A CORRESPONDENCE WITH MOTHER THERESA
Part III
Rama P Coomaraswamy, M.D.

MOTHER THERESA=S THIRD RESPONSE

Letter from Mother Theresa:

                                                                                                                     12/12/72

My dear Ram:

I have just received the answers to your last lot of questions etc. I am sending them to you. I hope this will help you [ you know my love for you and know how much I want you to be all for Jesus. Ram, go before Jesus living truly in the bread of life - ask yourself. Do I believe? If you do believe, then do not waste time on useless arguments and questions, for they are all useless if you Believe. If you do not believe - then you need all the arguments you can make and all the endless discussions you can produce.

Pray this prayer to Our Lady:

AMary my mother - give me your heart so beautiful, so pure - your heart so full of love and humility that I may be able to receive and carry Jesus as you received him and carried him - come O Mary my Queen and my Mother. Come and receive Jesus in me@

My prayer for you is that you find Our Lady as your Mother - and ask her to be a Mother to you now.

God bless you

M. Theresa, M.O.

COMMENTS ON RECENT MATERIAL

1  Page 1 Athe Question of obedience and the real issues@

It is true that we are never obliged to obey in a matter which we believe in conscience to be sinful. Thus the statement on the Religious Freedom of the Second Vatican Council: AIn all his activity man is bound to follow his conscience faithfully.@ (N.3) The question of conscience is treated in all the manuals of Moral Theology. Those used in seminary training prior to the Second Vatican Council (I can speak only of these from experience) unanimously stat that we are obliged to follow even an invincibly erroneous conscience when it commands or prohibits. Invincible error is that which due diligence is unable to dispel. (cfr. Aertnys-Damen, THELOGIA MORALIS, i, PP. 43 AND 71 Marietti 1950z)

This raises the question whether the writer is in fact using due diligence in forming his conscience, a matter raised on page 1 of my original comments. He could be responsible for his own error for example by refraining from keeping himself informed of the teaching of the Holy See and the Holy Father, by consulting only publications which have taken a stand similar to his own.

2  Page 1, Par. 4: The writer asserts that he adheres to the Atraditional theology@ of the Church.

He apparently however declines to accept that in traditional theology every thesis or proposition carried a Anota theologica@. I enclose a copy of one such listing. He can check it in any manual of introduction to theology.

Only a teaching which the Church has defined as being part of God=s revealed truth cannot be changed. Other teachings can and do change: those relating to the eternal salvation of unbaptized infants for example, to personal judgment after death.....

Pope John XXIII introducing the Council made a clear distinction between the teachings subject to change and those which were not. This distinction is part and parcel of traditional theology.

3  P. 1, bottom, three points listed.

The loose terminology is not acceptable. In fact, the renewed Mass retains all that is essential to the Eucharistic Sacrifice: the teachings of the Council in no way contradict the infallible teaching of the Church; and members of the Church have an obligation of accepting these.

4  Page 2, No. 2

Again, loose terminology, speaking theologically. To prove his point - which he does not even attempt to do - the writer must demonstrate that the Second Vatican Council contradicts teachings previously declared Ade fide@.

****

INTRODUCTION  IN. S.  THEOLOGIAM

Una et altera methoedus, speulative et positiva, amice consoelandae sunt, attentio monito Pii X in Enc. APascandi@: AMinor rofecto quam antehae positivae theologiae ratio est adhibenda; id tamen sic fiat ut nihil scholastica detrimenti capiat.

6 Veritas fidei diversis gradibus certudinis gaudet, unde diversae notae theologicue

a) Maxxima certitudo comperit dogmati formali, quod est veritas divimnitus et formaliter revelata et qua talis ab Ecclesia proposita sive solemni sive ordinario magisterio. Unde huiusmode veritas dicitur de fide definta vel de fide catholica atque eam dnegare est haeresis..

b) Accedigt averitas revalata, nondum tamen ab Ecclesia definita, quae proxima fidei dici solet et eam negare est proximum haeresi.

c) Tertio loco est veritas virtualiter revelata, quae nempe ex praemissa revelata eruitur, adiuvente principio rationis (conclusio theologica). Ista autem vocatur veritas theologice certa vel ad fidem pertinens, si intime cum dogmate connectatur; eius autem negatio est error theologieus seu in fide.

d)  Deinde sunt veritates no revelatae, sed cum revelatis connexae, de quibus communis datur sententia Theologorum. Earum negatio dicitur temeraria.

Aliae censurae theologiae incurruntur sive propter expressionis imperfectionem (aequivoca, captioso, male sonans etc.), sive propter effectus pravos, quos quedam propositiones determinare possunt in quibusdam circumstantiis (scandelosa, perniciosa, periculosa etc.)

Sunt autem et aliae censurae minoris momenti, qquae ex praeccedentibus facile difudicari possunt.

14 2) b) The concept of thanksgiving is not central to the Ejucharist (and the renwed rite is therefore invalid?) Perhaps the writer considers the new Mass invalid because it is referred to as Aeucharist@ i.e. thanksgiving?

COMMENT: Every one of the four brief narratives of institution in the Scriptures specifically state that Jesus gave thanks. 
Apart from that, how does the matter affect the validity of the renewed rite? The writer does not indicate.

15 2) c) Luther hated the Catholic Mass, therefore the renewed rite is invalid.

COMMENT:
Just how the conclusion follows from the premise is not clear - particularly since we do not have Luther=s expressed opinion on the renewed rites!
I have already referred the writer to the outline of the norms followed by the Consilium in the renewal. The Consilium was not obsessed with Luther, as the writer is.

16. Other Point: Aquod pro vobis tradetur@
The writer objects to this addition, yet
- these words are the words of St. Paul, i Cor. 11. 24. Is the writer seriously suggesting that the addition of these words from St. Paul=s narrative of the institution of the Eucharist renders the Eucharist invalid?
- the same words are present in many other rites, yet the writer admits that these others are valid.
- in the Roman Canon, there is a perfectly symmetrical expression in the words of consecration of the wine: Aqquod pro vobis... effundetur@. (The parallel is a typical semitic usage, of course - cfr. The psalms, which are full of them.).

17 2) d) The English reformers made certain changes ad the renewed rite is therefore invalid.

COMMENT  
Apart from the customary lack of logic, either the essential elements of the sacrament are present, and then it is valid, or they are not (which the writer shold demonstrate) and then it is not valid. What Cranmer believes matters little in this matter.

Other points: The writer remarks AHe introduced the Aepiklesis@ which concept is specifically denied as a necessity in the True Roman Mass.@ This is surprising since the QUAM OBLATIONEM is the epiclesis in the Roman Canon. 
Re. The meaning of words used tp translate Abenedixit@ etc. - cfr. Zerwick, Analysis Philologica Novi Testamenti Graeci, p. 768 and parallel texts.

18 2) e) p. 10: The writer seems to argue that the words Aquod pro vobis tradetur@ (see my comment above) and the reference to the new alliance or testament (from tr. Roman Canon) do not refer to the sacrifice of Christ. Therefore the renewed rite is invalid.
COMMENT:
Apart from the lack of logic, what was Our Lord referring to where speaking these words with regard to his body (and Aquod pro vobis... effundetur@ regarding his blood) ..........................

19 P. 10 f) The renewed rite is invalid because so much of the former rite has been changed.
COMMENT:
If the essential elements of rht rite are present, then the sacrament is valid; if not, it is invalid. Let the writer demonstrate that the latter is the case.
On the matter of change, the writer will be familiar with the words of the Council of Trent in defending the change in the manner of receiving Holy Communion. Session 21, ch. 2: APraeterea declarat, hanc poteestatem perpetuo in Ecclesia fuisse, ut in sacramentorum dispensatione, salve illorum substantia, ea statueret vel mutaret, quae suscipientium utilitati sue ipsorum sacramentorum venerationi, pro rerum, temporum et locorum varietata, magis expedire iudicaret.@ It is interesting the writer does not agree with the Council of Trent regarding such changes which he claims (p. 12) are always to bne abhorred.
The concluding remark of the Holy Father - that nothing has been changed in the essence (cfr. Salva illorum substantia), is in fact correct.

20 P. 11, Argument 3: Some Protestants find nothing to object to in the new order, therefore the new order is invalid.

COMMENT:
It is not the opposition (or agreement) of anyone which renders a sacrament valid or invalid, but the essential elements of the rite itself. If these are present the sacrament is valid; if not, then it is invalid.

21. Other points made by the writer:
The ARamsay and the Pope@ story is nonsense.
Let the writer read the documents of the Council and subsequent instructions on Ecumenism: the document of the Council particularly gives reasons, based on Scripture too, for its teaching, and the writer can take issue with these if he wishes, rather than making sarcastic remarks.

22. page 12, Aregument 4: The renewed rites are new and are therefore invalid.

COMMENT:
It is not a change or substitution of accompanying formulae which renders or could render a rite invalid, but as the Council of Trent says, only a change in the Asubstantia@ - the essential rites - of a sacrament. If these remain, then the sacrament is valid. The writer must therefore demonstrate that the essential rites do not remain.

23. Other points:
He objects to any innovation: the3 Council of Trent strongly defends the Church=s right to make changes as I have indicated above. Many saints were great innovators and were canonized because of their reforming and renewing. St. Dominic introduced completely new accounts of apostolate...! He admits that the spread of Latin in the third century was an innovation, but very selectively does not object to that particular one.

24. page 13, argument 5: The renewed rite is not a return to the earlier discipline existing for centuries prior to the reform of Trent, therefore the renewed rite is invalid.

COMMENT:
As mentioned several times already, if the essential elements of the rite are present, it is valid. In any case, it has already been indicated (cfr. P. 2 above) how many apparent Ainnovations@ are really a return to earlier discipline.

25. Other points:
The writer denies any need to adapt to the exigencies of changing times, something which however the Fathers of the Council of Trent considered desirable: cfr. Quotation given on p. 5 above...Apro rerum, temporum et locorum varietate, magis expedire iudicaret@!
The final paragraph on page 13 either really intends to say that the Mass of St. Pius V retains SOME of the most primitive practices etc., or it is nonsense, and any reading of the historical works will amply demonstrate.

26. Page 14, argument 6: The place of the phrase Amysterium fidei@ has been changed in the new rite, therefore it is invalid,

COMMENT:
He has nowhere so far demonstrated that the words >mysterium fidei@ pertain to the essence of the rite.
He himself admits that Anot all the forms of the words of consecration contain them (these two words)@: - how can he admit that the form can sometimes be valid without these words unless in fact they are not part of the essentials?
NONE of the four descriptions of the institution of the Eucharist in the Scriptures contain these words.
He admits that the phrase in fact has simply been displace, following immediately after the words of consecration of the win, instead of being included in them.

Other points:
The writer objects to the acclamation AChrist will come again@. Is he aware of the words of St. Paul which immediately follow, as in the Mass, the words of consecration: AQotiescumque enim manducabitis panem hunc et calilcem bibetis, mortem domini adnuntiabitis donec veniat@?
The exact same thought is expressed by the Fathers of the Council of Trent, session 13, chapter 2; AErgo Salvator noster....praecepit suamque annutiare mortem, donec ipse ad iudicandum mundum veniat@, and refers to the passage from 1 Cor. just quoted.

27. P. 14 Argument 78:
I cannot regretfully deduce any sort of reasoned argument her at all.
Perhaps the writer has not read my earlier material, or else he does not know the difference between the consecratory prayers (or narrative of the institution) and the epiclesis (request that God change the species into the body and blood of Christ). My carbon copy states that the consecratory prayers were in the Mass of St. Pius V (and remain) in narrative form; the epiclesis was, and is, invocatory. The epiclesis is the AQuem oblationem@ in the Roman Canon.

28. Perhaps the writer intends to say that some of Luther=s changes have been incorporated into the narrative of institution of the Eucharist, and that therefore the renewed rite is invalid (see top of p. 15)

COMMENT 
St. Paul=s changes have indeed been incorporated, and I think he wrote some time before Luther. Please see 1. Cor. 11.

29. P. 15, argument 8: In saying the Tridentine Mass the priest in saying the rite correctly assumed the proper intention automatically; this is not so in the renewed rite, which is therefore invalid.

COMMENT:
The premise is nonsensical: the intention being an act of the will and a free act at that, cannot AUTOMATICALLY flow from saying certain words and doing certain actions. If the writer disagrees, let him cit the authorities in the traditional theology which he claims to hold, which take his point of view, and the. The premise being false, the conclusion has no value.
Even were the premise true, it would follow only that if a priest lacked the right intention (traditional theology insists on a Avirtual@ intention - let the writer consult any of the handbooks to which I have already made reference) that the renewed rite, like the Tridentine Mass in the same circumstances, would be invalid.
It is false to state that Aas long as the priest didn=t specifically intend not to consecrate, no problem arose@: if there was not even a virtual intention to consecrate, then there was no consecration, even with the Tridentine Mass: cfr. Aertnys-Damen, op. cit. p. 11-13

30 P. 16, argument 9: There are equivocation in the introduction to the Missal, therefore the new order of mass is invalid.

COMMENT:
I repeat, if the essential elements of the new rite are present, then the sacrament is valid. This the teaching of traditional theology.

31. P. 16, argument 10: The traditional mass was changed to make it acceptable to the Lutherans and Anglicans, and is therefore invalid.

COMMENT:

The premise is false: I have already indicated clearly where one can find the norm followed in the narrative,.by the writer finds no mention.
Even were the premise true, the conclusion would not follow; if the essential elements of the rite are present, the sacrament is valid; if not, it is invalid, no matter who is pleaded or displeased.

32. Page 17, argument 11: In the new rite, there has been a change in the essential elements of the rite, and the new order of Mass is therefore invalid.

COMMENT:
If any essential element is missing, then the sacrament is invalid.
Strangely the writer admits that Ain the Novus Ordo Missae, when said in Latin, no one can absolutely state that the substance of the formula has been altered.@ The New Order of Mass in Latin, then, would presumably be admitted as valid.
He goes on to argue that in the vernacular THE MEANING is altered... the words of the form are made to signify falsely because the translations are universally Afor you and for all men@ instead of Afor you and for many.@
To this I reply:
1) to prove his point, the writer must demonstrate that the Apro vobis et pro multis@ is an essential part of the form. He himself admits, on page 18, that the only general agreement among theologians was that AThis is My Body, this is My Blood@ were certainly essential.
In fact, following the Encyclical MEDIATOR DEI (cfr. AAS, 1947, pp. 548-9 also p. 563), the essential words of the form are those which indicate that the bread and wine are changed into the body and blood of Christ, i.e. precisely and only AThis is My Body, this is My Blood.@ The dispute among theologians earlier was occasioned by their efforts to explain how the Mass was a sacrifice; many considered that more was required than transubstantiation, and in fact many required communion as an essential for the reality of the sacrifice of the Mass.
2) HOWEVER, in the renewed rites, the form has not been stripped of these words which are commonly accepted as essential. The only change has been the displacement of the Amysterium fidei@ (a matter already dealt with in these pages) and the change in the translation of the Apro vobis et pro multis.@ With regard to this latter:
- in fact, Our Lord did die for all men: see Council of Trent, to quote just one source, probably acceptable to the writer (who admits this fact himself p.20), session 6, ch. 2 and 3 and elsewhere.
- philological studies for years have indicated that the real meaning of the words referred to Our Lord 9in the Scripture do really mean Afor all men@ - Athe multitude@. See, for one example, Zerwick, Analysis Philologica Novi Testamenti Graeci, Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1953, p. 68, for Matthew, and parallel passages. In other words, the Vulgate translation from which our Latin texts come is not as clear as it could be. The vernacular translation is more faithful to the words of the original Greek than the Latin translation of the same.
In these circumstances, the argument carries little weight as an attempt to demonstrate the invalidity of the renewed rites.

33. Page 20, argument 12: Unless the whole canon ls preserved, then the Mass in invalid. And the whole canon is not preserved, therefore the  the new Mass in invalid.

COMMENT: ‑	
There is little point in replying, since the writer himself admits, p.21 that this is not true. He has virtually admitted the same thing when he declares that the celebrations of other rites is valid, although their Eucharistic Prayers are different from the Roman Canon. Finally, the author has already admitted in the previous argument that provided the essential elements of the sacrament are present, the rite is valid....and he was obviously referring to the words of consecration.

34. Page 21, argument 13: Many fathers at the Council did not envision the changes which have been introduced, therefore the New Mass is invalid.

COMMENT:
It is not their envisaging the changes or not which render the sacrament valid, but the presence of all the essential elements of the sacrament. For this reason, the conclusion does not follow from the premise.

Other points:
The writer says Surely the Aunchangeable elements@ referred to the Canon....@ Obviously the Canon is NOT an unchangeable element, since it has been changed through the centuries, and there exist many admittedly valid variations which would never be acceptable if the Roman Canon were part of the Aunchangeable elements@ ‑ i.e. essential elements ‑ of the sacrament of the Eucharist.

35. Page 22, argument 14: St. Cyril, the Book of Daniel, and St. Alphonsus  foretold that the Mass will be taken from us, therefore the renewed rite is invalid.

COMMENT:
If the renewed rite is valid (as in fact it is) then in the present circumstances the Mass (which is truly the Mass so long as it is valid is not being taken from us. Pax St. Cyril, Daniel, and St. Alphonsus!
The evidence so far brought forward to show the renewed rite is invalid in singularly unconvincing.

36. Page 22, argument 15: The Bishops of Westminster said that we must not change anything But things have been changed in the renewed rite, which is therefore invalid.

COMMENT:
The Bishops of Westminster said does not prove that the New Order is valid or invalid. If essential elements are lacking, the Mass will not be valid; otherwise it will. Did the same Bishops of Westminster comment on the change in the manner of receiving Holy Communion, by the way? Would they conclude that the change in the 9th century or thereabouts rendered the Mass invalid?

37. Page 23, argument 16: The AOttaviani intervention@ states that "Novus Ordo Missae" teems with insinuations or manifest errors against the purity of the Catholic religion, therefore the renewed rite is invalid.
COMMENT:
This is really the same argument as in no.9. The same reply holds in answer: if all the essential elements of the sacrament are present it will be valid' no matter what anybody says about it.
Other points: 
Re. the AOttaviani Intervention@ and the desire for a reply - the writer has already cited the documents, and very amply, especially the footnotes. and therefore the replies already given to the arguments presented are indirectly replies to the documents in question.
‑ a careful study of the sources to which I have referred the writer will resolve other objections in the documents.
‑ perhaps the best answer to the documents as a whole, is the
attitude of Cardinal Ottaviani himself, which is admirable and completely loyal to the Holy See

38. Page 23, argument 17: Some of the arguments given must at least have raised doubts, therefore the new order of Mass is invalid

COMMENT:
A million arguments will not raise doubts if not one of them is valid: what matters is the objectivity of the premises and the logic of the reasoning. I suggest that the writer, if he is sincerely seeking truth, put his objections into syllogistic form. This clarifies the reasoning, and makes errors more obvious. The avalanche of words does not replace logic: it o~ten serves only to disguise the lack of logic unfortunately. The writer will know that the syllogistic form is the preferred form in the traditional theology which he claims to espouse.

Secondly, instead of studying the writings ‑ post‑conciliar ‑ which attack the Council and the Holy See, I suggest he apply himself to the attack the Council and the Holy See, I suggest he apply himself to the theological sources which I have indicated: all pre‑conciliar. He will at least then become more familiar with what traditional theology really teaches.

39. Pages 24 to 31:
As already stated, to prove his point against the Second Vatican Council he must demonstrate that the Council contradicts teachings previously declared Ade fide.@
I challenge him to cite ONE teaching Ade fide@ of the Church which the Council denied.

He seeks refuge in a new definition of faith (refusing that of traditional theology, which used the terms Ade fide@ and Ade fide definita@ as previously indicated ‑ see handbooks of Introduction to Theology): what is believed by all, at all times, everywhere p.24). Obviously, this would deny that the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is of faith As is well known, St. Thomas did not accept the teaching. (Nor, let it be clear, was he doing wrong, since it was not then de fide.)

40  As for the reference to the Syllabus of Errors: the value of the propositions is to be judged from‑the various documents and the context (cfr. Denzinger, 1952, p.483, note2.) For the context, for example, of the phrase quoted >that the eternal salvation....=, see Singulari quadam (9th Dec.185~t, D.1647) where pope Pius IX teaches what I wrote on page one re. invincible ignorance, and very beautiful (I presume the writer will realize his error in citing Pius X who is supposed to have stated in his Encyclical Quanta cura that the Syllabus of Errors was in essence an ex cathedra statement: the Encyclical is Quanta cura, it is of Pope Pius IX, carried the same Encyclical is Quanta cura, it is of Pope Pius IX, carried the same date as the Syllabus ‑ 8th Dec., 1864, and does not mention the latter.

41 Page 32-36 These relate to Fr. O'Leary's article: let him write to the author if he wishes. I do not pretend to speak in his name

Page 37 to end:

42  No..l, p.37: The writer agrees that the Pope has‑spoken‑out against communism and heresy. He therefore admits the falsehood of his earlier statement, p.15 of the previous material sent.

43  no.2, page 38: The writer cites Voilllaume as saying that Bernard Haring.preached an annual Vatican retreat

COMMENT What Voillaume says certainly does not prove that something happened which in fact did not occur. As for the ambiguous statement that Haring=s teachings have the Apersonal stamp@ of the Pope, Haring has been often subjected to criticism by the OSSERVATORE ROMANO, semi‑official organ of the Holy See. Another case here of the Asix non‑Catholics who helped write the new Order of Mass"??? 

44  No.3, p.38: re. Pentecostals. I suggest the writer read 1 Cor.12: he may then be as usual very selective in his criticism and decide that some things must change in the Church. .like those of which St. Paul approved in that chapter?

No.4, page 40: re. Cardinals accused of being masons:

COM ENT Again, many words, not an iota of proof, and no consideration for justice or charity. If we owe no charity to error, perhaps we owe charity to those whom we consider to be in error? Or is this, to: done away with in the theology which the writer claims is traditional?

45   no.5: Re. Hans Kung: How can the writer claim that he teaches with the approval of the Holy See when the same Holy See has repeatedly commented adversely on his theories? Even Hans Kung himself has complained publicly of what he considers the unfair treatment he has received from the Holy See. Perhaps the writer really ought to read the Osservatore Romano.

46  P. 42, No 6: The writer seems unaware that the oath he cites preceded the introduction of the Mass of St. Pius V. See Denzinger (Herder, 1952), n.994. So the Aobservances and regulations@mentioned in the oath at the time of its formulation did not include the norms of St. Pius V.

P 42, no.7: re. ''abuses@.
As I stated, these are against the teaching of the magisterium: And the people who perpetrate them choose to disobey the norms of the Church, just as the writer chooses to do.

47 P. 42, no.8: The writer made the serious accusation that Archbishop Bugnini had been fired for teaching heresy. He now admit that he made the accusation without proof....since he has now asked for the proof. He is clearly convinced because the journal Atakes great pains to be accurate@ ‑ and is therefore, one presumes, more to be adhered to than the teachings of the Second Vatican Council.

Pages 43‑44 " Imagine that.....@

COMMENT:
It is only if one holds the opinion (untenable according to traditional theology) that there cannot be changes in discipline that one would hold, as the writer does, that if he obeys the laws, then he is obedient, even if he disobeys later ones.
He will presumably know of the change, to take an example from liturgy, regarding the manner of receiving Holy Communion: under both kinds until into the ninth century (and with laws enforcing this from certain councils when abuses appeared), and later under on under one kind only.
Nearer to our own day, the change, familiar to us all, in the discipline regarding fasting before Communion. 
As mentioned earlier, a serious study of the history of the Church would remove most of the objections the writer proposes
See again the passage of Trent which he himself quotes ‑ Session 21, Ch.2, which so clearly vindicates the right of the church to introduce changes in the sacraments Aalva eorum substantia@ the writer has completely failed to prove that there were any changes in the Asubstantia@ which would in fact render the sacrament (the Eucharist in this case) invalid

RESPONSE TO MOTHER THERESA

IHS

Dear Mother Theresa:

Pax Christi!

I am most grateful to you for your answer and would like to first of all assure you that I am aware of your great love for rne and your desire that I be all for Jesus. I hope that you will accept the fact that I also bear for you a similar love and desire.

I would like you to consider your words which I quote: "Ask yourself, do I believe? If you do believe then do not waste time on useless arguments and questioning. For they are all useless if you believe.. ''

Yes Mother, I believe, but your question forgets to add an important word - what is it that I do believe? I believe in AONE HOLY CATHOLIC AND APOSTOLIC CHURCH.@ 1 do not believe that the New Church ‑ the APost‑conciliar@ Church, the Church of Paul VI, and the Church that it would appear you are in, is any of these.

It is not ONE for it has separated itself from the Church of All Times. It may have unity with itself, with Paul VI, and it may even achieve unity with the Anglicans and the Lutherans. But unless it teaches all the truths (not just those declared de fide definita) and uses all the rites (fixed by decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, it will have no unity with that Church that Christ founded and against which the gates of Hell shall not prevail, It is not HOLY for it has attacked and changed the most holy thing that Christ has given us, His Holy Mass. However sacred some of its other actions may be (the Protestants also perform some sacred functions), this one fact alone deprives the New Church of any right to this title. it is not APOSTOLiC becnuse it has departe from Apostolic custom and Apostolic teaching. Its claim to be Apostolic because it retains some of thc Apostolic teachings and customs (not all) is paralleled by similar clairns on the pant of many Protestant sects. Finally, if for no other reasons than those given above, it is not CATHOLiC. This is a tremendous accusation to lay against the New Church, but it is one I have substantiated and one your respondent has not in any way clisproved.

Our correspondance is neither a Awaste of time,@ nor Auseless.@ This I state for two reasons: First, it has a tremendous pertinence to my family; and Second, I know of no publication in which the issues that divide the New from the traditional Church are seriously Adebated.@ Let us consider each of these issues.

With regard to the first point, let me remind you that it was you who initiated this discussion. When my wife informed you that I was attending the traditional Mass and insisting that my children do so also, it was you who wrote and told her to do everything in her power to prevent this. In doing so, you clearly interfered with my legitimate rights as a Catholic father ‑ indeed, vith my obligations as the head of a family. There is nothing ‑ absolutely nothing, un‑Catholic about attending the traditional rites of the traditional Church. Within my farnily I have a similar authority in such rnatters to that of the Pope within the Church. My family is after a a microcosmic reflection of the Church. admittedly, this authority has linitations,  I, within my family, and he, within the Church, cannot cornmand those under our authority to do anything that is sinful or against the Law of God. I cannot for instance demand that rny fanily attend a Lutheran service. We also have parallel Aobligations,@ his to protect and teach the entire Adeposit of the Faith,@ and rnine, to be sure that my childrcn are brousht up and taught this same Faith. Because of the influence you have over my wife (in general, of course, an excellent influence), she has obeyed you and disobeyed me, There is thus division and REBELLI0N in ‑my family. Now, my wife owes me obedience in this area (we were married by the rites of the traditional Church ‑ I am aware that in the New Church the reference to obedience is no longer obligatory). As I have said above, this obedience does not extend to matters@ hat are sinful. It was for this reason that when you said AWe owe complete obedience to the Pope,@ that I took issue with you and showed you with five pages of quotes taken from authorities in the traditional Church that this NOT A CATHOLIC teaching.. The Pope has clearly exceeded his authority in both changing the Mass and in commanding that the faithful not attend the traditional Mass. There can be therefore, no sin whatsoever in my wife obeying me on this issue.

It would have been perfectly within my right to even use moderate force to make my wife obey on this issue. If my wife had for instance become a Lutheran or a Baptist and was influencing my children to leave the True Faith, Ii could even demand that she leave my home. (On the Pope's part, this would be called Aexcommunication.@) Now, it was out of respect for you and her that I have done otherwise, In attempting to show you. where you are wrong, I have been and am, fighting for the souls of my wife and children, By allowing my children to continue to go to the New Church with its dubious sacraments, and by allowing their souls to be formed by the teachings heard during these services, I not only risk their leaving the Faith ‑ I even risk their rejecting all religion. You cannot deny this statement for you yourself know how; many children of your friends have left the Church, and you have on more than one occasion warned to select carefully which priests say Amass@'. In my Church ‑ the Church of All Tirne it is never necessary to select one's priests with care. They all teach the same doctrine and they all say the same Mass, a Mass about .which no one has raised any doubts. I do not know `whether I shall succeed in keeping my children within the faith, but this I do know; they do not like the New Church with its guitars and its all to human priests; and they do know that the Catholic religion is not the religion they are being exposed to. I doubt if they will be among the seven million children of Catholic parents that no longer identify themselves with the Catholic Church that the' Boystown report describes. (All this is not to imply the absence of the Grace of Gcd or personal prayer on their behalf.)

Now, please understand, I am not saying that everything is bad in the New Church, for like many of the Protestant sects, it still retains some Catholic elenents. My complaint against it is quite specific. It is not Catholic.

The second point relates to the publishing of this discussion. I know of no publifation that has clearly aligned the two positions in this rnanner. I think it important that you realize that your respondent is speaking in your name. This is a the more true in so far as l do not even know his name, When he makes a statement Aonly a teaching which the Church has defined as being part of God's revealed truth cannot be changed,@ he is comcnitting you to these words. Do you believe that there are certain truths that God .has revealed, and which the Church has taught since Apostolic times, but that have not as yet been defined and can therefore be changed? I doubt it, for such is not the teaching of the Church, Do you believe that the Church can change teaching about Apersonal judgment after death?@ Again I doubt it. But your respondent does! Even more, you are a representative of the New Church, and one of its finest representatives. In so far as this Adebate@ is with you, it is an Aofficial@ debate with the New Church. I think it therefore important that you at least read carefully the issues discussed, for these opinions ;will be imputed to you. I have no objection whatever to the fact that another has spoken on your behalf, but if he rejects the teaching of the Syllabus of Errors, and of the Encyclical Mortaliun Animos, `which he clearly does, then you also reject them. I say all this because I have no desire to see you embarrassed at some future time. I would further remind you that in my first letter to you I specified that, regardless of the outcome, I intended to publish this correspondence..

Before going further, let me thank you for the prayer to Our Lady that you have sent and which I can most full‑heartedly say and wil1. For, as Meister Eckhart said, AIt is more worth to God His being brought forth ghostly in the individual virgin or good soul than that He be born of Mary bodily,@ and as Saint Louis de Montfort said Athe more the Holy Spirit finds Mary, His dear and inseparable spouse in any soul, the more active and mighty He becomes in producing Jesus Christ in that soul.@ As St. Ambrose said:

ALet the soul of Mary be in each of us to magnify the Lord, Let the spirit of Mary be in each of us to rejoice in God.@

But let us both remember that prayer, however necessary, does not remove from us the obligation of adhering to the Truth with all our hearts and all our souls, and all our minds and all our strength.

I agree with you that our correspondence has come to the point of Aendless discussion,@ and should perhaps be terminated. I shall of course answer any further issues your respondent raises. We have both however had ample opportunity to express our views and to quote our sources. Whatever side of the Adebate@ we align ourselves with, it has been amply demonstrated that the New Church ‑ the APost‑conciliar@ Church and the traditional Church ‑ or the Church of All Times, are different churches, with different teachings and different rites. I am only in the Church for one reason, to love honor and serve God and to sanctify my soul. This being so, I cannot but choose that Church which manifests all the signs that Christ gave us with which to discern  His Church ‑ UNITY, HOLYNESS, APOSTOLICITY AND CATHOLICITY. It may of course be possible within the New Church to Alove honor and serve@ God, provided that one is< truly unaware that the New Church has separated itself from the Church that Christ founded, just as it may be possible for Protestants who are Ainvincibly ignorant AIt is not possible for anyone who is aware of all that is going on and who by staying in the New Church is doing so with the awareness and knowledge that it has changed the ADeposit of the Faith@ and altered the rites established by Christ Himself. If however we are to remain in different Churches, we can of course continue to love one another and to pray for one another. Please understand ‑ such an attitude implies no judgment of each other's souls, for how can we know the degree of each other's Aawareness and knowledge.@ And even if we are aware and knowing, one must remember that line of T. S. Eliot (an Anglican) AAfter such knowledge, what forgiveness!@

Finally, let me leave you with one last thought. in making a decision, it is not a question of being conservative verses being liberal. As St. Jerome puts it, Aif you wander off the track a bit, it makes no difference whether you veer to the right or to the left: the important thing is that you are not on the right road.@ (Commentary on Matthew). It is really an issue of Orthodoxy verses Heterodoxy: nothing more and nothing less.

With love in the Divine Names of Jesus and Mary, Sincerely

*****

MY RESPONSE TO MOTHER THERESA=S RESPONDENT

I should like to thank your respondent for the time and trouble he has taken in answering my letters. It is a courtesy that has not always been granted to those of us who see the New or Post-conciliar Church as something substantially different from the Catholic Church that has existed throughout history. I shall try in what follows to answer him on a paragraph for paragraph basis and have therefore taken the liberty of numbering his passages.

1  Whi1e I agree with your respondent about an individual's conscience being the proximate norm of rnorality (an issue I never raised), I can in no way accept his contention that my position is in any way based on my private or individual conscience. I made it abundantly clear on page 17 of my initial letter that I took my position because I had an obligation in conscience as a Roman Catholic to do so. I have quoted a great many sources to show that my position is heart and soul a Roman Catholic one..Your respondent may have corrected some of my factual errors, but he has in no way shown that my position is un‑Catholic ‑ not even on a single issue.

For him to suggest that I am Ainvincibly ignorant@ is for him to imply that I am not Catholic. Since there is no point of Catholic faith that I deny, in what pray an I ignorant? He may contend that in rny refusal to Aobey@ the present Pontiff on certain issues (i.e. those that depart frorn the traditional teaching of the Church I am not Catholic. But I have demonstrated with five pages of quotations (in my initial letter) that there are circuinstances in which a faithful Catholic may refuse to obey Pope ‑ indeed, must refuse to obey him. The issue that remalns to be resolved between us is whether the present circumstances are‑ such as to justify my stand or not. He has in no way shown that they are not . He notes that I have a habit of consulting  publications which have taken a stand similar to my own. Since most of the authorities I have chosen to agree with on substantial issues are clearly Catholic (after all, most of my selections from Post‑conciliar authors are to demonstrate how the New Church has departed from the traditional teacilings of the Church), I can only conclude that my Ainvincibility@ shares good and profitable company.

I must also take exception to his suggestion that I may not have exercised Adue diligence@ in forming my conscience, After all, I was a Amember@ of the New Church for many years, and even a rnerber of a parish liturgy committee. (I was invited to become a Deacon as well as AAn Extraordinary minister of the Eucharist@ When 1 became doubtful about the teachirigs of the New Church and began to have doubts about the validity of the New Amass@, I did the only reasonable thing possible. I examined the issue on both sides. I read the writings of those who spoke for and against the changes. I then turned to the traditional theologians of the Church and examined what the Church had taught throughout the ages on the various issues. On all issues were disagreement existed I have chosen as my judge and final arbitrator, the traditional teachings of the Church. What other norm for truth would he have me choose? How else would he have had me act ?

In any event, your respondent's entire first section remains an argument ad hominum, and as such is entirely beside the point. Either the basis for my Adisobedience@is justified or it is not. The dispute is not with me on a personal basis but with the theologians that I quote. If there is anything that I pray God for constantly, it is that I may be purged of all Apersonal@ opinions, except in so far as I make the opinions of the Church of All Times Amy own.@ Personal opinions are luxury that springs from self love, and as St. Catherine of Sienna taught, ASelf love is the principle and foundation of every evil.@

2  I fail to see any connection between my paragraph 4 (second letter) and the Anotae theologica@ that your respondent refers to. I nevertheless do recognize that there are Adistinctions@ and degrees of certitude and indeed think the passage he sent me (taken from Perente's Theologica Fundamentalis) is so significant that I translate most of it: 

ATruths of the (Catholic) faith enjoy different degrees of certitude - whence it follows that diverse theological distinctions (notae) are made.

A) Maximum certitude is to be found in formal dogma which is truth divinely and formally revealed and as such set forth either in the solemn or in the ordinary magisterium. This kind of truth is called fide definita or fide catholica, and to reject it is heresy.

B) Following closely on this is revealed truth, not as yet so defined by the Church, and which is referred to as proxima fidei, and to deny which is promimum haeresi.

C) The third level falls to truth that is virtually revealed (virtualiter revelata), which is to say, it is derived from what is revealed, but with the help of reason (conclusio theologica) or a theological conclusion), Such then are the truths of theological certitude (theologica certa) or pertaining to the faith (ad fidem pertinent), and these are so intimately connected with dogma that to deny them is a theological error or an error in faith (error theologicus seu in fide).

D) Next are the non revealed truths, but truths nevertheless connected with revelation which the opinion of the theologians (sententia theologorum) refer to as communis (common, general, universal, ordinary, usual), and to deny such is termed temerous (temeraria).@

Finally other theological censures are mentioned that range from Aequivocal, deceitful, scandalous to pernicious and dangerous.

Returning to your respondent=s own words, it would seem that his position is that:

AOnly a teaching which the Church has defined as being part of God=s revealed truth cannot be changed. Other teachings can a d o change...@

This is a position that he reiterates in several places such as paragraph 6 on page 26. If I understand him correctly, he has no objection to being in proximum haeresi, or in error theologicua seu in fide, providing nothing of the fide definita is changes. As for myself, to even hold a temerous opinion would be a grave cause for concern.

Finally, your respondent refers me to Pope John XXIII=s introduction to the Council. I am not sure just what passages he refers to but would like to quote one sentence from it which seems most pertinent:

@The greatest concern of the Ecumenical Council is this: that the sacred deposit of Christian doctrine should be guarded and taught most efficaciously...@

I take no exception to this and would point out that if the statements quoted on page 12 of my first letter are true (and they are), then the Second Vatican Council was as traitorous to Pope John as it was to the true Catholic Church. Again, I quote Cardinal Suenens:

AIt is possible to draw up an impressive list of theses which Rome taught in the past and up until yesterday as being the only valid ones, but which the Council Fathers have thrown out.@

3  If my terminology is Aloose@ I can only apologize. I am not a theologian, but a layman and the father of several children. Fortunately, it is not incumbent upon every Catholic to be a theologian - though it is incumbent upon every Catholic to be aware of the issues that divide us and to take a stand upon them. On the other hand, I have shown the passage in question to several individuals, both lay and theologically trained, and they have all stated that my meaning is quite clear.

4  Again, as in 3, my meaning is quite clear. Again, your respondent declares his position that the New Church has not changed any de fide definita propositions and that all other truths that the Church has held and taught, providing they are not de fide definita, are subject to change. If I understand the import of such a position, the New Church can declare that things divinely revealed but not declared de fide can be changed. Such I agree would certainly seem to be the position of the New Church, though I find it hard to believe that anyone would openly declare it. In any event, it would seem to me that such a position is say the least, itself proximum haeresi! In any event, it is a position no faithful Catholic can accept. This is certainly not the teaching of the traditional Church, and if nothing else divided our two positions, this single issue certainly does.

This issue is of some importance because it is precisely on this point that the New Church has declared itself SCHISMATIC and surrendered its claim to UNITY. Let us consider the teaching of the traditional Church taken from Canons 1322, 23, and 24.

AChrist, our Lord entrusted to the Church the deposit of faith, in order that, by the continual assistance of the Holy Ghost, she night preserve the revealed doctrine and expound it faithfully. ll those truths which are contained in the written word of God, or in tradition, and proposed to our belief as divinely revealed either by a solemn proclamation or by the ordinary and universal magisterium of the Church must be believed by Divine and Catholic. faith... It is not enough to eschew heretical depravity, but those errors also must be carefully avoided which more or less closely a
approach heresy.@'

Father Augustine, in his commentary on these canons states:

AThe Deposit of the faith is defined a comprising all the truths which are either implicitly or explicitly contained in the written word of God or in tradition and must be believed as revealed with divine faith.. In a wider sense the deposit of the faith comprises also those truths which, though not revealed, bear such an intimate relation to revealed truths that, without them, the latter could not be, at least easily and fully, preserved, expounded and defended.@

He further continues, with regard to those truths that are not directly and explicitly contained in Revelation, but only virtually (virtualiter) deducted therefrom by logical reasoning, Asome writers have asserted that they must be believed Fide ecclesiastica only... Even the so‑called fides ecclesiastica requires not a mere servile silence, but a real assent, elicited by the will, although the formal reason, the auctoritas Dei loquentis (the authority of God's spoken word) may not be implied

Now, to review our previous discussions: I have stated that Vatican 1I has in effect changed a great many teachings of the Church and given as evidence the complete reversal of its stand on several issues delineated in the Syllabus of Errors. I could of course find evidence that the stand taken in the Syllabus is that which the Church has always taken, and indeed must take if it is not to Adefect@ from its function as guardian of the deposit of the faith, and use the Syllabus as a convenient summary. I have also given quotations from Cardinals Suenens and Willebrands as further evidence. However, it would seem that your respondent grants my contention. Many of these changes (they are Achanges@ and not Adevelopments@) relate to teachings once considered part of the ordinary or universal magisterium, and it would seem that you respondent also concurs in this. His defense is that I cannot show that Vatican II has taught anything that is against de fide definita or against the solemn magisterium I must suppose that he would not hold that active comunicatio in sacris (common worship with heretics) is against de fide defnita even though St. Paul instructed u to @Bear not the yoke with unbelievers,@ and even though it is against the First Commandment in so far as it involves us in a false form of worship. The same comment can be made about Areligious freedom@ which Vatican II teaches is a moral right (not just a legal right) as if God gave man the moral right to be in heresy! (This is not to deny that a non-Catholic can be saved by the power of God if he is in a state of Ainvincible ignorance@ etc., ‑ but if man has a moral right to be invincibly ignorant than you cannot contend that he should use any Adue diligence@ that would interfere with this moral right, and if you believe all that Vatican II teaches about religious freedom, why do you condemn with such intolerance an individual like Archbishop Lefebvre?).

Let me quote a passage from Vatican II:

"The brethren divided from us also carry out many of the sacred actions of the Christian religion. Undoubtedly, in ways that vary according to the condition of each Church or Community, these actions can truly engender a life of grace and can rightly be described as capable of providing access to the community of salvation."

If you believe this, pray tell me why anyone should bother to be a Catholic

Even though I recognize that your respondent will not recognize the binding authority of the Encyclical Mortalium Animos (Pope Pius XI), I shall nevertheless quote it at some length for the sake of traditional Catholics:

"In matters of faith it is not permitted to make a distinction between fundamental and so‑called non‑fundamental articles of faith, as if the first ought to be held by all, and the second, the faithful are free to accept or not. The supernatural virtue of faith has as its formal cause the authority of God the Revealer, which suffers not such a division. ...Therefore, as many as are of Christ give, for example, to the dogma of the Immaculate Conception the same faith they give to the mystery of the August Trinity and they believe in the Incarnation of the Word no differently than they believe in the infallible teaching power of the Pope, in the sense defined by the Vatican Ecumenical Council (I). >Not because the Church has defined and sanctioned truths by solemn decree of the Church at different times, and even in times near to us, are they therefore not equally certain and not equally to be believed. For has not God revealed them all?=@

Further, the Encyclical continues to teach that the Church Ahas the duty to proceed opportune1y in defining points of faith with solemn rites and decrees, when there is a need to declare them to resist more effectively the errors and the assaults of heretics or to impress upon the minds of the faithful clearer and more profound explanations of points of sacred doctrine. However, in this extraordinary use of the teaching authority nothing is invented nor is anything new added to the sum of truths are, at least implicitly, contained in the deposit of divine revelation that was entrusted by God to the Church. Instead points of faith are defined that could by chance still seem obscure to some or truths are established as matters of faith that for the first time were called into question.@ This is the teaching of the Church!

Any way however the New Church wishes to Acut the cake,@ the Syllabus of Errors reflected the  mind of the ordinary and universal teaching magisterium. The idea that the universal ordinary magisterium of the Church can change ‑ especially when it condemns as erroneous a series of heretical propositions, is itself a Aheretical innovation@ (for the Fathers of the Church often couple these two words). Listen to the words of Msgr. Pohle:

AThough we can adduce no express dogmatic definition in support of this thesis (any thesis), it must be accepted as an article of faith, because it ;s taught by the universal magisterium of the Church, which in its turn, voices the manifest teaching of Scripture and Tradition...@

Now, if we are to reject any of the truths of the Catholic faith, we will soon end up by rejecting them all. As Pope Leo XIIl said in his Sapientiae Christian,

Ato refuse to believe in any one of them (points of doctrine) is equivalent to rejecting them all.@

And this clearly follows from your respondent's position, for having rejected some (perhaps I should say many, though not all) of the teachings of the Church, he must also deny the concept that THE CHURCH EVER CONTRADICT HERSELF. To do so is to deny the doctrine of INDEFECTABlLITY. And Further, where is all this to stop? If all the writings of the Popes contained in their Encyclicals (apart from those proclaiming dogma infallibly) are to be considered fair game to the Modernists; and to be considered as of no lasting value (unless they agree with Vatican 11 or the present usurpers), then the same applies to almost everything that the Post‑conciliar Church has proclaimed. You cannot have your cake and eat it. If you claim that at some future time the Church can change the teachings of Vatican II, just as the Second Vatican
Council has changed the teachings of the traditional Church, then pleas explain to me why the so-called truths of Vatican II should have any permanent value to my immortal soul. This concept that THE CHURCH CAN AND DOES CONTRADICT ITSELF in accordance  with the Aneeds of the time,@ or for any other reason you can think up is pure Relativism and Pragmatism. It is plain and simply NOT Catholic. Our Catholic faith is a gift from God. Unlike a Christmas gift, we cannot take it back and exchange it for something we like better. AEvery good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of Lights, with whom there is no change, nor shadow of alteration.@ (James I:17). Where the New  Church teaches the Apostolic faith;.I accept it; what it has changed, I reject. So help me God!

5..GENERAL COMMENT: Before going further, it would be useful for us to consider the issue of the Mass. I shall divide my discussion into two divisions: first, the Words of 
Consecration; and second, the setting in which these words are used. Let us first of all place the formula for the Words of Consecration as taken from the traditional rite,side by side with the new formula taken from the Novus Ordo Missae

.....................................................TRADITIONAL FORM

FOR THIS IS MY BODY .... 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 SlNS.

NOVUS ORDO MISSAE

THIS IS MY BODY WHICH WILL BE GIVEN UP FOR YOU... THIS IS THE CUP OF MY BLOOD OF THE3 NEW AND EVERLASTING COVENANT. IT WILL BE SHED FOR YOU AND FOR ALL MEN SO THAT SINS MAY BE FORGIVEN. DO THIS IN MEMORY OF ME.. (Note in passing that in the vernacular these words are no longer capitalized so that one cannot distinguish them in any way from, the rest Of the Anarrative of the institution@ in which setting they are given.)

Now, your respondent states that Aif the writer (myself) does not prove the INVALIDITY, then he has no ground for asserting that the changes are in the Asubstance.@ In so stating the case, he has either reversed his words, or else he entirely confuses the issue (which I doubt). Clearly, I must show a change in the Asubstantia@ if I would prove invalidity. Actually, I must show even more. To quote St. Thomas Aquinas

"Now it is clear that, if any substantial part of the sacrament form be suppressed, that the essential sense of the words is destroyed; and consequently, the sacrament is invalid.@" (Summa III, Q. 60, Art. 1)

Now, I ask you to turn to page 13 of my second letter. I have quoted Pope Leo XIII to the effect that A"the Church is forbidden to change, or even touch, the matter or form of any sacrament.@ I admit there that you will contend that this is Just an opinion and not de fide definita. I then proceed to give several quotations (including one from the Council of Trent;) which make it clear that Ato the Church there belongs no right whatsoever to innovate anything touching on the substance of the sacraments.@ Even the quotation you refer to several times (Denzinger 931 or the 
I fully agree with your respondent when he says in section 3 of his response that the criteria for judging validity are Amatter, form, subject, minister and intention@ Subject would apply in the Sacrament of Penance or Confession, but is not pertinent to the present discussion.

Let us first of all discuss the issue of Form. Form refers to the form‑ula or sequence of words used. Among the 76 different forms used in the different known liturgies (current or ancient, and in many languages) that are recognized as Valid, great similarity persists. Some have the phrase Awhich will be given up for you,@ and other omit the phrase Arnysteriun1 fidei.@ The other differences are minor. In the Roman Church the traditional form used has been fixed since time immemorial. The sequence of words are said to have been given us by Christ in specie ‑ that is in minute detail. (The words :msterium fidei were added, according to Tradition, by the Apostles, an addition that was entirely within their function to make ‑ and this fact perhaps explains why these two words are not to be found in all the 76 known Aforms@.) This form has been fixed since Apostolic times and definitely determined since the so‑called Armenian decree of the Ecumenical Council of Florence. This form has never in any way been dependent upon Scripture. As Cardinal Manning said:

AWe neither derive our religion from the Scriptures, nor does it depend upon them. Our faith was in the world before the New Testament was written.@

Indeed, even the reference your respondent suggests as authoritative, namely Jungmann=s The Mass of the Roman Rite, teaches us that the Form of the Roman Canon dates back to pre‑Biblical times. As Jungmann says:

AIn al the known liturgies the core of the eucharistia, and therefore of the Mass, is formed by the narrative of the institution and the words of consecration. Our very first observation in this regard is the remarkable fact that the texts of the account of institution, among them in particular the most ancient (whether as handed down or as reconstructed by comparative studies), are never simply a Scripture text restated. They go back to pre‑Biblical tradition. Here we face an outgrowth of the fact that the Eucharist was celebrated long before the evangelists and St. Paul set out to record the Gospel story. Even the glaring discrepancies of the Biblical texts themselves regarding this very point are explained by this fact. For in them we evidently find segments from the liturgical life of the first generation of Christians.@ 

This same form was confirmed as pointed out in my previous letters, by the Council of Trent, and specified at the Council's orders in the Catechism of the Council of Trent.
To change the form of course is not to invalidate the form, even though to do so is to disobey the laws of the Church. This we can show from the teaching of St. Thomas.

AThus in the form of the Eucharist, ‑ for this is My Body, the omission of the word for does not cause the sacrament to be invalid; although perhaps he who makes the omission may sin for, negligence or contempt@ (Summa III, Q.. 60, Art.8). 

In any event, one thing is clear from what has been so far said. THE NEW AND POST-CONCILIAR CHURCH HAS CHANGED THE FORM OF THE SACRAMENT.. This is a dastardly act whether or not INVALIDITY results. In thus attacking the heart of the Mass, the New Church both declares herself and exposes herself to be a Adespoiler@ of all that is most sacred. My God, in this one act she has presumed to alter the very words traditional ly ascribed to Christ. She has gone against Tradition and Apostolic custom, she has altered the customs and disciplines adhered to by the Fathers of the Church and innumerable saints; she has disregarded the teachings of the Ecumenical Councils (including the Council of Trent); and she has disobeyed innumerable laws and statements to be found in the various organs of the teaching Magisterium. When she is reprimanded she loudly protests that Ait is valid, it is more Scriptural, it is adapted to the needs of modern man and it helps promote unity!@ If the New Church can thus attack the very heart of the Mass, all the other things she is doing by comparison are  minor. Remember however that to attack is not necessarily to destroy, and with this she could hardly remain satisfied.

We will consider next the issue of SUBSTANTIA. '@What then is the substance of the form of the Sacrament of the Eucharist. According  to St. Thomas:

@Some have maintained that the words 'This is the Chalice of My Blood' alone belong to the substance of the form, but not those words which follow. Now this seems incorrect, because the words that follow them are determinations of the predicate, that is, of Christ's blood; consequently they belong to the integrity of the expression. And on this account others say more accurately that all the words which follow are of the substance of the form down to words >As often as ye shall do this.= (but not including these words for the priest puts down the chalice when he comes to them ‑ writer). Hence it is that the priest pronounces all the words, under the same rite and manner, holding the chalice in his hands.@ (Summa III, Q. 78, Art. )

Most theologians of the Church agree with this position, namely that the form of the sacrament has been fixed since time immemorial, and that the substance includes all of the above specified words. Admittedly there are some such as St. Bonaventura and Cajetan who hold that AThis is the chalice of My Blood@' would suffice for Validity though it should be noted in passing that when Pope Saint Pius V ordered the works of Cajetan to be published, he also ordered that this opinion (and only this opinion) should be struck from them. Furthermore, even the Cajetan thomists admit that these latter words (i.e. Awhich shall be shed for you and for many...@) do indeed belong to the substance of the form, even though they deny their necessity for Validity. That is to say, they distinguish between what is of the substance and what is of the essence. Hence they assert that while these latter words are not essential for the validity of the Sacrament, they are nevertheless necessary for the integrity or completeness of the form, and therefore belong to the substance. It would appear then, that the New Church has not only attacked and changed the Form of the Sacrament; it has also altered the Substance! In doing so it adds injury to insult. in doing so however it still has not destroyed potential validity. (I say Apotential@ because, like your
respondent, I recognize that Minister, Intention and matter must be considered also.) And such an act is clearly il1icit, for it goes against the Laws of the Church and as such is contrary to the will   of God.

Despite all this, I still hear the voice of your respondent crying out AYou have not yet proved any INVALIDITY!@ And I agree. In order to show invalidity, I must show that the alterations in the substance of the form ALTER THE MEANING. The mind of the Church is quite clear on this as is shown by the Catechism of the Council of Trent and by Chapter V of De Defectibus (the official rubrics accompanying St.. Pope Pius V's Roman Missal) where it states:

AIf anyone omits or changes anything in the form of consecration of the Body and Blood, and in this change of words, the words do not mean the same thing, then he does not effect the Sacrament. If words are added which do not alter the meaning, then the sacrament is valid, but the celebrant commits a mortal sin in making such an addition.@

It would appear then that Amerely@ altering the substance, that is omitting a word or a phrase from the substance of the form (or adding one) would not per se invalidate the Sacrament. Only if the change in the substance altered the meaning does INVALIDITY result. This is also the opinion of St. Thomas.

Ain the sacraments, the words produce an effect according to the sense which they convey... we must see whether the change in words destroys the essential sense of the words because then the Sacrament is clearly rendered invalid@ (Summa, III, , Q. 60, Art; 8)

To this point we have on1y shown that the Form and Substance of the sacrament have
been changed. We have not shown that the meaning has been altered. .This perhaps explains why
the Church has never denied the validity of variant forms that for instance omit the words mysterium fidei. Now it becomes incumbent upon me to show that the change of words Adestroys the essential sense of the words.@

As St. Thomas states, AThe words which follow >'This is My body... This is My blood,= are determinations of the predicate.@ Thus, if the priest were to say AThis is My body and I mean by this statement a symbol and not the reality,@ clearly he would not consecrate because the second phrase would alter the meaning of the predicate. In the Novus Ordo Missae, the substitution of the words Afor all men;@ in place cf Afor many@ clearly alters the meaning of the predicate and thus Athe essential sense of the words is destroyed.@ This being so, according to the opinion of St. Thoms, it follows that ATHE SACRAf1ENT IS CLEARLY RENDERED INVALID.@

Now, as I anticipated in my second letter, you will argue that Amany@ means Aall,@ or something along these lines. You will say that philological studies prove there was no such word for Aall@ in Aramaic, or that when Christ said Amany,@ He really meant Aall.@ I have heard all these arguments and have checked the philological reference you give in section 30 (Zerwick, Analysis Philologica Novi Testamenti Graeci). And to all this I say Arot.@ Even a child can distinguish between the meaning of Aall@ and Amany@. None of the 76 forms of the Words of Consecration known to us use this mistranslation (or more correctly, FORGERY) and they are to be found in a wide variety of languages. The first Ascholar@ to suggest such a foolish falsification of Scripture and Tradition was, as far as I can tell, Joachim Jeremias, and it is this individual that ICEL (AThe international Committee for English in the Liturgy@) cites as its authority on this point. Needless to say, Dr. Jeremias was a Protestant. Does your respondent really believe that the Apostles and the early saints were not intelligent enough to understand the distinction? As far as I know, even the new translations of Scripture have not changed any of the manys into alls, hut does your respondent really believe that the AVulgate translation from which our Latin texts come is not as clear as it could be@ in this simple issue? After all, as St. Thomas tells us (quoting De. Consecr.) AJames the brother of the Lord according to the flesh, and Basil, Bishop of Caesarea, edited the rite of celebrating the Mass" (Summa III, Q. 83, Art. 4). I enclose as Appendix 1 a discussion on this issue by Patrick Henry Omlor which will provide the reader with an excellent philological analysis of the question.

Returning to more serious things, to understand how all men changes the sense of the words one must understand the difference between Efficacy and Sufficiency. It is a truth of our Faith that Christ died for all men without exception. AAnd He is the propitiation of our sins: and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world@ (1 John ii:2). Thus his act has sufficiency. It is also a truth that not all men are saved, but some indeed suffer eternal damnation, and hence it follows that the efficacy or effectiveness of Christ's act is not communicated to all men, but only unto those who are actually saved. This is why St. Thomas states in Summa III, Q. 78, Art. 3 and elsewhere that for all men was NOT used, and for many was. Such was hardly a Aslip of the tongue@ or a casual opinion, for the same point is clearly expressed by the Catechism of the Council of Trent, by St. Alphonsus Liguori and by Pope Benedict XIV. Your respondent can argue that this opinion is not de fide definita, but he cannot show any contrary opinion that is de fide, and he cannot defend any contrary opinion from the traditional theologians of the Church. This opinion of St Thomas expresses the constant and continuous mind of the Church. And if your respondent wishes to throw out everything in this Catechism that is not de fide definita then clearly he and I are not in the same Church. (The pertinent passages from the Catechism of the Counctl of Trent and from the works of St Alphonsus Liguori are quoted on pages 19 and 20 of my second letter.)

At various points in his latest letter your respondent suggests that the only thtng that is ESSENTIAL to validity are the essential words AThis is my body...This is my blood.@ Certainly, I agree that they are essential and indeed one could prove the point, for these words are present in all 76 forms of the Sacramental form known to us. To state that they are alone essential (for Validity is at best a mere theological opinion, and a doubtrul one at that. Hence in the practical order it would be sinful to use these words alone as a AForm,@ for one cannot use a doubtful form when one knows  a certain one. In any event, the Novus Ordo does not use this form in isolation, but in circumstances where the secondary clause is a determinant of the predicate. To argue that the Novus Ordo retains what is essential by keeping these words is as false as to say that a person who states AHe does not believe in God@ is not an atheist because statement contains the words AHe does... believe in God!@ No wonder then that the theologians teach AOmit nothing of the form, add nothing, change nothing, beware of transmuting, corrupting, or interrupting the words." (J.I. Herve's Manuale TheologicaeDogmatica).

It might help us to see the seriousness of all this if we consider for a moment the MATTER of the Sacrament. The matter refers to the bread and wine, the material that is transubstantiated.

AIn the sacraments determinate sensible things are required which are as the sacramental matter, much more is there need in them (the sacraments) of a determinate form of words.@ (Summa III,  Q. 60, Art. 7),

Now the matter of the sacrament is at least as important as the form. I wonder what your respondent's reaction would be to the changing of the MATTER. Perhaps, wine getting more expensive and difficult to obtain, we should use coca‑cola! As long as the New Church were to mandate such a change of wine to coca‑cola Alegally,@ I cannot see why it would in any way disturb him.

(I discuss INTENTION at a later point in this letter, and assume that we can agree that by MINISTER we mean a properly ordained priest. However, perhaps I should specify a properly ordained priest I do not mean an Anglican or a Lutheran minister.)

SUBJECT refers to the Recipient as in Confession, the person who receives absolution. Since in the Sacrament of the Eucharist no recipient other than the priest is essential, SUBJECT need not be discussed..

From all that we have said, it follows that when the Words of Consecration in the Novus Ordo Missae are said in Latin, no essential change in meaning is necessarily present. Hence, providing the intention, minister and matter are appropriate, and providing the minister understands and means many when he says multis, and disregarding for the present the setting within which these words are said, Consecration may well occur. When however these words are said in the vernacular (I can speak from experience only of English, Italian, German and French), one can in justice, be most doubtful as to whether any consecration whatsoever occurs. Remember, one cannot knowingly use a doubtful form when one knows the certain one. And, may I ask, how often are we given the Novus Ordo in Latin? AOver my dead body,@ as our local pastor said to a group of that requested it‑ because of this issue!

The charge of invalidity of the Novus Ordo is a very great charge indeed, yet it is one that has been constantly made since the new service was promulgated some nine years ago. Your respondent cannot refute this accusation. In practice, THE VERY RAISING OF QUESTIONS OR DOUBTS ABOUT THE VALIDITY OF A GIVEN MANNER OF CONFECTING A SACRAMENT, IF THIS QUESTION IS BASED ON AN APPARENT DEFECT OF MATTER OF FORM ‑ WOULD NECESSITATE THE STRICT ABSTENTION FROM USE 'THAT  DOUBTFUL MANNER OF PERFORMING THE SACRAMENTAL ACT, UNTIL THE DOUBTS ARE RESOLVED. The same statement would apply pari pasu to the laity receiving the doubtful sacrament. IN CONFECTING THE SACRAMENTS, ALL PRIESTS ARE OBLIGED TO FOLLOW THE AMEDIUM CERTUM@

Finally, let me also note in passing that none of the changes made in the Mass by Paul Vl are de fide definita. He made this quite clear in his Allocution of Nov. 26, 1969.

************

THE SETTING IN WHICH THE WORDS OF CONSECRATION ARE USED

As I have said above, in Latin, the Words of Consecration (tn the Novus Ordo) may under certain circurnstances be valid. The setting in @which the priest consecrates however, is by no means an idle or irrelevant issue. Again, let us listen to the Angelic Doctor:

AAccordingly, it must be held that if the priest were to pronounce only the aforesnid words (the Words of Consecration) with the intention of consecrating the sacrament, this sacrament would be valid because the intention would cause these words to be understood as spoken in the person of Christ, even though the words are pronounced without those that preceed. The priest however would sin gravely in consecrating thus as he would not be observing the rite of the Church.@
>' (Summa III, Q. 78. Art. 1).

The setting then in which the priest uses these words becomes important. Thus, to take an extreme example, a priest who desired to consecrate in a completely sacrilegious context such as a ABlack Mass,@ would hardly be intending to Ado what‑the Church intends,@ and hence the validity of the Consecration would be most doubtful. Similarly, if a priest were to say the Lutheran service in which the words of Institution (i.e. of Consecration) are to be found, he would be committing a sacrilege and the consecration would be at best extremely doubtful. The setting then is most important and must be examined with care to be sure that it is appropriate..

Of course sacrilege has become so common in the New Church that it is almost Anormative,@ a statement that can be verified by going to the Novus Ordo in almost any parish in Europe or America. Te laity have become so inured to gross acts of disrespect shown to the Sacred Species that they no longer even react to things that 20 years ago would have created a riot. Of course your respondent will admit that such sacrileges do occur, but he will claim that they are Aabuses.@ While I believe that they are the natural consequence of all the changes that the New. Church has force down the throats of the laity, I will not argue the point. I do however wish to raise a specific issue: namely DO THOSE PRIESTS WHO CONSECRATE IN LATIN, WITHIN THE FR0MEWORK OF THE NOVUS ORDO MISSAE, COMMIT A SACRILEGE? I realize of course that many of them act in good faith and that as such no sacrilege can be personally imputed to them. Sacrilege is, according to the words of St. Thomas Aquinas quoted by the Catholic Encyclopedia, Athe irreverent treatment of sacred things,@ In his discussion of sacrilege, St. Thomas makes several distinctions, and notes that since the Eucharist is the most sacred possession of the Church; sacrilege with regard to this sacrament is Aa most heinous sin.@ (Summa III. Q. 80, Art 5.) In view of a11 that can be said about the New Ersatz Canons, and the virtually verbatim imitation of the liturgies of the various heretical sects that reject the doctrine of Transubstantiation, and indeed at heart hate the Church itself, I think an excellent case can be made for the charge.

Let us for a moment examine the setting in which the New Words of Consecration (or the ANarrative of the Institution@ as the Novus Ordo ambiguously refers to them. The following is taken from Father Wathen's book The Great Sacrilege. I apologize for the length of the quotation, but I cannot phrase the topic better.

AIn order to concentrate on the words in question, I am taking no notice or the many gestures of too- poor reverence, purposeful silence, the ineffable intimacy, the awe-inspired deliberateness, that the Missale Romanum requires of the tremulous celebrant, all of which are regarded as archaic, anti-social, and in bad taste by the Adesacralizers.@  

Before all else, it must be understood that the Qui Pridie and  the Form of Consecration in the True Mass are neither singly nor taken together, a mere narration of the event of Last ` Supper. The Qui Pridie is the setting and the preparation for pronouncement of the Consecration formula, as well as the prayer wherein the celebrant bears witness to the essential unity of the institution of the Sacrament with the Sacrifice of the Cross. Fr. Joseph Jungmann points out that all liturgies do the same:

AIt is in the very, nature of the Christian liturgy of the Mass that the account of the institution of the Blessed Sacrament should not be recited as a merely historical record, as are other portions of the Gospels. Indeed, the words of the account are spoken over the bread and a chalice, and, in accord with our Lord's word, are uttered precisely in order to repeat Christ's action. This repetition, is, in fact accomplished in all its essentials by rehearsing the words of the account of the institution.@

In the Qui Pridie, the Last Supper is mentioned to remind us of the priest's intention of repeating that act by which Christ transubstantiated the bread and wine, so that He might give His Apostles His Body and Blood. When He accomplished this marvelous miracle, the Sacrifice of Calvary was made sacramentally present there in the Upper Room. When the priest at Mass accomplishes the same ineffable wonder, the Body and Blood of Christ become present on the altar. If no transubstantiation took place during the Mass, it would be nothing more than a sentimental  memorial of the Last Supper, and imply that the Last Supper itself was nothing more than a dramatic and sorrowful going‑away banquet which Christ ate with the Twelve.

The Form of Consecration is not consiclered to be a prayer of the priest. Rather, it is the evocation of a direct and, most glorious act from God Himself. Through his pronunciation of the Consecration 

Form, the priest's humanity and individuality become identified with the  infinite power and redemptive intention of Christ on the Cross. At this point, the priest speaks as it he were Christ Himself, and Christ acts through the priest=s will and words both as the Consecrator and the Oblation., the Eternal High‑Priest and the saving Victim, the supreme Mediator. and the mutual Gift.

In the Epiclesis of the True Mass (again, I remind you, this is the prayer which begins, AQui pridie@), the obvious emphasis is on the fact that the priest intends to do what Christ did at the Last Supper, namely, consecrate the offerings, change them. into the Body and Blood of the Savior. In the AEpiclesis@ of the ANew Mass@ the emphasis has been obviously and unmistakably shifted, even though the words used are generally the same. Here there is nothing left to indicate that the Apresident@ is actually consecrating. or intends to. Traditional‑minded Catholics presume he is doin~ so; perhaps he also presumes he is doing so -  although, again, perhaps he does not; you cannot be certain While everyone is doing all this presuming, what is really happening is that the the  Apresident,@" is merely telling what happened at the Last Supper. Nor is he telling of the transubstantiation oi the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Our Lord; he is telling of the eating and drinking of bread and wine.

Let us 1ook closely at the English of the ANew Mass@: The Latin text of the ,@Narratio@ (in the ANew Mass@) has three sentences; its faulty translation has six. (keep in mind that during a vernacular Amass,@ it makes no difference what the Latin has!)

The simple device of dividing, the text into shorter sentences not only reduces it to nothing, more than a narrative, but also, changes the meaning, of the words, as we shall see. The first sentence contains a reference to the suffering of Christ (the Latin words Agratias agens,@ let me mention in passing, do not mean Ahe gave... thanks and praise,@ but, Agiving thanks@). Then the second sentence is entirely new: A"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.@ Perhaps do not see the ambiguity. In the True Mass, the priest says, ATake and eat ye all of this, FOR THIS IS MY BODY.@ The omission of the Word Afor,@ (in the Latin, "enim"), and the stopping of the sentence with the colon, make the this and it of the faulty translation refer to their antecedent bread. This ambiguity does not exist in the Latin of the "Novus Ordo" because Ahoc@ is both the neuter and singular and can refer only to the neuter, singular noun, "Corpus" ("Body").

The identical distortion is committed in the fourth sentence with reference to the wine. This sentence reads: AAgain 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." Here again the Latin word, Aenim@ ("for") is not translated; a colon is put in its place. The result is that the clauses of the sentence are  separated completely. The words this and it refer to the wine, to the "cup of my blood."

Now consider how the "Narratio" in the "Novus Ordo" is printed. (We are referring to the Latin text.) The words AACCIIPITE ET MANDUCATE EX HOC OMNES@  (ATake this, all of you, and eat it") are given the same bold capitalization as the words of consecration, AHOC EST ENIM CORPUS MEUM@ (Athis is my body...."). It is the same. with the words AACCIPITE ET BIBITE EX EO OMNES:@ (''Take this, all of you, and drink fromn it:@), as also with the words which in liturgical terms are called the Anamnesis: AHOC FAClTIE IN MEAM COMMEMORTIONEM@ ( ADo this in memory of me.") The reason for this bold and enlarged capitals in the Missale Romanum of St. Pius V is the need to separate them from the Epiclesis and the Anamnesis, and to indicate that they are the Form of Consecration. This very. purpose is undeniably negated in the ANovus Ordo,@ instead, and this is most important, the capitalization of the words which speak of taking and eating, taking and drinking have their double effect of fusing the words of consecration  into the‑ "Narratio,"or Narration, and, at the same time, of heightening the importance of the idea of eating and drinking of - not, mind you - the Body and Blood of Christ, but of the bread wine, 
As we shall see when we discuss the apparently innocuous change of the words of the Anamnesis, AHaec quotiescumque feceritis, in mai memoriam facietis@ (AAs often as ye shall do these things, ye shall do them in remembrance of Me@) to HOC FACITE IN MEAM COMMEMORATIONEM@ (ADo this in memory of me:), the effect is the very same. And that effect is the complete eradication of the Form of Consecration.

This typography is truly  radical. Nor can it be the result of the printer's caprice or oversight; it corresponds exactly with the Awishes@ of Pope Paul VI himse1f as he expressed them in his Adecree@ Missale Romanum. Allow me to quote them in their context: 

AHowever, for pastoral reasons, and  in order to facilitate  concelebration, we have ordered that the words of the Lord ought to be identical in each formlary of the Canon. Thus for each Eucharistic Prayer, we wish that the words be pronounced thus: over the bread: Accipite et manducate ex hoc omnes; Hoc est enim Corpus meum,quod pro vogbis tradetur; over the chalice: Accipite et bibite ex eo omnes; Hic est enim calix Sanguis mei novi et aeterni testamenti, qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum. Hoc facite in meam commemorationem.@ [The Pope=s italics!] (Appendix II, par. 6).

The reader will observe that the pope is careful not refer to the words quoted above as the AForm of Consecration,@ instead they are described as Athe words of the Lord,@ which must  mean the words of the Lord as they are quoted  in the ANarratio,@  the account of the Lord=s Supper. Neither here nor anywhere else in his Apostolic Constitution does the Pontiff refer to the mystery of Transubstantiation. From the`beginning  to end, his main emphasis is on the Areadings@ of the new AMissal,@ with which the people will Anourish themselves day by day.@

Pope Paul says, AWe have ordered that the words of the Lord ought to be, etc.@ How is that the Pope may order what the Awords of the Lord ought to be?@

Few seem to have noticed the two main reasons the Pope gives for so radical an alteration in  the very center of the Amass,@ but they are there, big as life, Afor pastoral reasons, and in order to facilitate concelebration.@ How many people know to this day wat these Apastoral reasons@ are, and how the complete emasculation of the Form of Consecration serves to Afacilitate concelebration?@ Perhaps it will help if they recall that the word Apastoral@ in the code language of the Revolution means, Afor the people,@ that is, Afor the sake of the >Renewal= or the Revolution itself.@ Again, the  abandonment of the Form of Consecration and its reduction to a  mere narrative can only be understood by realizing that, in many Aconcelebrated >masses=@ many of the Aconcelebrants,@ both ACatholic@ and Protestant, certainly do not believe in the power of Transubstantiation. Thanks to this Aslight@ adjustment they may use any of the four AEucharistic Prayers@ without the risk of such a marvel occurring.

There is one further argument against the abandoning of the traditional Canon of the Roman Church, and that is that it is an abandonment of Atradition.@ To make this point with quotations would take several pages and still not convince a modernist ‑ it is however to me an important point.
.
I am sure of course that your respondent will consider Tradition to be only a matter of dogmatic statement. He will argue that other things such as the customs practices institutions precepts and disciplines of the Church are not strictly speaking Aimmutable Tradition.@ This position is parallel to his attitude that only things declared de fide definita are unchangeable. Such a  restriction on the use of the word Tradition is of relatively recent origin, and as Cardinal Tixeront says in his History of Dogmas, states: the word Tradition in its primitive sense implies Ateaching and custom transmitted by word of mouth or practice.@ Such an attitude is also to be found in the Canons of the Ecumenical councils ‑ Alet everything that conflicts with ecclesiastical tradition and teaching, and that has been innovated and done contrary to the examples outlined by the saints and venerable Fathers, or that shall hereafter at any time be done in such a fashion, be anathema@ (Seventh Ecumenical Council)  Even the Council of Trent states Atruth and discipline are contained in the written books and in the unwritten traditions.@ And what is meant by Adiscipline?@ Let us turn to St. Thomas Aquinas who quotes Pope Galasius to the effect Athat most holy rite (the Mass) which contains the Catholic discipline...@ (Summa III, Q. 82, Art. 6) Finally we have the words of Christ Himself: AGoing therefore, teach ye all nations.. te,aching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you ...@ (Matthew xxviii:20) Now clearly you do not Aobserve@ a dogma, you observe a custom, and Christ not only gave us the Words of Consecration, but performed several actions such as A"breaking the bread@ and Aelevating the Chalice.@

I do not wish to get into a debate about what Tradition constitutes. However you wish to define and sub-define the term, the New Amass@ is against Revelation (it changes the very words of Christ);It is against divine and divine-It is against divine and divine-Apostolic Tradition for it has changed the customs and manner of acting that the Apostles instituted (In the traditional Canon, some of the actions and prayers are of Apostolic origin. Since we are are not sure which ones, it is best to observe them all); It has changed what Cardinal Bellarmine would call the A matter@" as well as the A"form@ of Tradition (De Verbo Dei); It has changed what Carinal Franzelin would term Aobjective@ and Aactive@ Tradition (De Devina Traditione); It has changed what other theologians would call constitutive and continuative Tradition. It has certainly changed what every theologian would call Ecclesiasticlal Tradition. Now the Council of Nicaea states that Aanyone who does not accept the whole of the Church=s tradition, both written and unwritten,!@ To abandon our traditions is for a faithful Catholic a most heinous crime - it is certainly a prima facia example of Athe irreverent treatment of sacred things@ which is the definition of Sacrilege. To do this is nothing short of spiritual suicide. Consider for the moment the conciliar quotations given above, and the words of Paul VI:

AIt is necessary to know how to welcome with humility and an interior freedom what is innovative; one must break with the habitual attachment to what we used to designate as the unchangeable tradition of the Church...@ (La Croix, Sept. 4, 1970)

To be an Auntraditional@ Catholic is to be no Catholic at all!

This is the end of my Ageneral comments,@ and we now return to a paragraph by paragraph discussion of the issues

******

5 The question of VALIDITY has been discussed above. Your respondent refers to Denzinger C.931 on several occasions as giving the Church the right to make changes in the mass. Let us examine this passage. Denzinger 931 is Chapter II of the XXI Session of the Council of Trent and deals with the issue of the dispensation of the sacraments.‑: I shall quote the pertinent passage:

Ait furthermore declares that this power has ever been in the Church, that in dispensation of the sacraments (italics mine), their substance being untouched (nota bene) it may ordain, or change, what things soever it may judge most expedient, for the profit of those who receive, or for the veneration of the said sacraments, according to the difference of circumstances, times and places...@

As your respondent holds that this passage permits the Church to legally change anything it wants in the Mass, I not only give this passage, but in Appendix II the entire chapter. It will become clear from reading the entire chapter, and from reviewing the Canons with anathemas attached to them, that the entire issue under discussion was that of whether it was necessary for salvation for Catholics to receive communion under both species. Against the teaching of Hus and others, it makes it quite clear that such is not the case, and also makes it clear that Christ, Awhole and entire... is received under the one species of bread,@ I have never raised this issue and in no way deny the right of the Church to legislate in such issues. Indeed, when I go to the Ukranian Uniate Mass, I receive under both species (as this privilege has been available in this rite since it was established by St. Chrysotom).

6  Your respondent, instead of admitting that there is not one prayer in the NOVUS ORDO MISSAE  that is of more ancient usage than the traditiona1 Roman Canon, implies that I .have not done my homework, Now, I have read a great many books on the history of liturgy in my attempt to understand the changes, among them Jungmann's THE MASS OF THE ROMAN RITE. Indeed; I make reference to Jungmann's latest posthumous book on the New Mass in my correspondence. The other two books he lists are only available in Italian at the largest seminary on the Eastern seaboard, and hence I have not read them. However, I have read all or parts of some sixty texts on this subject. I do not consider myself an expert, but think I can speak of the issues with some intelligence. Further, I have giver more than ample recognition of the Adeve1opments@ (not Achanges@) that have occurred throughout history in the Mass on page 3 of my second letter. I have also discussed the difference between Achange@ and Adevelopment@ on 
page 26 of my second letter.

7..With regard to his statement that Avirtually all the changes introduced... are re‑introductions of ancient usages,@ I consider this a falsehood. Before we consider such superficial things as to whether the priest should speak loudly or softly, let us consider the prayers that hee says. The core of the Mass ‑ any Mass ‑ must remain the prayers said, and not the accidental ceremonies that surround the prayers. Now, I have challenged your respondent before, and I again challenge him. Show me one prayer (not a section of a prayer since phrases when not offensive to modernistic or Protestant theologians ‑ are retained) ‑ one prayer that is a return to ancient practice.

Under the excuse of Asimplification of format@ significant phrases are altered or left out and meanings distorted. By means of the Ause of the vernacular@ gross mistranslations of even the Latin form of the Novus Ordo are introduced (see section 11 of this letter for an example). As to saying the Eucharistic prayer aloud, before the introduction of the microphone, the laity never were able to hear them anyway. (Canon IX of Session XXII of the Council of Trent does not forbid him to say them aloud, but does state that a priest cannot be condemned for saying then  Ain a low tone.@ I have never objected to triple readings ‑ the faithful can read the Bible any time they wish either in or out of Church. I have not objected to Athe prayers of the faithful@ (an addition and not a deletion; not possible to fix and hence never part of the Canon, and certainly the faithful prayed at Mass before the Novus Ordo, nor to the offertory processions (that occur outside of the Canon), As to communion under both species, clearly as discussed in section 5 above, this is also not a problem in se.

I am glad that at least your respondent and I can agree that the Roman Canon itsel is ancient, and even here we both agree that the Popes have added certain phrases. (Again, addition is not deletion.) Thus according to Monsignor Duchesne's researches, St. Gregory added to the prayer Hanc Igitur the phrase Diesque nostros in tua pace disponas, atque ab aeterna damnatione nos eripi et in electorum tuorum jugeas grege numerari and St. Leo added the phrase Sanctum Sacrificium immaculatam hostiam (440-461) to the form in use at the time of St. Damasus (365‑384). Finally, lest we overlook the issue, let me admit that there have been four minor changes in the traditional Mass even after the Quo Primum of Pope Saint Pius V was promulgated ‑ but changes OUTSIDE THE CANON, and of no great significance.

With regard to the issue of the Arenewed rites@ being written with the aid of six non-Catholics, let me first of all admit and apologize for not going back to the original documentation in the 0. This original is unavailable in either the Fordham University Library or in the Library of Dunwoodie Seminary (the largest seminary in the East). It is also unavailable as yet from the Library of Congress. A friend is trying to obtain it for me from Europe and if successful, I shall include it in the Appendix.

In any event, I never stated that the non-Catholics were members of the Concilium, but only that they aided in writing the Novus Ordo. I thank your respondent for calling my attention to Notitia 1974, pgs.. 249-252, which mirabie dictu proves my contention I enclose a copy of this item as Appendix 111 for the reader to peruse. It would appear that their formal contribution was minimal. Let me quote a few passages from this document: Athey were the first to arrive (at the meetings they attended) and the last to leave the room; they were always pleasant, polite and spoke rarely (parchi di parole)... they always conducted themselves with an unparalled discretion. They intervened in no discussions but only raised points of order (mal chiesero la parola).@ They may not have contributed to the Eucharistic prayers, but their opinion was clearly sought out in other areas and they were asked to address the Concilium on certain issues. One thing comes through clearly: the members of the Concilium were deeply concerned with producing a liturgy that would be pleasing to these heretical observers. One can almost see the members of the Concilium Achopping up@ the significant sections of the traditional Mass, and looking up to the observers for approval - and the observers smiling back their encouragement.

Now, I myself have been involved in Symposia in my surgical specialty in which parallel situations have occurred. Consultants who have only a to a minimum participated in the formal aspect of such symposia often spend entire evenings discussing with the formal participants the issues involved. Such discussions can often have a formidable influence upon the actual decisions taken. Even if such cannot be conclusively proven, their participation, however minimal, is clear. It rather reminds one of the invitation to the Russian Communists to be Aobservers@" at Vatican II. Since they have made clear their avowed intention of burying us, why not put shovels into their hands. Can anything he more absurd than to invite those who deny the possibility of the Transubstantiation to be observers at the writing of a service that presumably commemorates this most splendid of God's gifts.

In any event, I do not see this as a critical issue. Certainly, it is scandalous However the New Church has no need of Protestants to help them produce and support (with the donations of the faithful) a most luxuriant crop of heretics. (I am referring now not to` the Mass per se, but to the innumerable theologians in official teaching positions in the New Church, and to any other priest who, while not believing in the full teaching of the Church, and who fails to proclaim this teaching, accepts food and clothing and shelter from those who in essence give the money to Christ.)

8  I strongly object to your respondent placing in quotation marks the statement that Athe Mass is valid only if the Eucharistic Prayer is ancient,@ as these are neither my words, nor my contention. I fully agree with the respondent's statement about form matter, minister, subject (where appropriate) and intention being the criteria for validity as shown in section 5 above. It is true that I use the word Aantiquity,@ but only in the same sense as St. Vincent of Lerins does.

                       AThe antiquity was retained, the novelty was exploded.@(Commonit., 1:6)

9 I strongly object to your respondent stating that my position is that Athe new rites were written with the aid of six non-Catholics and are therefore invalid.@ In so stating the case, he creates a "straw man," and then  proceeds to burn it. Moreover, it is a technique that allows him to avoid the real issues. Thus in the paragraph in question he avoids discussing the terrible statement of Paul VI to the effect that in  Novus Ordo, its perpetrators:

ARe-edited in a new manner liturgical texts tried and tested by long usage or established formulas which are completely new...(thus) imparting greater theological value to the liturgical texts so that the lex orandi conformed better with the lex credendi.@

As I noted then, and again note, either the Pope is stating that the Lex credendi has changed, or that the liturgical texts prior to 1969 did not possess that degree of theological value which was desirable

The fact that the Protestants had anything to do with writing the Novus Ordo is scandalous, but does not per se make the new Amass@ invalid. If however the new Amass@ teaches false doctrine (if the lex credendi or manner of our believing has been changed), then its use by the priest (and attending it by the laity) becomes an offence against God. The true Church has always rejected the Amass@ of Luther, a Amass@ that contained Avalid@ words of institution, and certainly one that contains the Aessential@ words according to your respondent=s opinion. It rejected it because these words were said in a context that was considered both sacrilegious and heretical. For a priest to intentionally say the Lutheran Amass@ and for him to intend to Consecrate with the Lutheran AWords of Institution@ would be sacrilegious and the mass would not be, despite the use of the words AThis is My body...etc@ in any valid.

What is particularly offensive is that your respondent repeatedly uses this syllogistic technique of misstating my position to avoid the real issues, and that he does so with full awareness. Consider the following passage taken from his letter verbatum:

APage 20, argument 12: Unless the whole canon is preserved, then the Mass is invalid. And the whole canon is not preserved, therefore the new mass is invalid.

COMMENT: (that is, your respondent=s own comment)
AThere is little point in replying, since the writer himself admits, page 21, that this is not true. He has virtually admitted the same thing when he declares that the celebrations of other rites are valid, although their Eucharistic prayers are different from the Roman Canon. Finally, the author has already admitted in the previous argument that provided the essential elements of the sacrament are present, the rite is valid... and he was obviously referring to the words of consecration.@

It would seem that your respondent understands me very well, yet despite this he would misrepresent my position to avoid the issue. My point was, on page 20, argument 12, that should the Church wish to make certain changes in the Mass, they should at least leave the Canon alone, Athat Sacred Canon, so pure from every error, that nothing is contained therein which does not in the highest degree savor of a certain holiness and piety, and raise up unto God the minds of those that offer... composed out of the very words of the Lord, the traditions of the Apostles and the pious institutions also of holy pontiffs@ (Council of Trent, Session XXII).

10  Again, the same straw man. The fact that we are copying the heretics in our liturgical forms is offensive and sacrilegious. It does not per se make the New Amass@ invalid. However, I agree with your respondent on one point he makes here. The Concilium clearly did not share my opinion about Protestant theology and liturgy. (I intend no slur on Protestants as individuals.) Neither did the Second Vatican Council. My obsession is not with Protestantism, but with the Catholic faith. The obsession with Protestantism is the Council's and the Concilium's. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

11  I did not discuss "Eucharistic Prayer" No5. 3 and 4 because your respondent never claimed that they were either traditional nor a return to primitive practice. He only raised the issue with regard to Hippolytus' Prayer or Eucharistic Prayer No. 2. I do not intend to go into these alternative Ersatz Canons in depth as I feel I have made my point several times over and because he will only argue that because I reject these other Canons, therefore the New Mass is invalid. However, I shall give one example from them to show that they are true to the ASpirit of Vatican II@ and the Novus Ordo,@ and that with them also the question (?) of sacrilege can be raised.

Considering the fact that as Jungmann says in his book Handinq on the Faith, Athe entire teaching of the Church is contained in the liturgy,@ and considering the constant teaching of the Church about the nature of the Trinity, let us compare Eucharistic Prayer Number IV with the Traditional Canon.

                                              NOVUS ORDO

Father in heaven, it is right that we ,
It is right that we should give you thanks
and glory; You alone are God, living and true.

                                              TRADITIONAL CANON

It is truly meet and just, right and 
profitable unto salvation, that we
should at all times and in all places
give thanks unto Thee, O holy Lord,
Father Almighty, everlasting God, Who,
with the only begotten Son and the Holy
Ghost, art One God, One Lord not in the
oneness of a single person, but in the 
trinity of One substance...@

Now this is a most instructive piece of skulduggery. In the Latin version of the Novus Ordo the words are AUnus Deus,@ or Aone God... living and true.@ in Latin then, no explicit heresy is taught. However, even in the Latin, the faithful are not clearly taught the doctrine of the Trinity. Your respondent will argue that the doctrine of the Trinity is alluded to in the Creed. Yes I agree, it is alluded to in the Creed, but it is certainly not expressed there with the same precision and clarity of thought. (what a stricking economy of 1anguage is used in our traditional Canon). If Canon IV (i.e. Eucharistic Prayer No. 4) is used, this doctrine is nowhere else taught. However, when we come to the vernacular, the translating of Unus Deus as AYou alone are God@ is not only a mistranslation, but an explicit teaching of HERESY. It is a clear cut denial of the doctrine of the Trinity. (Look up the meaning of Aalone@ in the dictionary Your respondent will claim this is a Asimplification of format.@ Bravo! I have never denied that Protestant theology was more simple. I will even grant your respondent that this teaching is a Areturn to primitive practice.@ Indeed it is, but not to the primitive practice of the Church; only to the primitive practice of the ARIAN HERETICS. Truly, it is meet and just to refer to this Fourth Eucharistic Prayer as the ARIAN CANON - though it is certainly not profitable unto salvation for it to be used.

12  I shall leave it to the reader to compare the two prayers, Eucharistic prayer No. 2 and Hippolytus' prayer. That is why I placed them side by side in my second letter. As to whether the two prayers are Aessentially@ the same, I can do no better than to again quote modern liturgist John Barry Ryan who is on your side, not mine) to the effect that the Second Eucharistic prayer is Aa new creation,@ only superficially based on Hippolytus's original. lease understand, it is not any single specific word change that I object to in these various ersatz Canons - but rather the totality of word changes that essentially change the nature of the entire rite, making it possible to understand it only as Aa sacrifice of praise-and thanksgiving.@ To quote the critique of the Roman theologians (the AOttaviani Intervention@):

"The three ends of the Mass are altered; no distinction is allowed to remain between Divine and human sacrifice; bread and wine are only Aspiritually@ (not substantially) changed... The Real Presence of Christ is never a1luded to and belief in it is implicitly repudiated.@

Yes indeed, as Cardinal Ottaviani (who was prefect or director of the Sacred Congregation for the Faith under three Popes) says, the Novus Ordo A"represents both as a whole and in its details, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass...@" The it that it has Aonly changed a few words here and there@ is patently absurd. First of all as noted on page 10 of my second letter, these Afew" words are in fact somewhere between 70 and 80% of the Mass, and secondly, even with regard to what remnants are left in the  Novus Ordo, the word changes we have discussed above are not without significance. We can argue ad infinitum about individual words, but it is impossible to deny but that the resulting liturgy fails to express the Catholic faith explicitly and openly. Nor can you deny that we are left using a Adoubtful@ form in the Consecration, and that to use a doubtful form when we have a certain one is in itself an aspect of Sacrilege

13  The issue of Afor us@ and its use in the deleted prayer Quam Oblationem is discussed rather thoroughly on page 7 of my second letter. I have nothing further to add to this. With regard to the issue of the Epiclesis, I shall discuss this in section 17 of the present letter,

14  For your respondent to imply' that I feel the New Mass is invalid because the 
concept of thanksgiving is not central to the rite is pore hypocrisy. He has on two occasions accused me of being illogical. His whole attitude to this issue is a series of non sequetors. It is he who initially raised the issue of thanksgiving being Acentral@ to the Mass in his attempt to defend the Novus Ordo which clearly makes the Asacrifice of praise and thanksgiving@ central. It is I who corrected him on this point on page 7 of my second letter (last paragraph), and I shall quote my own passage:

"I concur that the Acentral concept of thanksgiving@ (his phrase) was Christic in origin, but I don't concur that the concept of thanksgiving was central to the institution of the Mass...@ I have never asserted that the new Amass@ was invalid because it is referred to as AEucharist@ i.e. thanksgiving. I an not sure whether your respondent is trying to be sarcastic or humorous, for if he intends neither, he is simply intellectually dishonest. If however, the central concept of the Mass is to be thanksgiving and not the Asacrifice@ of Christ, then the meaning of the Mass is grossly distorted. This one act of distortion may in itself destroy validity. It is however but one of a series of distortions that have resulted in the creation of a monstrosity - truly as Paul VI describes his mass, it is a Amutation@. (c.f. footnote, page ... this letter).

15 Again your respondent distorts my intention along the lines discussed in section 9 of this letter. Really, this type of argument beggars belief. I would expect it from a Loisy or a Turrell, but hardly from someone you would select. Let us review the issue:

I stated in my initial letter that the Novus Ordo was in many, if not in most respects, a skillful blending of the Lutheran and the Anglican liturgies. Your respondent denied this. In my second letter I proved the contention He now distorts the issue by stating that my contention is that ALuther hated the Catholic Mass, therefore the renewed rite is invalid.@ Let us be honest. It was he that wished to defend the Lutheran 1iturgy that is being foisted on us as ACatholic,@ not 1. However, I can at least suggest that Luther would have been pleased with the New Amass@. Certainly he would have been a welcome Aobserver@ at the Concilium, and he would have approved the recent change in the Lutheran service made to bring it into line with the Novus Ordo - for the Lutherans have changed Amany@ into Aall mankind@ in their Words of Institution. Perhaps one could call this an example of AReligious detente@
It is not I, but the New Church, that is obsessed with Luther, as is shown by its avowed intention, as put in the words of Cardina1 Willebrands,@TO REHABILITATE LUTHER!@ If I am obsessed with anything, it is in preserving the fullness of the Faith for myself and for my children - a Azeal for my Father's house,@ and not a zeal for Lutheran-teaching. The New Church cannot claim a unity with Aour separated brethren,@ simultaneously with a unity with the Apostles. And we, the laity, cannot serve two masters.

16..Again, your respondent distorts the issue. After all, it was he that claimed that the sacrificial nature of the new Amass@ was clearly shown by the phrase AQuod pro vobis...@ (see his first letter, page 3, paragraph 6), words which the Novus Ordo has added to the traditional form of the Words of Consecration. While this addition doesn't change the meaning in se of the words, it is also clear that no Catholic theologian has ever claimed that this phrase was Asubstantia.@ I do not deny that St. Paul said these words, or that they are to be found in other forms of the Words
of Consecration. The point I made in my second letter is that Luther who clearly denied the sacrificial nature of the Mass (he called it an Aabomination@) also added these very words because in the context in which they were used by him (and the Novus Ordo emulates this context), the phrase allowed for the stressing of the Anarrative@ aspect of the Mass - the only aspect that he (Luther) would accept. The reader is referred to the quotation from Father Wathen's book given in section 5 above to see how this criticism applies now. Further, it is precisely in the light of such changes that Paul VI's statement takes on greater import:

"re-editing in a new manner liturgical texts tried and tested by long usage... (imparts) greater theological value to the liturgical texts (of the Novus Ordo) so that the (new) lex orandi conformed better with the (new) lex credendi.@'

17  Again, instead of complaining about my Acustomary lack of logic,@ I think we should stick to the issues. Clearly you concede that the Novus Ordo has utilized many of the changes introduced into the Anglican liturgy - indeed that it has copied them almost verbatim. Note however that I do not accuse you of saying that because of this the English (Anglican) rite is valid. I begin to strongly suspect that you do consider it a valid rite, for after all, does it not have what you consider the essential words. Let me ask your respondent a serious question. Would he be willing to say the Anglican or Lutheran service as a Catholic priest. with the intention of consecrating?
From his position, I can see absolutely no reason why he wouldn't. If his answer is yes, then clearly he commits a sacrilege. If his answer is no, then I would like to know why not. Perhaps there are a few words here and there in the Reformed services that he objects to. For myself, I cannot find any significant difference between the Anglican and Lutheran rites and the Novus  Ordo. On this one point I agree with the Lutheran pastors that do not find any difference. This is a serious request and not an attempt to be sarcastic.

The issue of the Epiclesis seems to me to be a complete Ared herring,@ The Epicltesis is a prayer AIn which the celebrant prays that God may send down the Holy Spirit to change the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of His Son.@ The concept of the Epiclesis is not required for a valid consecration. Let me quote Tanquerey:

"It is also certain, that for a valid consecration, the epiclesis is not required, the prayers through which the priest asks that the bread be changed into Christ's tody, the wine into blood,@ 

Some Greek Orthodox theologians have argued that it is essential for consecration. Rather than debate the issue, I have enclosed in the Appendix the statement on it by the Catholic Encyclopedia. In passing however, I shall add that it is only a personal opinion that the Quam Oblationem represents the Epiclesis in the Roman Canon, and that in any event, the Quam Oblationem has been obliterated by the innovators.

18..Again, you raise a false issue, and again t refer you back to paragraph 9. Of course I accept that when Christ said Aquod pro vobis... effundetur@ He was referring to His Body and Blood, and to the Sacrifice of Calvary. I doubt very much that the new breed of priests in using these words will however understand, within the context of the Novus Ordo that Athe form of this sacrament is pronounced as if Christ were speaking in person, so that it is given to be understood that the minister does nothing in perfecting this sacrament, except to pronounce the words of Christ.@ (Summa III, Q. 78, Art. 1)

19..Again, you raise a false issue. I ask anyone to read page 10, section f, and your response to it and conclude otherwise than that you are again trying to avoid the issue and impute to me a false contention. Moreover, you compound this offence against the truth by again quoting the passage from the Council of Trent that deals with the issue of Communion under two species. A translation of this passage is given on page 16, section 5 of this letter, and the complete chapter is readily available for those who wish to review it. This section from the Council of Trent can in no way be used to justify the wholesale destruction of our traditional Mass. It deals only with the Amanner of dispensing the Sacrament of Holy Communion, the substance remaining unchanged.@ I have never raised the issue of whether the Church had any rights to change the manner of dispensing Communion, and I fully accept the teaching of the Council of Trent on this issue. I do of course have serious objections to Acommunion in the hand@ which I can see in no way as being Afor the profit of those who receive, or for the veneration of the said sacrament,@ but that is another question. The word Aabhorrence@ refers to innovations, including those in the Novus Ordo. This is further discussed in section 23 below. I am deeply sorry that your respondent doesn=t share this abhorrence.

Finally, the concluding remark of the present Pontiff to the effect that nothing has been changed in the essence (of the Mass) may be technically correct if he means that the words AThis is my Body.., This is my blood@ are still retained. However, such a statement can also be applied to the Anglican and the Lutheran services, and such a statement is, to use the words of Father Parente, Aaequivoca, captiosa, male sonans, scandalosa, perniciosa and periculosa@ (cf section 2, this letter)

20..Here again your respondent resorts to his favorite manner of distorting the issue - and with full awareness of what he is doing. Again, I refer the reader to section 9 above. He stated in his response to my first letter that Ait is simply not true as it stands that the Lutherans and others find nothing they object to theologically in the new order.@ I showed rather conclusively on page 11 of my second letter that it was true. I assume he concedes this point. Now, if the Lutherans and others object to the traditional (Mass and not to the New Amass@, perhaps your respondent will also concede that something significant has changed in these two rites - or at least that the new rite is sufficiently equivocal as to allow for misinterpretation on the part of our Aseparated brethren.@ He now, instead of admitting this, claims that this alone is the basis for my claiming that the new rite is invalid. I admit that this fact would raise serious doubts about validity in my mind, but I have proved Ainvalidity@ on the basis of the very criteria your respondent has specified (in section 5 of~this letter). The issue of whether the Protestants like our traditional Mass or the New Amass@ is entirely irrelevant to me. The fact that they approve the theology of the New Amass@ shows that the New Amass@ is either heretical, or it can be interpreted in a heretical manner. Hence it follows that, knowing this, to say the New Amass@ is from the Catholic viewpoint, an act of Sacrilege. For a priest to knowingly commit sacrilege would of course invalidate any intent upon his part to Ado what the Church intends.@ The New Amass@ is clearly invalid according to the criteria of St. Thomas Aquinas simply on the basis of the change in the     meaning of the substance of the Form of Consecration. It may also be invalid because it is
sacrilegious

21  As to the Document on Ecumenism, I have read it carefully several times. The only thing that it states to support the new kind of ecumenism it advocates is that Agrace to be had from it sometimes commends it.@ It quotes no Scriptural passages in favor of communicatio in sacris and I should be most interested in any your respondent can provide, either from the Document, or from the entire Canon of Scripture. I can of course quote several passages, as I have done, that speak against it. Let me quote you a passage on the issue from Theologia Morale by J.8. Vittrant, S J. (1953):

Any formal involvement - no matter what the circumstances with either heresy or error (infidelite) is a very grave mistake One cannot formerly assist in either a non-Catholic form of worship, nor in the propagation of non-Catholic ideas. (Formal assistance exists when a Catholic participates in such an act interiorly or with his heart. Partial assistance is said to occur when cooperation is merely physical or external).@

One should avoid with great care any risk whatsoever of perversion or scandal (lectures, associations, etc.,) The danger of perversion exists for example, when simple souls can conclude that all Christian Churches are valid, or if one is led to believe that it is not important for one's salvation whether one is Catholic, Protestant or Schismatic. The danger of Scandal exists, for example, shou1d a non-Catholic participate in a Catholic service and the faithful are led to believe that the Church recognizes the pastoral authority of the minister of a non-Catholic sect. It is also scandalous for a Catholic to formerly participate in a non-Catholic service.@ 

It is necessary to guard with great care all the existing proscriptions that the Church holds and teaches in order to safeguard the faith This is why, in practice, one is never allowed actively to cooperate with a ceremony that is clearly non-Catholic. All such cooperation that is formal or scandalous is clearly forbidden by divine law. (The Church cannot dispense one of the obligations of a negative divine law - i.e. of a law which forbids a certain course of action - writer)@

And opposed to these teachings (consider especially paragraph two quoted above) are certain clear-cut statements of the Decree on Ecumenism:

AThe brethren divided from us also carry out many of the sacred actions of the Christian religion. Undoubtedly, in ways that vary according to the condition of each Church or community, these actions can truly engender a life of grace and can be rightly described as capable of providing access to the community of salvation.@

AReligious freedom has its foundation in the dignity of the person. The requirements of this dignity have come to be more adequately known to human reason through centuries of experience...@

AWitness to the unity of the Church very generally forbids common worship to Christians (i.e. communicatio in sacris), but the grace to be had from it sometimes commends this practice... most valuable to this purpose are meetings of the two sides - especially for discussion of theological problems - where each can treat with the other on an equal footing."

How can a Church, any Church, that believes it has the Truth, and the Fullness of Revelation, take such a compromising stand - unless it has lost that very Faith it was meant to guard and pass on?

22..You have repeated this false syllogism to me so often that now I am beginning to believe it. I refer you back to section 9, above.

23.. I find myself absolutely shocked by your respondent's statements that Amany 
saints have been great innovators.@ The more so when he gives as examples the.names of St. John of the Cross, St. Theresa of Avila, St. Francis and St. Dominic! Either he doesn't understand and recognize the Platonic distinction between ANew songs@ and Anew kinds of music,@ or he refuses to use the word in the manner that the councils and the saints throughout history have. Pray, what innovations did any of. these saints introduce? Perhaps the Rosary! or Holy Poverty! Listen to the words of St. John of the Cross:

AOne should be distrustful of ceremonies unapproved by the Catholic Church (He was of course referring to the Church of All Times - writer)... Persons should not desire new methods as if the~ knew more than the Holy Spirit and His Church... Let them be convinced that God will not answer them even if they invent new ceremonies...@

                                         Ascent of Mount Carmel

Or St. Theresa who willingly submitted all her works to the inquisition lest they contain any error:

AHalf‑learned confessors have done my soul great harm. When I have been unable to find a confessor with as much learning as I like, I have come to see by experience that it is better, if they are virtuous and observant of holy customs..,@

                                                              Autobiography

I have read all that St. Francis has vritten (not that much actually) and St. Dominic has left us no writings. It is easy to throw such accusations around agains the saints (it borders on blasphemy), but you have not given me one quotation from a saint in favor of Anovelties@. Let me give you one reason why you cant. The law of Pope Urban VIII vith regard to the canonization of saints states that

Aa most diligent inquiry be made as to whether the servant of God whose canonization is sought wrote any books, tracts, meditations, or the like; for if any such have been written no enquiry is to be carried on until such books are carefully examined by the Congregation to see vibether they contain any errors contrary to faith or morals, or any novel doctrine opposed to the sound and pure teaching of the Church.@.

Finally, I shall give you one last quote from Pius XII's Mediator Dei to which your respondent refers me in his letter, and which therefore I assume he respects as an authority:

AWe observe with considerable anxiety and some misgiving, that elsewhere certain enthusiasts, over eager in their search for novelty, are straying beyond the path of sound doctrine and prudence. Not seldom, in fact, they interlard their plans and hopes for a revival of the sacred Liturgy with principles which compromise this holiest of causes in theory or practice, and sometimes even taint it with errors touching Catholic faith and ascetical doctrine.@

He should read the Novus Ordo Missae 

I have not admitted that Latin was an innovation, and a careful reading of page 12 of my second letter should make this abundantly clear.

The appropriate use of the term Ainnovation@ or Anovelty@ implies Aheresy.@' Thus when Paul VI describes the Novus Ordo Missae ) great innovation indeed,@ he is proclaiming that it in some significant way departs from the spirit and standard that has prevailed among the Church Fathers, among the saints, among the Popes that preceded him ALet there be no innovations,@ as Pope Sylvester said in post‑Apostolic Times, and as Pope Benedict XI said in recent times), and in the Ecumenical Councils. Consider the following statement of the Seventh Ecumenical Council

"Let everything that conflicts with ecclesiastical tradition and teaching, and that has been innovated and done contrary to the examples outlined by the saints and the venerable fathers, or that shall hereafter at any tire be done in such a fashion, be anathema!"

Let us consider with trepidation the following quotation from St. Augustine:

Ait was not I who devised (any teaching of the Church ‑ St. Augustine refers to original sin ‑ but for instance we could use the phrase Athe teaching of the Church about judgment after death@), which the Catholic faith holds from ancient times; but you who deny it, are undoubtedly an innovating heretic." (De Nupt. 11)

Yes indeed, in a saner age, to describe the Novus Ordo as an innovation, was to condemn it outright, to state that it was not Catholic and that it was despiciendus ‑ to be passed by and avoided. 

24.. Yet again, the straw man!

25  Yes, I deny any need to adapt our religion and our Mass ‑ the former of which is True and the later of which incorporates this Truth into our Liturgy ‑ to the exigencies of changing times. This does not mean that certain of the ceremonies cannot be changed, or that we cannot return to communion under both species providing it is be changed, or that we cannot return to communion under both species providing it is for the Aprofit of those who receive, or for the veneration of the said sacraments.@ What it does mean is that our Faith cannot change. Listen to the de fide statement of Vatican 1:

AThe meaning of the sacred dogmas must always be retained which Holy Mother Church has once taught, nor may it ever be departed from.under the guise, or in the name of deeper insight... If anyone shall say that, because of scientific progress, it may be possible at some time to interpret the Church's dogmas in a different sense from that which the Church understood and understands, let him be anathema!..The doctrine of the faith which God has revealed has not been proposed to human intelligence to be perfected by them as if it were a philosophical system, but as a divine deposit entrusted to the Spouse of Christ to be faithfully guarded and infallibly interpreted.@

You will of course demand that this only be applied to things which are de fide definita. I hold that it refers to the entire deposit of the faith. Now, as we have mentioned previously, it has frequently happened during the course of history that the Church has defined a dogma only when it was attacked. God help us, what would we do if we returned to Aprimitive practice@ prior to these declarations and definitions. We could deny anything we wanted!

Further, this modern world to which you would have us adapt, owes its very existence to its rupture with the Church ‑ that is to say, it is founded on principles that reflect a basic infidelity to Christ. The Church cannot adapt itself to all this infidelity without becoming adulterous and calling upon itself all the strictures that Jeremias laid upon the Jews that had become a A"generation of Harlots.@" The absurdity of the adaotionist position is seen if we propose that the father of the Aprodigal son@ should go eat husks with the swine. It is these very Ahusks@ that one chokes on in the New Church. The Church can only kill the fatted lamb when modern man returns to the bosom of the Father. AGod indeed was in Christ, reconciled the world to Himself,@ (2 Cor. v:l9) and not vice versa.

The absurdity as well as the real intent of those who are attempting to Aadapt the Church to modern times is further demonstrated by the fact that these are the very same people who cry the loudest about the need to Areturn to primitive practice.@ This two‑pronged attack upon our faith by these neo‑modernist Pelagians and Montanists (each claiming louder than the next that Athe Holy Spirit is with him.@) calls to mind the proverbial candle that is burnt at both ends. At some point nothing is left in the middle!

Returning to the issue of the Mass, the core of the Mass has been since Apostolic times the Canon(which contains the Words of Consecration and a proper setting in which they may be used). Of course there are other traditional Canons such as are to be found in the various Eastern rites that also provide an appropriate setting for the Words of Institution. However, I am a Roman Catholic and so intend to remain ‑ so help me God ‑ and this despite the New Church. However, here again your respondent displays his tendency to warp the issue. Referring back to his first letter, he stated that the Novus Ordo represented Aa return to the earlier discipline existing for centuries prior to the reform of Trent.@ I amply demonstrated that this was an outrageous falsehood. Indeed, I challenged your respondent to show me one prayer in the Novus Ordo that represented such a return, and he has failed to do so.

The only returns to primitive practice that are pushed by the New Church are those that will result in destruction of the Faith and loss of respect for the Holy Eucharist. If we are to return to primitive practice, let us return to all of them. Let us go back to saying Mass in the Catecombes, and to all night vigils, and to the laity saying the office. Let us return to the vigor of the Lenten fasts and the life of prayer and sacrifice. One can imagine how well the modern world would adapt to such practices!

26.. Again your respondent imputes to me the contention that the removal of the words mysterium fidei from the form of the Sacrament makes the sacrament invalid however, he states within the same section that this is not my position! I have already covered much of issue in section 5 above. The removal of these words from the substance of the form (St. Thomas considers them substantial), however offensive, doesn't change the meaning of the form‑ula and hence does not render the rite invalid. There removal nevertheless remains offensive and has been condemned by the Church as late as 1958. Consider the Monitum (warning) of the Holy Office:

AThe Supreme Sacred Congregation has learned that in a certain translation of the New Order of Holy Week into the vernacular, words Amysterium fidei@ in the form of the Consecration of the chalice are omitted. It is also reported that some priests omit these words in the very celebration of the Mass. Therefore the Supreme Congregation (part of the Universal Magisterium of the Church) gives warning that it is impious (nefas) to introduce a change in so sacred a matter...@

And such is only natural for as it says in V

AIf anyone adds or takes away anything (from the form of the Consecration of the Body and the Blood), even if he does not change the meaning of the form, he does confect (the Sacrament), but he sins grievously.@

Yesterday a grievous sin and a nefarious act. Today a virtue!

Further, my objection to their displacement is based also on the fact that the contex in v!hich they are said in the Novus Ordo, allows for an ambiguous and therefore for an eroneous interpretation. Their placement just after the Consecratory Formula followed immediately by the statement AChrist has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again@ clearly suggests to the simple faithful that mysterium fidei refers, not to the presence of Christ Awhole and entire@ on the altar, but to the final coming and return of Christ at the end of time. Now, of course I believe that Christ will return (and bearing a sword to boot), and I am aware that the phrase is from St. Paul, but I strongly suggest to you that its placement here, while not teaching overt heresy, clearly distorts the teaching of the Church and the intent of the Apostles that placed this phrase within the consecratory form‑ula.

As to your respondant's quotation from the Council of Trent, Session 13, Chapter 11, I can refute his contention that it is pertinent to this issue by quoting it more fully

AWherefore, our Savior, when about to depart out of this world to the Father, instituted this sacrament the Eucharist), in which He poured forth as it were the riches of His divine love towards man, making a rembrance of His wonderful works; and He commanded us in the participation thereof to venerate His memory, and to show forth His death until He come to judge the world...@

How this statement justifies the displacement, I cannot understand

Since your respondent again raises the issue of the relationship of the Words of Consecration to the Synoptic descriptions, let me refer him back to the passages quoted in section 5 of this letter, and especially the quotation taken from the authority he himself recommends, namely Jungmann's The Mass of the Roman Rite, Let me further note that this compulsion to abandon tradition in favor of Scripture is and always has been a hallmark of the Reformers and heretics. if anything should be changed, the Synoptic versions should have been brought into line with Tradition (I can hear the observers at the Concilium howling!) Finally, let ne again quote St. Thomas Aquinas:

AThe Evangelists did not intend to haro down the forms of the Sacraments (in Scripture) which in the primitive Church had to be kept concealed... their object was to write the story of Christ.@ (Summa III, Q. 78, Art. 3)

27&28 I apologize for not understanding the point your respondent made in his initial letter. (A theologian that I consulted on this statement also found it confusing, and the two of us spent over an hour trying to figure out what you meant). I think I do now understand what you are saying. My response to this was however perfectly appropriate for I merely expressed the teaching of the Church with regard to what could be considered Anarrative@ and what was spoken (namely the form of the Words of Consecration) Aas a present affirmation by the priest speaking in the person of Christ...@ Clearly, with the Novus Ordo, the entire service can be considered Anarrative@ and should it be said as a narrative only, no consecration would occur.

29..I am amused that for the first time your respondent asks me to prove my contention from traditional sources. Let us first deal with the issue of a Avirtual@ intention. This is a technical term. Using Pohle as our authority, the priest has an actual intention of performing a rite when he sets out to do what the Church intends. Should he become distracted however, he may be assumed to have a virtual intention, the Aforce@  of which derives from his previous Aactual@ volition. In the present discuss the issue of Avirtual intention@ is another Ared herring.@ What I meant to say, and think I said quite clearly, is that within the context of the traditional Mass, it was quite clear what the Church's intention was, and the priest in using the traditional words would clearly have to make a contrary intention to avoid confecting the species (which would of course be sacrilege). Now, I would again ask the reader to review the lengthy discussion and quotation taken from Father Wathen's book in section 5 above. I do not think the intention of the traditional Church is clearly expressed in the Novus Ordo and hence it falls upon the priest to make an actual intention of doing, not what the ,Novus Ordo specifies, but what he knows to be the intention of the traditiona1 Church, if any consecration is to occur. If the priest does not believe in transubstentiation he would not be able to make such an actual intention ‑ and in using the Novus Ordo he is not clearly provided with the traditional Church's intention. This perhaps better explains the statement of the Critique of the Roman theologians (the AOttaviani Intervention@) which again I quote:

AThe words of consecration, as they appear ;n the context of the Novus Ordo (in Latin) may be valid according to the intention of the ministering priest. But they rnay not be, for they are so no longer ex vi verborum (by the force of the words used) or more precisely, in virtue of the modus significandi (way of signifying) which they have had till now in the Mass, will priests who, in the near future, have not had the traditional training and who rely on the ANovus Ordo@ in order to Ado what the Church does,@ (remember again in Latin ‑ writer) make a valid consecration? One may he permitted to doubt it.@

Enclosed is a letter written to The Wanderer (June 16, 1977), a Aconservative@ Nev. Church publication (i.e. speaking on your side of these issues) which discusses the issue of intention clearly. (Whatever the Catholic. reader may think of our correspondence, he would do well to consider its contents carefully. Remember, it is written by one who would defend the New Amass@.

30-31  Again, the straw man!

32  This issue has been adequately covered in section 5 of this letter, as well as in the appropriate sections of my second letter. I again must assume since these Aessertial@ words are to be found in the Anglican and the Lutheran services, that your respondent would not object to saying these services and would consider that should he do so the Amass@ he said was valid. Since your respondent refers to the Encyclical Mediator Dei, let me quote one other passage from this for his consideration:

ABut it is His will, besides, that the worship He instituted and practiced during His life on earth, shall continue ever afterwards without any intermission.@

The worship He (Christ) instituted is to be found in the various forms of the traditional Mass, and not in the services created hy Luther, Bugnini or the English Reformers. As to the other points, they are covered in section 5 above.

33 At last the straw man is exposed and your respondent admits that I have in at least three places made it reasonably clear that I do not claim invalidity on the basis of the many and clear defects that prevail in the Novus Ordo outside of the Words of Consecration. validity is one thing. Sacrilege is another.
.
34  Back to the straw man again! I would suggest that your respondent will find that the Canon ‑ the traditional Roman Canon, contains the Aunchangeable elements@ that were spoken of at Vatican II.

35  Back to the straw man again ‑ yet! If after reading all the evidence I have brought together within the body of these letters, and considering the fact that one must always choose a certain form over a dubious one, if your respondent still feels comfortable with the Novus Ordo, then I must respect his individual conscience, a conscience formed by his own private opinions and not by the teachings of the traditional Church. Let him continue to say the Novus Ordo, but let him not claim that he does it as a faithful Catholic.

36.. This is getting silly!
.
37  It is quite clear that your respondent cannot refer me to a single document that 
refutes the Critique of the Roman Theologians that carries the title of AThe Ottavianni 
Intervention." That such a damning document should have been abroad for 9 years without a host of refutations can only be called extraordinary. His claim to have refuted this document within the body of his letters, if true, would make his letter. one of the most important contributions to the New Church possible. I consider his. response here a Acop‑out@.As to Cardinal Ottaviani's subrnission to the Pope, I have no knowledsje of this. He is an old man (and perhaps has long gone to receive his martyre's crown) and if still alive, is close onto 90, blind and infirm. Clearly it is within his rights to retire from the battle and for him to say the traditional Mass sine populo (as the. innovative phrase in the Novus Ordo puts it ‑ that is without a congregation). Even if he had signed a retraction (assuming he could read what he was signing), THE DOCUMENT ITSELF STANDS AS A CHALLENGE ‑ AND AFTER NINE YEARS, AN UNANSWERED CHALLENGE TO THE NEW AND POST‑CONCILIAR CHURCH.

38  We have debated at great length the issue of validity. Now, even if your respondent were to convince me that the phrase Afor you and for many@ was not part of the Asubstantia,@ or that the New Church had the right to change the form or the substance of the sacrarments (fixed as they have been with regard to the Mass since Apostolic times, and certainly since the Council of Florence), or that many and all men mean the same thing, or that Christ meant all men when He said many, he would only convince me that the Words of Consecration were valid. After that he would have to convince me that the setting in which these words were used was not sacrilegious.
Validity of itself does not make the Novus Ordo worthy, nor does the use of the. Words of Consecration in a proper form make the use of the Novus Ordo representative of Athe worship He (Christ) instituted and practiced during His life on earth...@ (Mediator Dei) Remember AThe victims of the wicked are abominable to the Lord@ (Proverbs xv:13). To understand this point, let us consider a statue of a favorite female saint: If we were to take this statue and paint it to look like a harlot, the statue would still be one of the saint in question, but it would neither be licit nor worthy. This analogy may seem extreme to the reader, but it is most precise. To validly consecrate within the framework of the Novus Ordo is to desecrate Our Lord. It would be according to St. Thomas, the gravest of all forms of Sacrilege (Summa II, Q. ~?, Art. 3). ~

Of course I am aware that many faithful Catholics do not see the issue this way. The reason for this is explained by St. Hilary of Poitiers w:ho said in the year 364:

AChrist's people take the words which the heretics use to denote the faith which they themselves hold. The ears of the people are holier than the hearts of the priests.@

In their innocence, the faithful are unaware of what is going on. The changes have been brought about slowly, and the words of the New Amass@, being a Aparody@, sufficiently  mimic and resemble those of the traditional lass, so that it isn't always easy to detect the sisnificant words and changes. The fact that the priests still wear some (not all) of the traditional vestments, and that the table (not altar) is covered with one (not three) cloths will easily pass without notice, as will the absence of an altar stone containing the relics of the martyrs. Even when the obvious is pointed out to them, they choose to look the other way. The entire issue is too painful for them to accept. Finally, their priests, in whom they habitually place an implicit trust, have betrayed them. All these subterfuges have their precedence in the activities of the Lutheran and Anglican Reformers who also claimed to be Areturning to primitive practice.@'

I reject out of hand the contention of your respondent that my presentation lacks logic and that I am unfamiliar with the traditional theology and hence am not really able to understand the issues.

39  Again, I am shocked! Your respondent may not be able to convince me of the justice of his position, but he certainly can surprise me. He states that I Aseek refuge in a new definition of the faith refusing that of traditional theology. Now the definition I used in my second letter and which he objects to is taken from, the Catholic Encyclopedia and is essentially that of St. Thomas Aquinas I give it again:

AFaith may be considered both objectively and subjectively. Objectively it stands for the sum of truths revealed by God in Scripture and Tradition and which the Church presents to us... Subjectively it stands for the habit or virtue by which we assent to these truths.@

I shall take a definition from another source, namely Msgr. G. Van Noort's Dogmatic Theology

AThe subject matter of divine‑catholic faith are all those truths proposed by the Church's magisterium for our belief as divinely revealed. . The act of saving faith is elicited by the intellect, at the command of the will, and under the help of divine grace.@

and Van Noort further quotes the First Vatican Council to the effect that:
ABy divine and Catholic faith everything must be believed that is contained in the Written. word of God or in Tradition, and that is proposed by the Church as a divinely revealed object of belief either in a solemn decree (i.e. de fide definita) or in her ordinary universal teaching.@

Nothing in such a statement precludes my accepting his Anotae theologica,@ or the statements I quote from Canons 1322‑24, or from the Encyclical Mortaliurn Animos. I would suggest that section 4 of this letter be again reviewed.. His rejection of St. Vincent of Lerins definition, what is believed by all, at all times and everywhere is most surprising as most textbooks of theology refer to this statement. 

40  His comment about the Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is most inappropriate as had this belief not been part of our Tradition, it could never have been defined as de fide definita. And would your respondent deny the august mystery of the Trinity because it is not de fide definita? (It is not as is pointed out by Pope Pius XI in the Encyclical Mortalium Animos as quoted on page 5 above.) Also, as I pointed out earlier, your respondent is a great believer in Areturning to primitive practice,@ and should we follow his logic with regard to this, we could reject almost anything we want His argument that one does not have to believe something is true until the Church defines it as being de fide is NOT CATH0LIC TEACHING.

I also find it extraordinary that your respondent rejects the definition of the Faith given by St. Vincent of Lerins, a definition that has been standard for centuries and which is to be found in almost any theological manual I as a Faithful Catholic stand by this definition also ‑ what Ahas been believed by all, at all times, and everywhere,@ Since he seems to nave no great love for St, Vincent's way of stating things, I cannot resist offering him another quote from this venerable source

ATo announce to Catholic Christians a doctrine other than that which they have received, was never permitted, is nowhere permitted, and never will be permitted. It was ever necessary, it is everywhere necessary, and ever will be necessary that those who announce a doctrine other than that which was received once and for all be anathema.@ (Comminitaria 9) 

His comment about the Immaculate Conception is most inappropriate as had this belief not been part of our Tradition, it could never have been defined as de fide definita. We must, as Catholics:

AHold firmly that our faith is identical with that of the ancients. Deny this and you dissolve the unity of the Church.@

                                 St. Thomas Aquinas Disputations Concerning Truth

Clearly, your respondent is making his position quite clear on the issue of our not having to believe anything that is not de fide definita I had thought that perhaps he was using loose terminology, but his statement in this paragraph removes any doubt about his position. His argument that one does not have to believe anything is true unti1 and unless the Church defines it as being de fide is .NOT A CATHLIC DOCTRINE. Further, to accept his contention, and recognizing his great belief in the need to Areturn to primitive practice,@ and following upon his argument with regard to the Immaculate Conception, it would seem that if we were to follow his logic with regard to this, we could reject almost anything we wanted just on the basis of such a 
 Areturn,@

Consider the words of Pius XII in his Encyclical Humani generis:

ANor must it be thought that that is expounded in encyc1ical letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their teaching authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: 'He who hears you, hears me'; and generally what is expounded and enculcated in encyclical letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic Doctrine.@ (the ad fidem pertinens of your notae theologica.)

No Catholic can reject the definition of the Faith that I have given any more than he can reject the traditional AAct of Faith@ required of every Catholic.

''0 my God, I firmly believe in all that your holy Catholic Church approves and teaches since it is You, the Infallible truth, who revealed it to your Church.@

No Catholic can limit his faith to only Ateachings previously declared >de fide=@.I have no obligation to show that the Council teaches anything contra de fide definita, but only to snow that it teaches contrary to the revealed word of God. This it clearly does both in the area of communicatio in sacris and in the area of religious freedom. I could of course show many areas indeed where Vatican II departs from the ordinary teaching magisterium of the Church, but feel' that the discussion on .page 24 of my second letter adequately demonstrates this and assume that your respondent also agrees that it does since he challenges me only to show its falsity in areas de fide

If your respondant wants a faith that teaches the following:

ALet the faithful blend modern science and its theories and .he understanding of the most recent discoveries with Christian morality. Thus their religious practice and morality can keep pace with their scientific knowledge and with ever‑advancing technology@ (Gaudium et Spes (Vatican II Const. para.62.)

then I leave it to him. Let him not ask me to accept it, for even if the contrary has not been declared de fide def nita, such a statement can never be declared de fide catholica. Such a teaching is deceitful, scandalous, pernicious and dangerous, or to quote the Notai thololoqicae, Acaptiosa, male sonans, perniciosa scandalosa and peroculosa.@ Indeed, it is monstrosum venosum, mortiferum, stultissima, crudelissimusque insania

Your respondent then goes on to raise the shibboleth of the question of the‑AImmaculate Conception.@ I call it a shibboleth because I am tired of the implication that St. Thomas may have been wrong about a great many things - after all, he was wrong about the Immaculate Conception. There are several things to be said about this issue. First of all, it is by no means entirely clear just what St. Thomas taught about the. Immaculate Conception.. The best discussion of the issue that I have found is a book entitled The Dogma of the Immaculate Conception, Historical Development and Dogmatic Fulfilment by Rev. Bernard A. McKenna, Catholic University of America, 1929. Secondly, the doctrine, while not de fide definita, was clearly held by a great many saints in the Apostolic Church and was certainly within the provinence of Tradition. I hope that had I been alive before the proclamation of Ineffabilis Deus, the Apostolic Letter defining this dogma, I pray God I would have had the necessary grace to have done so. Your respondent forgets that Athe scope of infallibility is to preserve the deposit of the faith revealed to man by Christ and His apostles,@ (Catholic Encyclopedia) and that, to quote Cardinal Newman, in defining something as infallibly true:

AAnother limitation is given in the Pastor Aeternus...the proposition defined will be without any claim to be considered binding on the belief of Catholics, unless it is referable to the Apostolic depositum, through the channel of either Scripture or Tradition.@

With regard to the Syllabus, your respondent is quite correct in noting my error both with regard to the Pope involved, and to the inclusion of the Syllabus under the stricture. Unfortunately I miscopied my own notes.

The Syllabus represents a difficult subject to discuss within the confines of a letter such as this. Clearly Vatican II teaches contrary to it. For the sake of brevity I enclose in the Appendix an article from the Catholic Encyclopedia. I shall make a few brief comments. There are two Syllabus containing propositions that are condemned, that of Pius IX and that of Pius X, As to the first, its title in full is AA Syllabus containing the most important errors of our time, which have been condemned by our Holy Father Pius IX in Allocutions, at Consistories, in Encyclicals and other Apostolic Letters.@ With regard to it, theologians have debated as to whether all of or only most of it, can be considered infallible. To quote the Catholic Encyclopedia AEven should the condemnation of many propositions (in it) not possess that unchangeableness  peculiar to infallible decisions, nevertheless the binding force of the condemnation in regard to all the propositions is beyond doubt, For the Syllabus, as appears from the official communication of Cardinat Antonelli, is a decision given by the pope speaking as universal teacher and judge to Catholics the world over. All Catholics, therefore, are bound to accept the Syllabus. Exteriorly they may neither in word nor in writing oppose its contents; they must also assent to it interiorly. with regard to the Syllabus Or Errors (Lamentabili sane exitu), issued by Pius X, it is Aa doctrinal decision of the Holy Office, i.e. of that Roman Congregation which watches over the purity of Catholic doctrine.@ It was ratified by Pius X on July 4, 1907 and in November of the same year, in a Motu Proprio he prohibited the defense of condemned propositions under the penalty of excommunication, reserved ordinarily to the Pope. Further, in the AOath against Modernism,@ which Tanquerey considers part of the Solemn Magisterium (i.e. de fide definita ‑ it falls under the category of a Creed) every priest in the traditional Church (the New Church no longer requires it) had to swear:

AI also submit myself with due respect and I adhere wholeheartedly to all the condemnations, declarations and prescripts contained in the encyclical Pascandi and the decree Lamentabili, particularly those referring to the so‑called history of dogma.@

Finally, one can legitimately consider both the documents in question to be infallible for despite the fact that they have not been specifically declared as such, it is a teaching of the Church that:

Athe Church is infallible when it condemns a certain proposition with some doctrinal censure. A Doctrinal censure is >'a qualification or restriction which indicates that a proposition is opposed, in some way, to faith or morals.=@ Tanquerey, Dogmatic Theology

Clearly the Syllabus has been and has to be adhere to by faithful Catholics, and clearly neither your respondant nor Vatican II does.

41  I shall not write to Father O'Leary. First, I am truly weary of this polemic and secondly, under the circumstances outlined in my letter to Mother Theresa (at the start of this letter), it is not my place, but hers to do so.

42..Yes, I admit that the present Pope has spoken out against Communism and Heresy, but let me quote you a passage from a popular song ‑ ADo not talk of love, show me!'@ You can show me an occasional statement against Communism, I have already several examples (page 37, second letter) of where his actions have clearly encouraged the spread of this Aintrinsically perverse@ heresy within the confines of the Church. Such activities alone, in the Age of Faith, would easily have brought his condemnation, if not have condemned him to the stake. He has openly fraternized with the bestial ministers of Communist governments, whose official policy is one of world imperialism and whose avowed aim is to remove from the face of the earth all traces of the Catholic Church. These white‑collard savages, whose hands drip with the blood of literally millions of Catholic and Christian rnartyrs, and whose every move and every word is admittedly inspired by a hatred of Christ, now receive the open hospitality of the Vatican ‑ a hospitality paid for with the donations of a passive but intrinsically faithful laity. (The diversion of funds collected from unweary Catholics to the Communists through Catholic agencies is documented by The Wanderer, April 23, 1977.) I would insist that before you discuss this issue further, you read Alexander Solzhenitsyn=s Warning to the West and another recent book Murder in a Gentle Land. The only bulwark against the spread of Communism in the West has been the traditional Roman Catholic Church. With all the Pope=s conciliatory Anegotiations@ and platitudes, truly Athe fort is betrayed, even of them that should have defended it@" (St. John Fisher).
Now, as to the various statements of the present Pope, I can quote hin, on both sides of almost any issue you like. Pale faith speaks with forked tongue, as an old quip goes. Let us consider as a case in point what ne has said on the issue of the Mass:

"The Church, therefore, with the long labor of centuries and the help of the Holy Spirit, has established a rule of language confirming it with the authority of the councils. This rule, which has often been the watchword and banner of orthodox faith, must be religiously preserved. Let no one presume to change it at his own pleasure or under the pretext of new science. Who would ever tolerate that the dogmatic formulas used by the ecumenical councils for the mysteries of the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation be judged as no longer appropriate for men of our times and therefore permit others to be rashly substituted for them? Likewise, it cannot be tolerated that any individual should on his own authority modify the formulas used by the Council of Trent to express belief tn the Eucharistic mystery. These formulas, like the others which the Church uses to propose the dogmas of the faith, express concepts that are not tied to a certain form of human culture, or to a specific phase of scientific progress, or to one or other theological school. No, these formulas present that part of reality which necessary and universal experience permits the human mind to grasp and to manifest with apt and exact terms taken from either common or polished language. For this reason, these formulas are are adapted to men of all times and places.@

Words truly worthy of a Pontiff. Taken from his Encyclical Mysterium fidei , we have an excellent example of Christ speaking through Peter, Yet, despite this, we have the Novus Ordo Missae'

43  Rene Voillaume is the co‑head (or was) of the Little Brothers of Jesus and Mary, the order that Charles de Foucauld had hoped to establish. He is, I believe, one of the finest adherents of the New Church. If we cannot trust the wards of such a man, who can we trust in the New Church. Certainly, according to you, not Bernard Haring. As to Bernard Haring, he may have been criticized by L'Osservatore Romano, but he is currently teaching at Fordham University, and as such forming the souls of both the clergy and the laity. He is a heretic who wears the cassock of .the Church ‑ a veritable wolf in sheep's clothing.

34  I have read the section that your respondent recommends in Corinthians . It is of course a favorite passage of the Pentecostals. His defense of this strange manifestation makes me wonder whether perhaps he considers himself one of them. In any event, I enclose in the Appendix an article of  mine on this subject which discusses this topic, and this passage from Scripture in some detail. For me, a Catholic Pentecostal is a contradiction in terms, rather like a AChristian atheist@

45  Re Hans Kung: This reminds me of the physician who is clearly known to be incompetent. He is criticized by his colleagues, but no one stops him from practicing. Of course, Hans Kung is so far out that even the extremists of the New Church no longer pay him much heed. He is almost a joke. But what about Karl Rahner (whose Theological Dictionary is a compendium of modernist heresy and as such is published with a nihil obstat) or Avery Dulles, S.J. who has publicly denied his belief in the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Our Lady, and yet continues to teach at the Catholic University of America. I have a whole list of similar cases.

46..I accept the correction that your respondent makes in this paragraph.

47.  I accept the criticism here. I should have doubled checked my sources. I may of course still be quite correct in my accusation, but I cannot prove it incontrovertibly. While not Asubstantial@ to our discussion, it represents a defect in my presentation which I shall not defend.

48.. This whole paragraph is a reiteration of what has been said by your respondent many times, and has been refuted by me several times. Your respondent persists in confusing fundamental changes in prayers of the Mass with ceremonial changes of an Aaccidental@ nature. He persists in quotingt Chapter II of Session XXI of the Council of Trent - a session that de3als with the issue of Communion under one or two species - as justifying the wholesale destruction of our traditional Mass and its replacement by a Amutation,@ an Ainnovation@ and a Aparody.@

CONCLUSION

As I draw this correspondence to a close, I gladly admit that your respondent has made several factual corrections in my presentation ‑ surprisingly few. However considering that I am neither a theologian nor a scholar. He has made many insinuations about my reasoning ability and integrity as well as about the thoroughness with which I have investigated the issues. These I reject.. He has suggested that I am not Catholic which I deny. On the other hand, he has further convinced me of the justice of my position in tenaciously holding to the traditional teachings of the Church and in making my norm for judgement both Tradition and Scripture as interpreted by the traditional theologians of the Church. He has in no way convinced me that the New Church is the Church that Christ founded.

Clearly there are two Churches existing side by side, and both claiming to be the true Church.. One is the neo‑modernist and neo‑protestant Church of the Novus Ordo. Those that would defend it must accept the opprobrium of being labeled neoBModernist and neo-Protestant. As opposed to this there is the traditional Church whose members take pride in being Ahide-bound@ and rigid about Traditional matters. Are we not meant to be rigid about Truth? And would your respondent deny the teaching of the Catechism of the Council of Trent to the effect that AHoly Tradition is the interpreter and guardian of truth?@ I am afraid he would. This is a choice that neither he nor the Pope can demand of me.

Of course, I admit that I have not convinced him of the justice of my position, and do not believe that further correspondence will change either of us. Should he however wish to raise further points, I remain willing to discuss them. I would hope however that we can both consider the correspondence closed at this time.::

I feel we have both had ample opportunity to express our views. I shall submit this material for publication because, despite the fact that we have not come to a consensus, the material we have both presented is so critical to the understanding of the present crisis in the Church that He cannot object. As I made it clear in my initial letter that this was my intention regardless of the outcome of our debate. Further, since he claims to have refuted the Critique of the Roman Theologians (the AOttaviani Intervention@), I think he should welcome such an opportunity. May God help us all to live His Truth, His Way, and His Life.

P.S. I have not answered the Letter of Pope Paul VI to Archbishop Lefebvre which your respondent sent. This because it would involve repeating much of what has been already said within the body of this correspondence, and further because the letter is sent to him and not to me. He has answered it and further correspondence between him and Paul VIi has occurred that has not been published. Those who are interested in the writings of Archbishop Lefebvre are referred to his books, currently in French, but soon to be available in English. Particularly recommended are J'accuse le Concile! (Editions Saint‑Gabriel, Partigny, France, 1976) and Un Eveque Parle, Ecrits et Allocutions, 1953‑1975, (Jarze, France, 1976: Editeurs Dominique Vartin torin). A more recent text that I have not as yet read, is Le Coup de maitre de Satan: Econe face a la persecution. I think it would be presumptuous for me to attempt to answer the Pope's letter to this great man.