 2).
 "[I]t is well known that to the Church there belongs no right whatsoever [emphasis added] to innovate anything touching on the substance of the sacraments (Pope St. Pius X, in the letter Ex quo, nono, Dec. 26, 1910).
 [A]s the Council of Trent teaches, the seven sacraments of the New Law have all been instituted by Jesus Christ, and the Church has no power [emphasis added] over the 'substance of the sacraments,' that is, over those things which, with the sources of Divine Revelation as witnesses, Christ the Lord Himself decreed to be preserved in a sacramental sign" (Pius XII, Apostolic Constitution Sacramentum Ordinis, Nov. 30, 1947).
86. "The Church has no power," said Pius XII; "No right whatsoever," said St. Pius X. No bishop, nor all the bishops together unanimously, no council, no pope, no one at all has the right or the power to tamper with the substance of a sacrament, its essential matter or form, least of all Christ's own words in the form of the Holy Eucharist.
[End of quote from Mr. Patrick Omlor]
How do we know that Paul VI made a substantial change in the form of the Eucharist with his change to the definition of the term “Mystery of Faith” in the consecration of the wine? As already shown: because the entire tradition and teaching of the Church, in her ordinary and universal magisterium, tells us so, as demonstrated in an earlier section of this paper citing the pronouncements of Pope Innocent III, St. Thomas Aquinas, and Pope St. Pius V through the Catechism of the Council of Trent.
The Church’s Infallible “Ordinary and Universal Magisterium” Encompasses any Promulgation of the Roman Rite, or any other Rite of the Church
More paragraphs from Mr. Patrick Omlor’s paper, “No ‘Mystery of Faith’: No Mass”:
89. The Jan.-Feb. 1994 issue of the Australian journal Catholic carried a letter from Michael Davies. "What is known as the Latin Typical edition [of the Novus Ordo Missae]," wrote Mr. Davies, "is protected by the Church's indefectibility and cannot be invalid and cannot contain anything heretical or harmful to the faith. The indefectibility of the Church protects only what is mandated or authorised for the universal Church (legislation for the Roman Rite alone is considered as coming into this category)."
90. Mr. Davies reasons that the doctrine of the indefectibility of the Church is totally incompatible with the promulgation by a Sovereign Pontiff of a Mass that is per se invalid. This reasoning is absolutely sound. For if the true Church of Jesus Christ were to foist upon the faithful of the Roman Rite a Mass that is invalid, She would thus deprive them of the primary source of grace for their sanctification. In such a case we would be bound to admit that the Church had indeed failed in its mission on earth; it would be defectible, which is impossible.
91. Let us consider from a different viewpoint Mr. Davies' argument based on the indefectibility of the Church. Let us deny his premise that Paul VI was truly Christ's Vicar and that he represented the true and indefectible Roman Catholic Church. . . .
100. Since Paul VI in fact did all those things that a true Vicar of Christ would never do, the conclusion at which one must logically and necessarily arrive is clear: at least at the time he promulgated his Novus Ordo Missae Paul VI was not the bona fide pope and the true Vicar of Christ on earth. As Michael Davies implied (and correctly so) the indefectibility of the Church is incompatible with the promulgation of an invalid Mass by its true Sovereign Pontiff.
101. For had he been the legitimate and infallible voice of the true Church of Jesus Christ while foisting upon Catholics his Novus Ordo Missae, which we have shown is certainly invalid, then this so-called "true Church" would be proved to be a sham, a defectible imposture.
102. Indefectibility does not guarantee that many Catholics, particularly those who are sometimes designated as "nominal Catholics," could not be deceived and be deprived of the graces of the true Holy Sacrifice and the Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist, the primary sources of grace for their sanctification. Such a deprivation and such spiritual blindness could well be the result of God's punishment for the sinfulness and negligence of many, nay most, of us.
103. Indefectibility allows that terrestrial enemies of Christ and his Church, engulfed in the "smoke of Satan," to use the very words of Paul VI, would some day bring about the fulfillment of that which is foretold in the Holy Scriptures: "And they shall defile the sanctuary of strength, and shall take away the continual sacrifice, and they shall place there the abomination unto desolation" (Dan. 11:31); and also: "And from the time when the continual sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination unto desolation shall be set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred ninety days" (Dan. 12:11).
104. In this essay I have advanced two theses, the latter flowing necessarily from the former:  Paul VI's Novus Ordo Missae is per se invalid; and  its corollary that he was not a bona fide pope -- the true Bishop of Rome and the Patriarch of the West, the Vicar of Christ on earth. In refuting me an Adversarius must first disprove (or attempt to do so) my case that Paul VI's Novus Ordo Missae is invalid. But he cannot argue circularly by building his case on the premise that Paul VI was a true pope, incapable of promulgating an invalid Mass.
[End of quote from Mr. Patrick Omlor]
(Come again soon for a few further paragraphs of explanation under this section.)
* * * * * *
I want to again thank Mr. Patrick Omlor for his important research on this subject, to which this paper is heavily indebted. It should not be inferred that Mr. Omlor agrees with any of the observations or analysis in this paper, unless it is specifically attributed to him.
* * * * *
The link to Mr. Patrick Omlor's paper, No "Mystery of Faith": No Mass --- is found here:
* * * * * *