The Papal Plan for Restoration. ©2012 Catholic Restoration Resources. All Rights Reserved. Nihil Obstat: To be obtained. Imprimatur: To be obtained. Final authority regarding what is contained herein regarding faith and morals rests with the Holy See of Rome, Holy Mother Church, to whose judgment we humbly submit. ISBN: Printed and bound in the United States of America. Publisher: Catholic Restoration Resources, LLC 73 Old Troy Road Fitzwilliam, NH 03447 USA Catholic Restoration Resources mission statement – Catholics assisting the hierarchy in restoring vital orthodoxy to the life of the Church in Faith, liturgy and the priesthood. FIRST EDITION – JANUARY 2013



Dedication............................................................................................................................................ ix Acknowledgments................................................................................................................................ xi Editor’s Preface................................................................................................................................. xiii Chapter 1 – Introduction ................................................................................................................... 17 Chapter 2 – The Crisis in the Church ............................................................................................... 25
Popes Affirm the Crisis Is Real ..................................................................................................................25 Asking the Tough Questions .......................................................................................................................26 Lay Catholics Obligated to Defend the Faith ............................................................................................26 A Bleak Assessment – but Trial Worketh Hope .......................................................................................27

Chapter 3 – Statistical Evidence ........................................................................................................ 29
The Decline in the Number of Seminarians ..............................................................................................29 The Decline in the Number of Priests ........................................................................................................31 More Statistics on the Crisis in the Church ..............................................................................................33 Study on the Crisis in Catholic Higher Education ...................................................................................37

Chapter 4 – Warnings, Causes, and Remedies ................................................................................. 39
Self-Deception ..............................................................................................................................................39 The Warnings of Approved Marian Apparitions .....................................................................................39
Guadalupe, Mexico, 1531 ......................................................................................................................................... 39 Our Lady of Good Success, Quito, Ecuador, 1600s .................................................................................................. 40 Quito Prophesies Confirmed by Pope Benedict XVI ........................................................................................... 40 Fatima, Portugal, 1917 .............................................................................................................................................. 41 Our Lady of America, USA, 1950s ........................................................................................................................... 42 Akita, Japan, 1973 ..................................................................................................................................................... 44

Warnings of Pre-Conciliar Popes and Paul VI .........................................................................................44
Encyclicals and Papal Writings Against Modern Errors ........................................................................................... 44 Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos, Against Liberalism, 1832 ................................................................................. 45 Pope Pius IX, Quanta Cura, Errors Afflicting the Church, 1864 ......................................................................... 45 Pope Pius IX, Syllabus Errorum, Syllabus of Errors, 1864 .................................................................................. 45 Pope Leo XIII, Aeterni Patris, On Scholastic Philosophy, 1879 ......................................................................... 46 Pope Leo XIII, Diuturnum Illud, On Government Authority, 1881 ..................................................................... 46 Pope Leo XIII, Humanum Genis, Against Freemasonry, 1884 ............................................................................ 46 Pope Leo XIII, Libertas Praestantissimum, On True Liberty, 1888 .................................................................... 46 Pope Leo XIII, Rerum Novarum, On the Working Class, 1891 ........................................................................... 46 Pope Leo XIII, Graves de Communi Re, On Democracy, 1901 ........................................................................... 47 Pope St. Pius X, E Supremi, Restoration in Christ, 1903 ..................................................................................... 47 Pope St. Pius X, Lamentabili Sane, Against Modernists, 1907 ............................................................................ 47 Pope St. Pius X, Pascendi Dominici Gregis, Against Modernism, 1907 ............................................................. 48 Pope St. Pius X, Notre Charge Apostolique, On the Sillon, 1910 ........................................................................ 48 Pope St. Pius X, Ad Tuendam Fidem, Oath Against Modernism, 1910 ............................................................... 48 Pope Pius XI, Quas Primus, The Kingship of Christ, 1925 ................................................................................. 49 Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, Against False Ecumenism, 1928.................................................................... 49 Pope Pius XI, Divini Redemptoris, Against Communism, 1937 .......................................................................... 50 Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis, Against Liberalism, 1950 ................................................................................. 50 Pope Paul VI, Humanae Vitae, Against Contraception, 1968 .............................................................................. 50


A Detailed Analysis of Six Key Encyclicals............................................................................................... 50
Pope St. Pius X, E Supremi, To Restore All Things in Christ.......................................................................................... 50 Pope Leo XIII, Aeterni Patris, On Scholastic Philosophy ........................................................................................ 53 Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi Dominici Gregis, Against Modernism ........................................................................ 56 Father Karl Rahner’s “Anonymous Christian” ..................................................................................................... 56 Rahner in Vatican II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church .......................................................................... 57 A Detailed Review of Pascendi Dominici Gregis ................................................................................................ 57 Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, Against False Ecumenism .................................................................................. 66 Pope Benedict XVI on True Ecumenism.............................................................................................................. 68 Anglican Bishop Asks for Return to Rome .......................................................................................................... 69 Worldwide Anglican Communion Seeks Reunion with Rome ............................................................................ 69 Actual Grace and Sanctifying Grace .................................................................................................................... 70 Anglicanorum Coetibus Provides for Return of All Anglicans ............................................................................ 70 Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis, Against Liberalism ............................................................................................... 71 Pope Paul VI, Humanae Vitae, Against Contraception ............................................................................................. 76 Archbishop Chaput on Consequences of Humanae Vitae .................................................................................... 81

Chapter 5 – The Crisis and the Novus Ordo Mass ........................................................................... 85
The Cardinal Ottaviani Intervention ........................................................................................................ 85
Ottaviani to Pope Paul VI on New Mass Problems ................................................................................................... 85 Short Critical Study of the New Order of Mass.................................................................................................... 86

The Reform of the Roman Liturgy, Monsignor Klaus Gamber ........................................................... 101 The Problem of the Liturgical Reform, Book Review ........................................................................... 104
Part One: The Reform of 1969: A Liturgical Rupture ............................................................................................. 105 Part Two: The Principle Behind the Liturgical Reform .......................................................................................... 106 Part Three: A Dogmatic Rupture with Tradition? ................................................................................................... 108

Vatican II on Sacred Music ...................................................................................................................... 110 Liturgical Music in the Post–Vatican II Church .................................................................................... 111 The Wave of the Future – Michael Davies .............................................................................................. 116 The Catholic Sanctuary and Vatican II – Michael Davies .................................................................... 120 Bishop Athanasius Schneider – Five Wounds of the New Liturgy ....................................................... 127 The Popes Bring Back the Old Latin Mass ............................................................................................. 133

Chapter 6 – Is the Church Necessary for Salvation? ..................................................................... 137
How Can the Truth about Our Salvation Be Known? .......................................................................... 137
Absolute Moral Truth Exists ................................................................................................................................... 139 God Demands Truthfulness ..................................................................................................................................... 139 God Hides the Truth from Those Who Do Not Love It .......................................................................................... 139

Truth Guaranteed by the One True Church of Jesus Christ ................................................................ 140 No Salvation Outside the Church – Ex Cathedra Statements..................................................................... 143
Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215 .................................................................................................... 143 Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctum, 1302................................................................................................ 143 Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441................................................................................................... 143

Witness of Great Christian Writers of the Early Church ..................................................................... 143
Saint Irenaeus (died 202)......................................................................................................................................... 144 Saint Cyprian (died 258) ......................................................................................................................................... 144 Lactantius (died 310)............................................................................................................................................... 144 Saint Augustine (died 430) ...................................................................................................................................... 144 Saint Fulgentius (died 533) ..................................................................................................................................... 144 Pope Pelagius II (578 - 590) .................................................................................................................................... 144 Saint Thomas Aquinas (died 1274) ......................................................................................................................... 144


Saint Peter Canisius (died 1597) ............................................................................................................................. 145

Witness of the Pre–Vatican II Modern Popes .........................................................................................145
Pope Leo XII (1823 – 1829) ................................................................................................................................... 145 Pope Gregory XVI (1831 – 1846) ........................................................................................................................... 145 Pope Pius IX (1846 – 1878) .................................................................................................................................... 145 Pope Leo XIII (1878 – 1903) .................................................................................................................................. 145 Pope Saint Pius X (1903 – 1914) ............................................................................................................................ 145 Pope Benedict XV (1914 - 1922) ............................................................................................................................ 145 Pope Pius XI (1922 – 1939) .................................................................................................................................... 146 Pope Pius XII (1939 – 1958) ................................................................................................................................... 146

Witness of the Vatican II Popes................................................................................................................146
Pope John XXIII (1958 – 1963) .............................................................................................................................. 146 Pope Paul VI (1963 – 1978) .................................................................................................................................... 146 Pope John Paul I (1978) .......................................................................................................................................... 146 Pope John Paul II (1978 – 2005) ............................................................................................................................. 147 Pope Benedict XVI (2005 –) ................................................................................................................................... 147

USCCB Committee on Doctrine, 2007: ...................................................................................................149 USCCB Revises US Catholic Catechism, 2008: ......................................................................................149 The Understanding of Non-Catholic “Christian” Churches .................................................................150 A Table of Non-Catholic “Christian” Church Origins ..........................................................................151 Baptism of Desire? .....................................................................................................................................153

Chapter 7 – Vitality in Traditional Catholicism ............................................................................. 157
Increase of Vocations in Traditional Religious Orders ..........................................................................157 The Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX)..........................................................................................................157 The Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter ( FSSP) .......................................................................................163 Other New Orders Promoting the Extraordinary Mass ........................................................................164
Canons Regular of Saint John Cantius, Chicago, USA ........................................................................................... 164 Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest, Chicago, USA ................................................................................. 165 Benedictines of Clear Creek Abbey, Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA ................................................................................. 165 The Benedictines of Mary, Queen of Apostles, Gower, Missouri, USA................................................................. 166

The PCED and its Mission ........................................................................................................................166 France’s Seminarians To Be Over One-Third Traditionalist ...............................................................168 Young People Predominate Latin Mass Attendance ..............................................................................168 But Young People Have Fled the Novus Ordo Mass ..............................................................................169

Chapter 8 – Summary and Conclusions ......................................................................................... 171
Summary of the Statistical Measures of the Crisis .................................................................................171 Linking the Council with the Crisis .........................................................................................................173
Comparing Numbers – Novus Ordo vs. Tradition .................................................................................................. 173

The Six Elements of the Papal Plan for Restoration ..............................................................................185 Conclusions ................................................................................................................................................185
Projected Growth if Vatican II had not Happened .................................................................................................. 186

Index ................................................................................................................................................. 191


To the Immaculate Heart of the Virgin Mary, Mother of God; to St. Joseph, Protector of the Universal Church; to St. Thomas Aquinas, the Catholic Church’s teacher of order. “In our time more than ever the chief strength of the wicked lies in the cowardice and weakness of good men. All the strength of Satan's reign is due to the easy-going weakness of Catholics. Oh! If I might ask the Divine Redeemer, as the prophet Zachary did in spirit: What are those wounds in the midst of Thy hands? The answer would not be doubtful. With these was I wounded in the house of them that loved Me. I was wounded by My friends, who did nothing to defend Me, and who, on every occasion, made themselves the accomplices of My adversaries. And this reproach can be leveled at the weak and timid Catholics of all countries. ” Pope St. Pius X, discourse pronounced on December 13, 1908, at the beatification of Joan of Arc. 1 “O most powerful Patriarch, St. Joseph, Patron of that Universal Church which has always invoked thee in anxieties and tribulations; from the lofty seat of thy glory, lovingly regard the Catholic world. Let it move thy paternal heart to see the Mystical Spouse of Christ and His Vicar, weakened by sorrow and persecuted by powerful enemies. We beseech thee, by the most bitter suffering thou didst experience on earth, to wipe away in mercy the tears of the Reverend Pontiff, to defend and sustain him, and to intercede with the Giver of peace and charity ― ut destructis adversitatibus et erroribus, universis Ecclesia secura Deus serviat libertate ― that every hostile power being overcome and every error destroyed, the whole Church may serve the God of all blessings in perfect liberty. – Amen.” Prayer for the Eighth Day of the Chair of Unity Octave, January 25.2 To the bishops, priests, and laymen who have the courage and tenacity to remain at their stations on the Barque of Peter as She faces into the most tempestuous storm of Her mighty history. May they remain unflinchingly loyal to the truth, serene at heart but vigorous in action, and committed to steering Holy Mother Church into calmer, more fruitful waters.3 To my family: My wife Joan, who is my utter happiness late in life; my beloved deceased wife of forty-five years, Rosmarie, who was God’s loving instrument in my coming to the Faith; and my children: Roberta, Christina, Patrick, Maureen, and Timothy, my pride and joy

1 2

Father Denis Fahey, The Mystical Body of Christ in the Modern World (Dublin: Regina Publications, 1935), p. 277. Salve Maria Regina website, “Chair of Unity Octave,” accessed December 16, 2010, 3 Godfrey Kurth, The Church at the Turning Points of History [1918] (Norfolk, VA: Gates of Vienna Books, 2007), p. ii.


I am especially grateful to my wife, Joan, for her encouragement and patience over the years of my research and writing this book and her support in getting the book published and distributed; To Mrs. Christine Bryan, whose proofreading and valuable suggestions on both format and content of the book have made it a much better book than I could have written alone; To Mrs. Eleonore Villarrubia for proofreading the book; My most sincere gratitude to authors, editors, and publishers for the use of the copyrighted material quoted; Brother André Marie, Prior, Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, Richmond, NH, for the use of information regarding Our Lady of America and No Salvation Outside the Church taken from website; Mr. John Vennari, Editor, Catholic Family News, for the use of an excerpt of his review of the book, The Problem of the Liturgical Reform; Mr. John Salva for the use of his table of church founders, “What Is the History of Your Church?” Gates of Vienna Books, for permission to quote the words of Godfrey Kurth from the book, The Church and the Turning Points of History; Robert Moynihan, for the use of an excerpt from his editorial, “The Faith of the Simple, and Peace,” Inside the Vatican magazine, November 2010; CARA, The Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate at Georgetown University for the use of statistical data from a poll commissioned by the U.S. bishops and conducted in February, 2008; The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, for use of statistical data from their poll of 35,000 American adults done between May and August, 2007; Fr. Robert Pasley, Mater Ecclesiae Traditional Roman Rite Church, Berlin, NJ, for the use of his interview, “Liturgical Music in the Post-Vatican-II Church,” September, 2004; Roman Catholic Books for the use of material from the book by Monsignor Klaus Gamber, The Reform of the Roman Liturgy - It’s Problems and Background; Papal Encyclicals Online,, for the use of many papal encyclicals; TAN Books and Publishers for permission to use material from the book The Popes Against Modern Errors; Adoremus Bulletin, for the use of an excerpt from the article, “Pope Benedict XVI on the ‘Hermeneutic of Continuity,’” November, 2011; Cardinal Newman Society website, for the use of statistics from, “A Study of Practices and Beliefs of Current and Recent Students at Catholic Colleges and Universities”; The many other authors, owners, and webmasters of the websites from which statistical data and short excerpts of articles were used, and without which this book would not have been possible. I wish to acknowledge that I, Robert N. Wolfe, am singularly responsible for all errors, theological or otherwise, that may have been present in the book unknown to me at the time of publishing or that may be identified in the future. If I have failed to obtain any required copyright permission for copyrighted material, I would be grateful for being so informed and will make appropriate amends.
Robert N. Wolfe


Editor’s Preface
The book is the appeal of a Catholic layman on behalf of a growing number of faithful laboring in the Church for the restoration of vitality in faith, liturgy, and the priesthood. It is a statistical analysis of problems contributing to the crisis of Faith that emerged in the Church after Vatican II and quotes Conciliar popes on this crisis, outlines the pre-Conciliar papal plan that has sustained the vitality of the Faith in small traditional Catholic communities throughout the world since the Council, and urges Catholic bishops to seriously consider that plan as a means for restoring vitality in the entire Church. The book is also a study guide for examining both the current problems afflicting the Church and the remedies to those problems taught by the many popes quoted. As a part of that study the book contains a comprehensive questionnaire for gathering data helpful to bishops on the status of the Faith in their flock and their attitude toward The Papal Plan for Restoration. It is a wake-up call to all Catholics who, as a general rule, are unaware of or unmoved by the crisis that has developed in the Church since Vatican II. An unhealthy silence exists in the modern Church regarding both the existence and the causes of this crisis. For example, statistics show that since Vatican II most of the Catholic seminaries in the US have closed,4 and those still functioning have attracted too few men to fill the need for priests. The result is a serious shortage of priests to celebrate the new Vatican II Novus Ordo (New Order) Mass. From 1967 to 2010, the number of Catholics per priest has increased, and predictions indicate that, in the Western World at least, this crisis will continue. There is no viable plan to remedy the shortage of Novus Ordo priests. On the other hand, traditional seminaries using the pre-Vatican II Latin Mass are full and new seminaries are being built. Yet most bishops are silent regarding the legislation of Pope Benedict XVI restoring the pre-Vatican II Mass throughout the Church. Let’s look at the history of this silence about the traditional Mass. Pope John Paul II, in October, 1984, asked his bishops to allow the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass to be offered in Latin as it was celebrated in the Church for centuries until after Vatican II. His request was met by silence from his bishops and was not acted upon. Later in his Motu Proprio (a decree signed personally by the pope) Ecclesia Dei adflicta (July 2, 1988), his Holiness expanded his earlier directives concerning the Latin Mass, calling for their “wide and generous application.” This request by the pope was also met by silent bishops. Then, on September 14, 2007, through his Motu Proprio, Summorum Pontificum, Pope Benedict XVI restored the pre-Conciliar Latin Mass to legitimacy in the entire Church through binding ecclesial legislation, stating that the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass following the typical edition of the Roman Missal promulgated by Blessed Pope John XXIII in 1962 had never been abrogated (repealed or cancelled) and was henceforth to be allowed throughout the world. He said it is to be known as the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite and the Vatican II Mass of Pope Paul VI is to be known as the Ordinary Form. Both forms are equally valid and the Extraordinary Form may be offered by any priest without special permission. We note here several definitions of the word extraordinary: “going far beyond the ordinary; exceptional; remarkable” (Webster’s New World College Dictionary, Third Edition, 1988). This latest legislation has also met with silence from most bishops, as well as from a majority of clergy and laity, even though reliable statistics compiled by the Church Herself show that She

Katarina Schuth, OSF, “Training grounds,” Boston College Magazine (Summer 2011), accessed December 4, 2011, In 1967 there were 110 Catholic major seminaries in the US. In 2011, only 45 remained.



declined under the Ordinary Form while the Extraordinary Form has continued to be fruitful in producing vocations and the ordination of new priests. The book documents the decline under the new Mass and the fruitfulness of the pre-Vatican II Latin Mass and asks a number of survey questions to encourage the faithful and the bishops to seriously re-examine the two forms of the Mass and their effect on the modern Church. Pope Benedict XVI assures us that this examination will not be divisive. He said in Summorum Pontificum, “[T]hese two expressions of the Church's Lex orandi (Law of prayer) will in no way lead to a division in the Church's Lex credendi (Law of belief). They are, in fact two usages of the one Roman rite.” Truthfulness is absolutely necessary for unity to exist. Truthfulness is not divisive, ultimately, and therefore this statement by the pope will certainly be found to be true in the long term, but in the short term differing views on obvious problems need to be addressed. In these discussions, Pope Benedict XVI has repeatedly reminded us that issues must be addressed with a “hermeneutic of continuity,” that is, an understanding based upon continuity with the traditional teachings of the Church. “Test all things and hold onto that which is good.” (1 Thess. 5:21) Holding on to what is good is the major purpose of Tradition. In this way Tradition plays a fundamental role in God’s granting indefectibility to the Church. Therefore, where silence now exists, let there be an open examination of problems, especially the crisis in the shrinking priesthood and falling Mass attendance, so that Holy Mother Church may test all things in our times also, holding onto that which is good and discarding that which does not pass the test of goodness. The program that emerged in the post-Vatican II Church was not envisioned by the majority of the bishops at Vatican II. Vatican II did not call for the Latin Mass to be suppressed and replaced by a totally new vernacular Mass more acceptable to Protestants, with the priest facing the people, Communion in the hand, and altar girls. It did not call for Latin to be eliminated from the liturgy; churches to be remodeled – altars smashed and replaced with banquet tables; communion rails, crucifixes and tabernacles removed from the sanctuary; traditional sacred music and Gregorian chant to be eliminated and replaced with modern secular style music; the teaching of Thomistic philosophy to be eliminated from seminary training and replaced with modern philosophies. None of these things were mandated by Vatican II. The Papal Plan for Restoration outlined in this book much more faithfully represents and implements the intentions of the majority of the council fathers of Vatican II than what exists in the Novus Ordo era Church today. What’s more, using statistics compiled by the Church Herself we show that modern Protestant and feminist influences in the post-Vatican II experiment have minimized if not virtually eliminated traditional values from the Church and her liturgy. They have driven Catholic people away from Her and have driven Catholic men away from the priesthood, in catastrophic proportions. Through what is written here we appeal to our bishops to review these statistics and be moved to action by the reality of the crisis that has rocked the Church since Vatican II. And let that action be motivated by examining the wisdom of the popes who conceived the Papal Plan outlined here. That plan was followed and produced vitality in the Church of their time and it is still producing that same vitality in many small traditional Catholic communities today. Implemented in all Catholic parishes worldwide, that plan would revitalize the Church. Because of the straight forward nature of what is written here, strong emotions may arise in some who read this book. If that is the case with you, dear reader, please express your reactions clearly, frankly and anonymously in the comments section of the questions in the Survey Questions Booklet that comes with the book. As you read through the book you will be prompted to answer specific questions in the booklet. If you disagree with something that is written, make your contrary argument as strongly as possible in the comments section of the questions. After you have finished xiv

reading, write your overall evaluation of the book and its message in response to the final question in the survey. After you have completed answering all the questions in the booklet, please return it to the publisher. Your answers are important. The results of this survey will provide valuable new data for our bishops and our Holy Father on the faith of Catholics, the state of the Church, the attitude of Catholics toward the two forms of the Mass and their attitude toward The Papal Plan for Restoration.


Chapter 1 – Introduction
That the Church is in a crisis unprecedented in Her history can be logically argued from two points of view. First, She is being attacked externally on a global basis by secular forces and organized powers whose stated goal is Her destruction5,6 and, secondly, the crisis is also internal within Her very veins and heart7,8, worldwide throughout Her institutional structure, from the top to the bottom of Her hierarchy, as is testified by the Supreme Pontiffs and other qualified writers quoted here. These words are, therefore, written with deepest sorrow of heart and anguish over the suffering Holy Mother Church endures during this present trial. We avow our allegiance to the Holy Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of Jesus Christ on earth, and to the bishops and priests in the Catholic hierarchy under his authority. And as loyal sons solicitous of the good of the Church, in this book we respond to what we believe is a moral obligation9 to bring starkly and publicly to the attention of our bishops, pastors, priests and fellow Catholics, both the available statistical data regarding a resolvable crisis that has gone on too long in the Church, and the resolution of that crisis defined by our quoted popes. What caused this crisis and how can it be resolved? Our two major premises are: (1) the modern popes (from the 1800s until shortly after the Second Vatican Council) defined the causes of the problems, in detail, as well as the remedy for the problems, but their writings were not heeded at Vatican II and have gone unheeded by the majority of modern Church leaders, and; (2) problems of such magnitude cannot be fixed unless the underlying causes are correctly identified, understood, and acknowledged by Church leaders, and the proper remedies applied. The first major objective of the book is, therefore, to show statistically that the crisis since Vatican II does exist and to demonstrate how severely it has devastated and continues to devastate the post-Vatican II Church. This will be accomplished by examining a number of Church-related problems whose existence are publicly acknowledged by the Roman pontiffs and whose severity are statistically verifiable and obvious to anyone who will review the data. The second major objective of the book is to examine the clear warnings of serious problems looming for the Church, the causes of those problems, and their remedies contained in the writings of pre–Vatican II popes. Six of these major remedies, identified within the chapters and listed in the summary, constitute The Papal Plan for Restoration alluded to in the title of the book. Why was the wisdom of these popes not recognized and followed throughout the Vatican II Church? This is an obvious and intriguing question that is beyond the scope of this book but is addressed in many other books, for example, Iota Unum by Romano Amerio,10 and, In the Murky Waters of Vatican II by Atila Sinke Guimãres.11 These books quote the Progressivists, those who would change or abandon the traditional theology and praxis (practice and customs) of the Church, saying exactly what they stand for and what they intended – and still intend – to do. The logical connections between the causes of the problems identified by the popes and the available statistical data on the current effects of those problems within the Church we shall call
5 6

Vicomte Leon de Poncins, Freemasonry and the Vatican (London: Britons Publishing Co., 1968). Maurice Pinay, The Plot Against the Church, (Palmdale, CA, USA: Christian Book Club of America, American Edition, 1967). 7 PAPAL ENCYCLICALS ONLINE, Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi Dominici Gregis, §3, 1907, accessed September 1, 2010, 8 Fr. Richard W. Gilsdorf, ed. Patrick F. Beno, The Signs of the Times: Understanding the Church Since Vatican II (Green Bay, WI: Star of the Bay Press, 2008). 9 See, Lay Catholics Obligated to Defend the Faith, page 24. 10 Romano Amerio, Iota Unum: A Study of Changes in the Catholic Church in the Twentieth Century (Kansas City, MO: Sarto House, 1997). 11 Atila Sinke Guimãeres, In the Murky Waters of Vatican II (Charlotte, NC: TAN Books and Publishers, 1999).



cause and effect relationships. The identification of these cause and effect relationships, and their acknowledgment by Catholic Church leaders (our bishops) as a necessary prerequisite for restoration of vitality in the Church, is the third major objective of the book. Ten of these relationships linking the implementation of Vatican II with the current crisis are developed within the chapters and listed in the summary. The fourth and most important objective of the book is to review the vitality kept alive in the Church by religious orders and Catholic communities, adhering to the traditional teachings of the popes referenced and to the traditional praxis of the pre-Conciliar Church. These orders and communities have been faithfully adhering to The Papal Plan for Restoration, proving that the plan is effective today, especially in preventing the most serious Novus Ordo era problem, the drastic shortage of priests. This is not, therefore, a theoretical plan for the future. It is a practical plan already in place in traditional Catholic communities, put in place as the popes decreed, when they decreed, as shall be shown in Chapter 7. Because our present-day clergy do not generally voice concern about the crisis in the Church, the natural result is that most Catholics are unaware of the fact that a crisis exists. It is even said that the Church is entering a “New Springtime,” a “new evangelization” is about to begin. But doubts must exist in the mind of the Catholic who sees the devastating shortage of priests and the ever-increasing number of priestless parishes; the absence of teaching nuns in our disappearing Catholic schools; the decline in Mass attendance, confessions, Baptisms, and conversions; and the worldwide homosexual-pedophile scandal in the priesthood. The assessment of a “New Springtime” does not ring true. The crisis is a crisis of truth ― or, more precisely, a lack of truth, essentially a denial of what our statistics show is reality. This denial of reality is a serious illness in the Mystical Body of Christ. Sadly, Church leaders who fail to acknowledge the illness engender mistrust in the minds of those faithful who look at the empirical data and see devastating decline in all parameters of Church vitality. This mistrust is obviously an intolerable state of affairs, yet it exists; it is real and it is justifiable. And unless Church leaders begin to speak the whole truth about the crisis, acknowledge the wisdom of the remedies taught by the popes quoted here and take the remedies prescribed by them, the illness will continue to worsen. As Pope Benedict XVI has acknowledged: “My diagnosis is that we are dealing with an authentic crisis and it must be treated.”12 To grasp the significance of the dangers to the Church and the faith, clearly seen and documented by the pre–Vatican II popes, turn to the index of this book and look under the entry “Dangers.” There you will see listed, in chronological order, all the dangers documented by the popes quoted in this book. You will be struck by the extended length of the list and the fact that Vatican II reformers deliberately decided not to address these dangers, but instead, to convoke a “pastoral council” that ignored them. The statistics on the state of the Church today show this decision to have been a tragic error. Had these dangers been addressed throughout the Church as the popes decreed, when they decreed, the crisis could have been averted or at least greatly mitigated. Now, however, even if the remedies are applied, the recovery will be slow and painful. But the crisis is resolvable; the popes have given us the remedies and the Church is indefectible. The question is: When will our bishops act against these dangers with these papal remedies? The statistical data presented here is also a vindication of traditional Catholics who have been marginalized in the Church since Vatican II because of their adherence to her traditions. Those Catholics have been accused by modern clergy and laity alike of thwarting progress, wanting to go back, being rebellious, refusing to obey the magisterium, and even being schismatic because they have continued to adhere to the pre–Vatican II Mass and the traditional theology embodied in that

See footnote 24.


Mass. At the same time, the Church has been plunged into deep crisis by their accusers, as we shall show conclusively. Now these traditional Catholics are beginning to be vindicated ― especially, through the 2007 Motu Proprio, Summorum Pontificum of Pope Benedict XVI, which affirms that the old Mass was never abrogated and which officially restores it to its traditional place in the Church. Chapter 2 of the book quotes Vatican II popes and some of the highest officials in the Church acknowledging the existence and extent of the current crisis. In Chapter 3, statistical data provided by the Church Herself is examined to prove the devastating decline in Church vitality since Vatican II. The focus is on the decline in the number of seminarians and priestly ordinations in America. Because the post–Vatican II era seminaries have not ordained a sufficient number of priests, our existing pastors are now intolerably overworked, parishes are being combined and Catholic churches are being closed, sold to Protestants or increasingly are being administered by lay people. What is more serious, and an obvious consequence, Catholics in the US are now beginning to face a famine of the Holy Eucharist in parishes with no resident priest available to offer the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass daily. In some US dioceses, as we shall show, fifty percent of the parishes are now without a resident priest. Chapter 4 reports in detail on the warnings, the causes of the crisis, the preventive measures and remedies contained in the encyclicals of pre–Vatican II and modern popes, and in messages of Church-approved Marian apparitions. It should be noted at this point that the interpretation and understanding of the documents of Vatican II with regard to the writings of these pre-Conciliar popes must be understood, as Pope Benedict XVI has stated, with a “hermeneutic of continuity,”13 that is, an understanding in conformity with previously defined infallible teachings of the Church, for example, the understanding stated in the Oath Against Modernism of Pope Saint Pius X, who teaches that the truths of the Catholic faith must be held “in the same meaning and in the same explanation” as the Church has always taught. Pope Benedict XVI also warned, “On the one hand, there is an interpretation that I would call ‘a hermeneutic of discontinuity and rupture’; it has frequently availed itself of the sympathies of the mass media, and also one trend of modern theology. . . . The hermeneutic of discontinuity risks ending in a split between the pre-Conciliar Church and the post-conciliar Church.”14 The pope was only repeating what the First Vatican Council had defined: “that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by holy mother church [sic], and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding.”15 In the current debate in the Church about what Pope Benedict means by a “hermeneutic of continuity,” we submit what seems too obvious to be argued ― namely, that the writings of the popes of the past must be the basis for a true, authentic, hermeneutic of continuity. What other more authentic traditions are there with which continuity must exist? There are none more authentic. A fundamental cause of the crisis, as explained and predicted by these popes, is the attitude of current Church leaders, and consequently of Catholic people in general, that the Church is no longer really necessary; that is, no longer necessary in the sense that most Catholics now believe that ultimately salvation can be found outside Her. They say that there is no longer a necessity and certainly no urgency for all men to enter the Catholic Church because it is now taught that people can be saved in other religions or with no religion at all. This is a new phenomenon in the long

Adoremus Staff, “Pope Benedict XVI on the ‘Hermeneutic of Continuity,’” Adoremus Bulletin 13, no. 8 (November, 2007), accessed December 5, 2010, 14 Ibid. 15 pjm website, Dogmatic Constitution Dei Filius, Ch. 4, no. 14, 1870, accessed March 30, 2011,



history of the Church. The supreme pontiffs, fathers, doctors and saints of the Church are quoted extensively in what follows, speaking, writing and teaching against this fundamental modern error. In his 1903 encyclical E Supremi, Pope Saint Pius X reminded his bishops of the need for “restoring all things in Christ” (Eph. 1:10). This restoration in Christ, far more urgently needed today than it was in 1903, must obviously be directed from the highest levels of the Church, from Pope Benedict XVI and his successors. Restoration of vitality in the Church will require the most courageous action and perseverance on the part of the popes. But their courage and perseverance will be strengthened by faithful priests and laity who not only diligently pray for them but who also understand and promote, at the grassroots level in the Church, the proven reforms outlined by the popes quoted here. Traditional Catholics pray for the perseverance of Pope Benedict XVI in restoring the pre– Vatican II Latin Mass to legitimate use in all Catholic Church parishes throughout the world. Likewise they pray for that same courage in local priests and pastors. For the strengthening of their courage they have on their side (1) the statistical evidence showing conclusively that what has been done in and to the Church since Vatican II has been a disaster; (2) the strong support of the voices and writings of the many saints, popes and Church leaders quoted; and (3) the experience of the new traditional orders and Catholic communities, who are successfully implementing The Papal Plan for Restoration and thereby helping to restore vitality throughout the Church. Chapter 5 is a study of the Novus Ordo Missae, the new Vatican II vernacular Mass of Pope Paul VI, comparing its theology and liturgical practice with that of the pre–Vatican II Latin Mass, the socalled Tridentine Mass, called the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite by Pope Benedict XVI. The essential form of this Mass originated in the fourth or fifth century A.D., being revised and codified by Pope Saint Gregory the Great (A.D. 540-604) and remaining the Roman Rite Mass for well over a thousand years from that time until shortly after Vatican II. Before Vatican II the Church flourished under the old Mass. In the early 1900s, the well-known Catholic historian, Godfrey Kurth, wrote about the vitality of the flourishing Catholic Church in his day. He said: Who will deny that today, as in the Middle Ages, the Catholic Church is the highest authority? She speaks to all humanity in an accent sweet and strong and all Her own. And She alone can talk to mankind. Amid the universal crash of thrones and schools and doctrines, She is the one moral force which remains standing and Her astonishing superiority is enhanced by the very depth of their fall. She has but to raise Her voice and from all parts of the universe She is answered. Today there is such a thing as Catholic thought, which measures all things by the rule of Christian truth, condemning what is opposed to it, accepting what is not hostile. Strong and respected, conscious of its power, it circulates from one end of the world to the other; no longer can any sophism withstand it. In sociology, in science, in art, in all manifestations of the intellectual and moral life of the people, Catholic thought asserts itself with increasing force and energy. It is not refuted because it is irrefutable; it is opposed only by the conspiracy of silence. Nor is this all. Descending from the field of doctrine to that of action, the Catholic spirit has taken possession of public life. The Catholic battalions are reorganized; on every side, an army of men is rising. The people come to uphold their clergy; the rank and file of the faithful insist on sharing the struggle. How cheering it is, in time of trouble, [italics added. See footnote16] to see the recruits rally about their banner!17
16 17

Unless otherwise noted, all italicized emphasis throughout the book has been added by the editor. Godfrey Kurth, The Church at the Turning Points of History [1918] (Norfolk, VA: Gates of Vienna Books, 2007), pp. 112 – 14.


Kurth was optimistic. The Church was strong. But he also knew his was a time of trouble, for he also wrote, [It] is the beginning of the great struggle ― the greatest of all Her struggles against the powers of darkness. Let us not make the same mistake [the mistake made by lax Catholics prior to the French Revolution of 1789] and be deceived by appearances. Our own atmosphere is not less charged than was that of the [French] Revolution. I dare say that even the Revolution was not preceded by symptoms as formidable as those which now under our eyes seem to foreshadow a new catastrophe.18 Kurth was speaking of the Progressivists in the Church of his time (1918), who became more outspoken and bold as time progressed. By Vatican II they were able to gain control of the Council, fomenting another revolution, a new catastrophe, a liturgical revolution that gave the Church the new Mass.19 And, as was predicted before the new Mass was promulgated, the Church and the faith of Catholics declined precipitously under the new Mass. As shall be shown, this fact is statistically undeniable and is one of the strongest cause and effect relationships linking the implementation of the Council with the current crisis. The prediction of future problems that would result from the new Mass was contained most strongly in a study done by a group of cardinals and bishops headed by Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani, who was the head of the Holy Office during the reign of Pope Pius XII. The Holy Office was the equivalent of the current Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Under Pius XII, Cardinal Ottaviani was the highest ranking Roman Catholic Church official with responsibility for defending the faith and doctrines of the Church. He, with Antonio Cardinal Bocci and a group of Roman theologians and university professors, completed the study in 1969 and then wrote to Pope Paul VI stating, “[T]he study shows quite clearly that the Novus Ordo Missae ― considering the new elements widely susceptible to widely different interpretations which are implied or taken for granted ― represents, both as a whole and in its details, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session 22 of the Council of Trent.”20 Keep in mind that this warning was issued by the highest ranking prelate (under the pope) whose responsibility was the defense of the Catholic faith. His study and letter to Pope Paul VI became known as “The Ottaviani Intervention.” The study showed that the canons of the old rite, which “erected an insurmountable barrier against any heresy which might attack the integrity of the Mystery [of the Eucharistic Real Presence],” were no longer present in the new Mass of Pope Paul VI; the study predicted that the elimination of those canons would cause a widespread loss of faith among Catholics. It will be shown statistically and irrefutably that this prediction has come true in our day. Many self-identified Catholics who attend the Novus Ordo Mass, especially young Catholics, no longer believe in the Real Presence in the Holy Eucharist. This statistical link between the promulgation of the Novus Ordo Mass and the loss of faith in the Real Presence is an important cause and effect relationship linking the implementation of Vatican II with the current crisis of faith, and showing the urgent need for wider implementation throughout the Church of The Papal Plan for Restoration outlined here. Lex orandi, lex credendi is a Latin phrase long enshrined in Catholic tradition: ‘the law of prayer is the law of belief,’ meaning that the manner in which we pray determines what we believe; therefore, if the way we pray is changed, what we believe will change also. The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is the supreme prayer of the Church. When it changed after Vatican II, the Church immediately began to change, for the worse as will be shown statistically. The Ottaviani study predicted the crisis
18 19

Ibid., p. 112. Michael Davies, Liturgical Revolution, Volume III, Pope Paul’s New Mass, (Kansas City, Mo: Angelus Press, 1980), pp. 83-94. 20 See footnote reference in Chapter 4, page 83.



that would occur (and it did occur) because of the changes in the theology and liturgical practice of the Mass after Vatican II. The study is therefore a key element in understanding the causes of this crisis and identifying the cause and effect relationships linking (1) a prediction of a loss of faith and the causes for that loss of faith, and (2) the prediction of the effects these causes would have on future generations of Catholics, with (3) the statistical evidence confirming loss of faith among Catholics today. The text of that study report is therefore presented in its entirety in Chapter 5. Since this crisis is a crisis of truth, Chapter 6 shows how Catholics are to discern truth, and how that process of discernment applies to the Church’s dogma “outside the Church there is no salvation.” Arguments from the most reliable ecclesiastical sources are presented: Sacred Scripture, the infallible definitions of popes and the teachings of the saints, fathers and doctors from every age of the Church. These sources show that the prevalent attitude of clergy and laity that salvation is possible outside the Church is a contradiction of papal documents, warnings, and infallibly defined dogma, and is therefore a denial of truth. This denial is a fundamental cause of the fact that most Catholics no longer believe the Catholic Church is necessary for salvation. The arguments in Chapters 1 through 6 are negative in character. Chapter 7 turns to the positive and examines the vitality, never lost, in traditional Catholic communities and religious orders that have heeded the warnings and followed the teachings of the popes quoted, and are thereby showing in their respective spheres that these teachings are remedies that do actually produce good fruit in our times; they do work today. They resolve the crisis in real, quantifiable terms. They show the way to a restoration of the true faith and vital Catholic influence in the world. The relationship between these Catholics following the traditional teachings of the popes quoted here, and the vitality of the Catholic faith which has resulted is a positive cause and effect relationship supporting the widespread implementation in the Church of The Papal Plan for Restoration. From what has been outlined thus far, and which will be verified in the details of the chapters to follow, the following three statements are plainly logical and in accord with common sense: (1) Since the crisis did occur, it cannot be claimed that the warnings and predictions were wrong; (2) it is logical to conclude that the preventive measures and remedies were correct, since they have been shown to be workable today in traditional Catholic communities; therefore, (3) it is not logical to claim that the quoted remedies must be dismissed as a “going backward.” Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger wrote, concerning the Novus Ordo Mass developed after Vatican II, “We abandoned the organic, living process of growth and development [of the Mass] over the centuries, and replaced it – as in a manufacturing process – with a fabrication, a banal on-the-spot product.” The Cardinal called the new Mass a manufactured product. To scientifically test the effectiveness of any new product, a control group must be established, against which the new product is to be measured. For example, when introducing a new pharmaceutical drug, two groups of people would be established. One group would get the new drug and the other group, the control group, would not get the drug or would get only a placebo instead, so that the effectiveness of the new drug could be accurately measured against the group not using it. Providentially, a control group exists with which to compare the effectiveness of the new Vatican II product. The new product group consists of the Catholics attending the Novus Ordo (New Order) Mass, who received the new Vatican II product, and the control group consists of the traditional Catholics, who did not use the new product. They continued to adhere to the old Latin Mass, sacraments and their theology. In this book we will be statistically measuring the effectiveness of the new product against the control group that did not use it. Chapter 8 contains a summary of the statistical data presented, the ten cause and effect relationships linking the crisis in the Church to the implementation of Vatican Council II and the six elements of The Papal Plan for Restoration. The wisdom presented here is not our own, obviously, 22

but that of the pre–Vatican II popes, with corroboration from post–Vatican II popes and other knowledgeable Catholic clergy and laity.


Chapter 2 – The Crisis in the Church
Popes Affirm the Crisis Is Real

Apart from the statistical data showing that the crisis exists, it is evident from the words of highranking Catholic leaders that this crisis is not an imaginary one. On the ninth anniversary of his coronation, His Holiness Pope Paul VI made the following statement on the crisis in the Church in 1972, only three years after his new Mass was promulgated: We believed that after the Council would come a day of sunshine in the history of the Church. But instead there has come a day of clouds and storms and of darkness. . . . And how did this come about? We will confide to you the thought that may be, we ourselves admit in free discussion, that may be unfounded, and that is that there has been a power, an adversary power. Let us call him by his name: the devil. . . . It is as if from some mysterious crack, no, it is not mysterious, from some crack the smoke of Satan has entered the temple of God.21 “Smoke of Satan?” This is a serious accusation or admission. The Holy Father says it is not a mystery how the smoke of Satan entered the Church. What did he mean? Was it Vatican II? Its interpretation and implementation? His new Mass? The answer unfolds in what follows. Then, in 1977, came the following admission by Pope Paul VI in his address on the occasion of the Sixtieth Anniversary of the Fatima Apparitions: The tail of the devil is functioning in the disintegration of the Catholic world. The darkness of Satan has entered and spread throughout the Catholic Church even to its summit. Apostasy, the loss of the faith, is spreading throughout the world and into the highest levels within the Church.22 “Tail of the devil?” “Disintegration of the Catholic world?” “Even to its summit?” “Into the highest levels within the Church?” These also are truly startling admissions by the reigning Vatican II pope who promulgated the new Mass! Two years before he was elected Supreme Pontiff of the Roman Catholic Church and more than a decade after the final session of the Second Vatican Council, Archbishop Karol Wojtyla, then the Cardinal Archbishop of Krakow, Poland, directed the following statement to those gathered for the Eucharistic Congress in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA (1976): We are now standing in the face of the greatest historical confrontation humanity has gone through. I do not think that wide circles of the American society or wide circles of the Christian community realize this fully. We are now facing the final confrontation between the Church and the anti-Church, of the Gospel versus the antiGospel. [26] We must be prepared to undergo great trials in the not-too-distant future; trials that will require us to be ready to give up even our lives, and a total gift of self to Christ and for Christ. Through your prayers and mine, it is possible to alleviate this tribulation, but it is no longer possible to avert it, because it is only in this way that the Church can be effectively renewed. How many times, indeed, has the renewal of

Pope Paul VI, “Homily during the Mass of Sts. Peter and Paul,” June 29, 1972, accessed February 8, 2011, 22 Pope Paul VI, “Address on the Sixtieth Anniversary of the Fatima Apparitions ,” Age of Mary website, October 13, 1977, accessed February 8, 2011,



the Church been effected in blood? This time, again, it will not be otherwise. We must be strong, we must prepare ourselves, we must entrust ourselves to Christ and to His Mother, and we must be attentive, very attentive, to the prayer of the Rosary. [29]23 In 1985, twenty years after the conclusion of Vatican Council II, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, then the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, who has become Pope Benedict XVI, made the following statement: The period since the Council has decidedly been unfavorable for the Catholic Church. What the popes and the Council fathers were expecting was a new Catholic unity, and instead one has encountered a dissension which. . . . seems to have passed over self-criticism to selfdestruction. . . . There had been the expectation of a step forward, and instead one found oneself facing a progressive process of decadence. . . [A] real reform of the Church presupposes an unequivocal turning away from the erroneous paths whose catastrophic consequences are already incontestable. . . . My diagnosis is that we are dealing with an authentic crisis and it must be treated.24
Asking the Tough Questions

Why are these startling statements by post–Vatican II popes rarely heard, acknowledged or acted upon? Why have these statements not resulted in sober self-examination, especially by Catholic leaders? Serious questions like these are posed throughout this book. Answers are solicited especially from priests, pastors and bishops, but also from all who read what is written here. The questions are listed in the Survey Question Booklet that comes with the book and, as each topic is covered in the book, the reader is prompted to answer a specific question or a group of questions in the booklet. Check the appropriate answer box and add your comments, if any. Although there are many questions, if you answer each one when you are prompted to do so as you progress in your reading through the book it will not be a difficult task. And your answers will become part of a major survey of contemporary Catholicism that will greatly benefit our pastors, bishops, our Holy Father and the Church. Please make every effort to complete the survey questions and return your Survey Questions Booklet to the publisher at the following address. Catholic Restoration Resources, LLC 73 Old Troy Road Fitzwilliam, NH 03447 USA The editor’s intention is to publish a statistical summary of the answers and comments received in the survey. To begin, please answer questions 1 through 11 in the Survey Questions Booklet.
Lay Catholics Obligated to Defend the Faith

Lay persons are obligated in conscience and have the right under canon law to defend the traditional doctrines of the Church, the neglect of which, as will be shown, has caused the crisis.

Regis Scanlon, “Flood and Fire,” EWTN website, accessed Feb. 17, 2011, This article was taken from the April 1994 issue of The Homilectic & Pastoral Review, Fr. Kenneth Baker, S.J., 86 Riverside Drive, New York, NY 10024. The following are footnotes of the online EWTN article: [26] Karol Cardinal Wojtyla, “Notable & Quotable,” “Wall Street Journal” (Nov. 9, 1978), 30. [29] John Paul II, interview with Catholics at Fulda, Germany, Nov. 1980, p. 51. 24 Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, The Ratzinger Report, (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1985), pp. 29-30, 34.


Canon 229 ― Lay persons are bound by the obligation and possess the right to acquire a knowledge of Christian doctrine adapted to their capacity and conditions so that they can live in accord with that doctrine, announce it, defend it when necessary, and be enabled to assume their role in exercising their apostolate. Not only are lay persons obligated to defend the faith, Pope Benedict XVI has said the simple faith of lay Catholics is the remedy for the current crisis in the Church. This is a major reason the lay editor of the book you are reading decided to publish it. In an editorial in the magazine Inside the Vatican, entitled The Faith of the Simple, and Peace, its editor, Robert Moynihan said: The Pope, though a profound theologian, is more and more a simple believer, because, as he says, it is the faith of the simple believer which will save the Church and transform the world. “In the Book of Revelation,” the pope concluded, “there is the image of a fleeing woman who has a large river placed before her by the dragon, to overcome her, but the soil absorbs the river.” The river represents “the currents that dominate all and wish to make faith in the Church disappear,” the pope explained, “the Church that does not have a place anymore in front of the force of these currents that impose themselves as the only rationality, as the only way to live. And the earth that absorbs these currents is the faith of the simple at heart, that does not allow itself to be overcome by these rivers and saves the Mother and saves the Son . . . This true wisdom of simple faith that does not allow itself to be swamped by the waters, is the force of the Church.”25 So, my dear lay readers do not think you can do nothing about this crisis. Pope Benedict XVI says your simple faith is the key to its solution. He says this is particularly true for Catholics in America. The apostolic nuncio to the United States said Pope Benedict XVI wants the Catholic Church in America to be in the forefront of reviving Catholicism worldwide. The nuncio, Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano, said, The Church in the United States should lead the entire Church in the world in a revitalization effort. This is a great task, but you have the determination and the grace to do it. This I know is the vision of the Holy Father regarding the Church in the United States.26 The Papal Plan for Restoration, implemented throughout the Church in America would make that vision a reality. Please answer question 12 in the Survey Questions Booklet. A Bleak Assessment – but Trial Worketh Hope27 Although the statistics and the assessments by informed and respected Catholic leaders documented here are bleak, we must in charity and truth acknowledge the dedicated clergy and laity working doggedly, even heroically, in the Novus Ordo era Church to implement their understanding or their bishops’ understanding of the spirit of Vatican II. Especially do we acknowledge those priests who, overworked and fatigued to the point of collapse, continue their obedience in implementing their local ordinary’s vision of Vatican II. One pastor may have to serve four or five parish churches in a local area, all of which had a resident pastor before Vatican II. They indulge in financial wizardry to keep them all going or they agonize in having to close those they can no longer
25 26

Robert Moynihan, “The Faith of the Simple, and Peace,” Inside the Vatican 18, No. 9 (2010): p. 4. The Catholic Knight website, “O Mein Gott!!,” The Catholic Knight, April 27, 2012, accessed May 7, 2012, 27 Romans 5:4



keep solvent. They try to keep their Catholic school going. They fundraise. They have their required CCD program, their RCIA, parish council, liturgy committee, finance committee, building committee. A few have Eucharistic Adoration and Corpus Christi processions trying to keep the traditional faith alive. A few exceptional pastors may even desire to begin a Latin Mass in their parish under Pope Benedict’s Summorum Pontificum, but these pastors are generally not supported by their bishop or parishioners. And none of what they attempt gives them enough priestly vocations, so they see no future relief for themselves. Yet trial worketh hope and therefore this initial assessment of the problems in the Church since Vatican II cannot be concluded without expressing the firmest hope in the Catholic restoration occurring in small segments of the Church, especially in America. A major reason for that hope is given in Chapter 7, Vitality in Traditional Catholicism, where priestly vocations were not lost in those small Catholic communities, which have persisted in following The Papal Plan for Restoration. But prior to Chapter 7, the statistical evidence on the bleak side must be documented in detail.


Chapter 3 – Statistical Evidence
Having heard the testimony of Church leaders, the statistical evidence of the crisis is now examined.
The Decline in the Number of Seminarians

A Study by Georgetown University’s Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate (CARA) in 2011 provides data on four categories of seminarians enrolled in the US.28 The red curve of Figure 5 shows the decline in high school (minor seminary) seminarians. This curve is significant because it shows that the greatest decline in seminarians was in the very youngest (high school boys). These are the youth, the future of the Church. Before Vatican II, the minor seminaries fueled the major seminaries. Young men began discerning a priestly vocation and preparing for the seminary in high school minor seminaries. As a result, the average age at ordination in the 1950s and 1960s was 26. In 2011 the average age at ordination was 36.29 Large numbers of Catholic youth dropped out of the Church and stopped attending Mass after Vatican II. The resulting demise of minor seminaries must certainly be a major factor in the overall decline in the number of priestly vocations, ordinations, and the increase in the age of priests at ordination.

Figure 1: Number of US Seminarians, 1975-2011


Nineteensixty-four Research Blog of CARA, “Data in Context: New Ordinations and Seminarians,” April 13, 2012, accessed December 5, 2012, 29 Jerry Filteau, “Candidates for Priesthood Reflect Increasing Diversity,” America The National Catholic Weekly, May 11, 2009, accessed December 8, 2012,



CARA also provides data compiled in 2008 regarding weekly Mass attendance by “Pre–Vatican II” Catholics (born before 1943) and “Post–Vatican II” Catholics (born 1961-81). Weekly Mass attendance for the Pre–Vatican II Catholics was 45% while attendance by Post–Vatican II Catholics was 15%.30 The statistics for Catholic youth in France are even more sobering.31 On the eve of the 50th anniversary of the opening of Vatican II, Ifop / La Croix published a survey (Les Français et le catholicisme 50 ans après Vatican II - h/t to Le Salon Beige) on the state of Catholicism in France as of this year [2012] vis-a-vis the results of a similar survey in 1961. It contains important, updated information on the percentage of baptized Catholics in France and of church attendance in the same country as based on the survey results. The study itself was carried out in late September of this year [2012]. The following are brief excerpts of the results of the survey.32 In 1961 25% of all baptized Catholics attended Mass every Sunday, 26% never attended. In 2012 6% attended every Sunday, 58% never attended. In the age group 65 and older, in 2012, 15% attended every Sunday, 46% never attended. In the age group 35 to 49, 2% attended every Sunday, 60% never attended. In the age group 18 to 24, 0% (zero) attended every Sunday, 79% never attended. The declining interest of youth in the Novus Ordo Mass is reflected in the declining number of seminarians. The number of US seminarians was 8,325 in 1965 and declined to a low of 3,172 in 1995. Since then the number Figure 2: Number of US Seminarians per Million has risen to 3,723 in 2012. But with Catholics the increase in Catholic population the number of seminarians per million Catholics has remained constant at its level of 1995. These data and the data from which the graph was created are from CARA.33 However, it


A graphic, “…how often do you attend Mass?” (CARA Services), undated, accessed January 11, 2011, 31 Rorate Caeli website, “The Church of Vatican II- France: a Church on the road to distinction,” October 20, 2012, accessed December 7, 2012, 32 Posted by Augustinus, “The Church of Vatican II- France: A Church on the Road to Extinction,” October 20, 2012, rorate caeli website, accessed October 24, 2012, 33 CARA Website, “Frequently Requested Church Statistics,” undated, accessed December 11, 2012,


should be noted that approximately 25% of the seminarians in US seminaries are non-US, international students.34
The Decline in the Number of Priests

The following Figure 335 and Table 136 are from a recently published book( 2012), Same Call, Different Men – The Evolution of the Priesthood Since Vatican II. The obvious observation to be made from them is that the number of priests was steadily rising before Vatican II, began to fall after Vatican II, and is still falling. And the mean age of priests has significantly risen since Vatican II.

Figure 3: [Number of] Priests in the US, 1908-2008 Table 1 Average Age of Priests 1970 Mean age (in years): All priests Diocesan priests Religious priests
* Imputed from data provided

1985 52 51* 55*

1993 57 55 60

2001 61 59 64

2009 63 62 66

35* 34 37


Katarina Schuth, OSF, “Training grounds,” Boston College Magazine (Summer 2011), accessed

December 7, 2012, 35 Mary L. Gautier, et al, Same Call, Different Men (Collegeville, Minnesota: Liturgical Press, 2012), Chapter 1, p. 2, Chapter 1 available online, accessed December 13, 2012, 36 Ibid, p. 3.



The green line in the graph of Figure 4 shows the number of priests ordained in the US each year from 1975 through 2009.37 The red line shows that every year fewer priests were available for active ministry because the number of priests who died, retired or left the priesthood that year exceeded the number of newly ordained priests. For example, in 2009 the number of newly ordained priests was 402 but because of the death, retirement and departure of 703 priests, the net result was that the US had 301 fewer priests in 2009 than in 2008. Figure 4: US Diocesan Ordinations, 1971-2008 The graph in Figure 5 was derived from CARA data.38 It shows the yearly decline in the number of diocesan priests per million Catholics in the US for 1965-2012. Although the decline in the number of ordinations has leveled off at about 450 per year in the US, the aging priesthood and the increase in the number of Catholics continues to place a severe burden on active priests. The situation is actually more severe than this curve shows because the CARA numbers include all diocesan priests but 31% of the diocesan priests in the US in 2007 were inactive because of age, illness, or other reasons. Thus the number of active diocesan priests dropped from nearly 24,000 in 1997 to a little over 19,000 in 2007.39 Currently, only one man is ordained

Figure 5: Number of US priests per million Catholics


1964 Research Blog of CARA, “Data in Context: New Ordinations and Seminarians,” April 13, 2012, accessed December 5, 2012, 38 CARA website, “Frequently Requested Church Statistics,” accessed December 8, 2012, 39 Jerry Filteau, “Candidates for Priesthood Reflect Increasing Diversity,” America The National Catholic Weekly, May 11, 2009, accessed December 8, 2012,


for every three who retire, die, or leave the priesthood.40 And available data predict that this decline can be expected to continue. In an article entitled “Facing a future with fewer Catholic priest” Mark Gray of CARA tells us,“[T]he combined number of diocesan and religious priests in the United States actually declined by 8 percent, from nearly 45,000 to just more than 41,000 between 2001 and 2008. . . . This package utilizes the best and most recent data available to predict how the Catholic Church in the United States might look 25 years from now. Given recent trends, this is a future that can be expected to have fewer priests. ”41 The curve of Figure 6, created from data on the CARA website, shows the resulting increase in the number of US parishes with no resident priest pastor. The priest shortage made major headlines in 1993 with the publication of Full Pews and Empty Altars (University of Wisconsin Press) by researchers Richard Schoenherr and Lawrence Young. Schoenherr and Young's book is a history and projection of the clergy shortage. Based on historical records supplied by 86 out of 174 US dioceses, the authors meticulously traced the decline in priest personnel from 1966 to 1986. The authors state that, under a moderate projection, the number of diocesan priests in 2005 will decline by 40 percent from the number in 1966. The numbers have been falling for 30 years, say Schoenherr and Young, and they will continue to fall.42, 43 An October, 2003, article in the Figure 6: Number of US Parishes without a Resident National Catholic Reporter made an Priest Pastor even more ominous claim: “Death, retirement, and resignation have already reduced the clerical ranks to that number two years ahead of Schoenherr and Young's predictions.” Please answer questions 13 and 14 in the Survey Questions Booklet. More Statistics on the Crisis in the Church From a statistical study by Michael Schwartz we learn:

40 41

Katarina Schuth, “Training Grounds,” Boston College Magazine (Summer, 2011), accessed December 8, 2012,

Mark Gray, “Facing the future with fewer Catholic Priests,” Our Sunday Visitor Publishing Division (undated), accessed December 8, 2012, Mark F. Fischer, “The Future of the Parish and Its Priestly Leadership,” Today's Parish (October 1996): pp. 26-29. 43 Mark F. Fischer, “The Priest Shortage as a Spur to Pastoral Planning,” Parish Pastoral Councils (October, 1996): accessed November 22, 2010,



[T]he Church is suffering what is arguably Her worst crisis in two thousand years. The gathering and study of empirical data could point us in the direction of developing approaches to dealing with and perhaps alleviating this crisis. . . . Numbers are not meaningless. They give real, valid information about the external, institutional life of the Church. It is, for example, primarily on the basis of numerical evidence that historians recognize the half-century after World War I [prior to Vatican II] as a period of growth for the Church in the United States. . . . Numbers like those also give us real, valid data which can serve as the basis for assessing the state of the Church in our country at the present.44 Vatican II was convened by Pope John XXIII to create an awakening in the Church, to let in a breath of fresh air that would invigorate the Church. But the following statistics document what happened after Vatican II. In countries such as France and Holland, the percentage of Catholics at Mass each Sunday has declined to a single figure. In the USA, attendance [at Mass] has declined from 71% in 1963 to 25% in 1993, a decline of 65%. (Time Magazine, May 24, 1976, and Homiletic and Pastoral Review, November, 1993.) Former Jesuit Malachi Martin, in The Jesuits, states: “Attendance at Mass immediately declined, and within ten years was down by 30% in the US, 60% in France and Holland, 50% in Italy, 20% in England and Wales. Within another ten years, 85% of all Catholics in France, Spain, Italy and Holland never went to Mass. Seminary populations plummeted. In Holland, 2000 priests and 5000 religious brothers and nuns abandoned their ministries. . . . In the twelve years 1965-1977, some twelve to fourteen thousand priests worldwide asked to be relieved of their duties, or simply left. Sixty thousand nuns left their convents between 1966 and 1983.” 45 On March 30, 2008, Monsignor Vittorio Formenti of the Vatican said Muslims now outnumber Catholics in the world, 19.2% to 17.4%. [Ed. Note: see footnote on page 61] In the US, annulments increased dramatically after Vatican II. “The result has been an increase from 338 annulments in 1968, to 5,403 in 1970, to a peak 61,945 in 1991. . . . Since 1964 the tribunals have consistently ruled for annulment in about 97 percent of the cases they accept.”46 “Late in the 1980s, during their regular visits to Rome to confer with the Holy See, American bishops were closely questioned about the work of their diocesan marriage tribunals. Pope John Paul II had been urgently demanding a stricter accounting for the dissolution of marriages, and the pope’s remarks on that subject were clearly aimed at American Church courts, since by that time the US, with about 6 percent of the world’s Catholic population, was accounting for over 80% of the world’s annulments.”47 “Today [2008], polls show that Catholics, at least in the West, dissent from the Church’s teaching on contraception, often by majorities exceeding 80%.”48 “A 1958 Gallup Poll reported that three in four American Catholics attended Mass on Sundays. A recent study by the University of Notre Dame found that only one in four now attend.”49

Charles Wilson, “Is It Time To Count Teeth?,” Christifidelis Newsletter, Vol. 14, No. 5, November, 1, 1996, The St. Joseph Foundation, San Antonio, TX, pp. 8-9, quoted from a study published by Michael Schwartz, entitled “ Renew al and Retrenchm ent: US Catholic Dioceses, 1980-1990,” Free Congress Foundation, Washington, 1990. 45 Steve C. Mahowald, Eclipse of Truth, (Omaha, Nebraska: MMR Publishing, 1997), p. 13. 46 Robert J. Kendra, “American Annulment Mills,” Homiletic and Pastoral Review, (December, 2005):14, accessed January 19, 2011, 47 Philip F. Lawler, The Faithful Departed: The Collapse of Boston’s Catholic Culture (Encounter Books, 2008), p. 128. 48 Allen, John, “The popes vs. the pill,” NY Times, July 28, 2008, Opinion, accessed December 1, 2010, 49 Buchanan, Patrick J., “An Index of Catholicism’s Decline,” Worldnet Daily Commentary, December 11, 2002, accessed December 16, 2010,


In a 2008 poll commissioned by the American bishops, 68% of all Catholics surveyed said they believed they could be in good standing with the Church without going to weekly Sunday Mass. Only 23% of those Catholics surveyed said they go to Mass every week.50 “In January 1992, a nationwide Gallup Poll reported that two out of three Catholics [67%] no longer believed in Christ's Real Presence.”51 These statistics were confirmed in another national poll conducted by the New York Times/CBS in April 1994. Of Catholics between the ages 18 and 29, 70% believe that the Holy Eucharist of the Catholic Mass is merely a “symbolic reminder of Christ.”52 These statistics apply to all self-defined Catholics in the US, those who go to Mass every week and those who seldom go to Mass. If the poll had addressed only those Catholics who go to Mass every week, the statistic on belief in the Real Presence would have been much better. However, as previously cited, only 23% of Catholics go to Mass every week, so the 70% “symbolic” statistic could well be valid for all persons who still consider themselves Catholic but also believe they do not have to go to Mass every week to be a good Catholic. And how much more would the survey show loss of belief in the Real Presence if it included the one third of Catholics who have given up the faith altogether and no longer consider themselves Catholic, or have apostatized to Protestantism and are no longer Catholic. The following is from a large poll of thirty-five thousand Americans conducted by the Pew Foundation in 2008: Approximately one-third of the survey respondents who say they were raised Catholic no longer describe themselves as Catholic. This means that roughly 10% of all Americans are former Catholics.53 And Spanish speaking immigrants are replacing American cradle Catholics who no longer practice the faith. Even so, the following calculation shows that today nine million fewer Catholics attend Mass on Sundays than did in 1950. In the early 1950s there were about 35 million Catholics in the US. Today there are over 75 million. This number however does not distinguish between practicing and nonpracticing Catholics. It is estimated that just over 80% of Catholics attended Mass each Sunday in the 1950s. Today it is estimated that about 25% of Catholics go each Sunday. That means that in the early 1950s about 28 million Catholics were in Church each Sunday. Today that number, even with a growing Catholic population due to Spanish speaking immigrants, has dropped to 19.2 million. In other words, almost 9 million fewer Catholics are in Church now as compared to the 1950s.54


A poll, commissioned by the US bishops, conducted by (CARA) The Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate at Georgetown University, conducted in February, 2008, accessed January 19, 2011, 51 Richard J. Foley, “While Extraordinary Miracles Abound, Many No Longer Believe in True Presence of the Holy Sacrament,” Queen of Peace Newsletter, Pittsburgh Center for Peace, P.O. Box 1218, Coraopolis, PA 15108, Summer, 1977, Holy Name of Jesus Catholic Community website, accessed February 2, 2011, 52 New York Times/CBS News poll, Apr. 21-23, 1994, accessed January 1, 2011,;col1. 53 Based on telephone interviews with more than 35,000 American adults done between May and August, 2007, this extensive survey by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life details the religious makeup, religious beliefs and practices as well as social and political attitudes of the American public. Copyright © 2008 The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, 1615 L Street, NW Suite 700 Washington, DC 20036-5610, accessed November 11, 2010,,. Hereinafter referenced as CARA2008. 54 Msgr. Charles Pope, “Is the Bottom Really Falling Out of Catholic Mass Attendance? A Recent CARA Survey Ponders the Question,” December 15, 2010, Archdiocese of Washington website, accessed January 1, 2011,



It is still the precept of the Church (the first of the six precepts of the Church) that missing Mass on Sunday or a holy day of obligation without a serious reason is a mortal sin, destroying sanctifying grace in the soul. Should a person die in that state, without sanctifying grace, that person will not be saved, will deserve and go to hell. This is the tragic condition of the nine million US Catholics who no longer believe this precept of the Church and no longer go to Mass every Sunday and holy day of obligation. The same is true for modern Catholics throughout the world who no longer believe they have an obligation under pain of mortal sin to attend Mass weekly and on holy days of obligation. It is not merely a sad statistic, but apostasy on an unfathomable scale in the Church, un-stemmed because there is no viable plan to fix the problem in the Novus Ordo era Church. The Papal Plan for Restoration is a proven plan to fix the problem. The 2008 Pew Foundation poll previously cited also found that: 48% of Catholic respondents favor legal abortion (16% in all cases, 32% in most cases), while only 18% of Catholics agree that abortion should always be illegal. A substantial majority of the Catholics polled – 58% – said that society should accept homosexuality. On theological issues, only 16% of American Catholics believe that their Church is the one true means of salvation. (By comparison, 36% of the Evangelical Protestant respondents chose that answer.) An overwhelming 79% of the Catholics said that many different faiths could lead to salvation.55 In the US presidential elections of November, 2008, according to voter exit polls, 54% of Roman Catholics voted for Barack Obama,56 the most liberal, radical, pro-abortion candidate in the history of American elections, who, supported by the Catholic vote became President of the United States and promised that his first priority would be to sign into law the FOCA (Freedom of Choice Act) legislation, which would wipe out all laws limiting abortion in the United States, including removing the ban on partial birth abortions and the requirement that minors have parental approval for an abortion. Here are two examples of US Catholic bishops who made strong statements before the elections warning Catholics that it would be a grievous sin to vote for a pro-abortion candidate. Archbishop Joseph Naumann of Kansas City has stated that Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius should not present herself for Holy Communion. The governor, a “Catholic” who sits on Sen. Barack Obama’s Catholic National Advisory Council, is a long-time supporter of abortion rights. Archbishop Naumann also pointed out that Sebelius, the self-proclaimed Catholic, has accepted campaign contributions from Dr. George Tiller, the notorious lateterm abortionist. 57 In August of 2004, Archbishop John F. Donoghue of Atlanta, Bishop Peter J. Jugis of Charlotte, North Carolina and Bishop Robert J. Baker of Charleston, South Carolina, in their joint statement on the Holy Eucharist entitled “Worthy to Receive the Lamb: Catholics in Political Life and the Reception of Holy Communion” wrote, Catholics in political life have the responsibility to exemplify in their public service this teaching of the Church, and to work for the protection of all innocent life. There can be no contradiction between the values bestowed by Baptism and the Catholic faith, and the public expression of those values. Catholic public officials who consistently support 55 CARA2008. 56 Jean Torkelson, “54% OF CATHOLICS VOTED FOR OBAMA,” Rocky Mountain News, Pro-Life News, accessed December 16, 2010, 57 Network News (blog), “Archbishop Rebukes Obama Advisor,” 5/13/2008, accessed January 26, 2011,


abortion on demand are cooperating with evil in a public manner. By supporting proabortion legislation they participate in manifest grave sin, a condition which excludes them from admission to Holy Communion as long as they persist in the pro-abortion stance (cf. Canon 915).58 In addition, and what was not said, manifest grave sin removes sanctifying grace from the soul of those politicians. Should they die in that state, without sanctifying grace in the soul, the Church teaches dogmatically and infallibly that they will not be saved.
Study on the Crisis in Catholic Higher Education

The following is a report of a 2010 study by Georgetown University’s Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate (CARA).
MANASSAS, Virginia, February 2, 2010 ( – Attending a Catholic college has minimal impact on a Catholic student’s practice and embrace of the Catholic faith, according to a new study released Sunday at a gathering of Catholic college presidents in Washington, D.C. The study was presented to the Association of Catholic Colleges and Universities (ACCU) by researchers at Georgetown University’s Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate (CARA). “Catholics should be alarmed by the significant declines in Catholic practice and fidelity at many of America’s Catholic institutions,” said Patrick J. Reilly, President of The Cardinal Newman Society.” Everyone expects a Catholic college to be markedly different from a secular one. Students should be inspired to embrace and deepen their Catholic faith, not negotiate around Catholic moral teaching.” The CARA study largely confirms a 2003 study released by The Cardinal Newman Society (CNS), which found significant declines in students’ support for Catholic moral teaching on abortion, marriage and sexuality after four years at a Catholic college or university. According to the CARA report, 16% of students at Catholic colleges and universities become more pro-life and more convinced of traditional marriage, whereas 31% become more supportive of legal abortion and 39% embrace same-sex “marriage.” Only 7% increased attendance at religious services, while 32% reduced attendance. While attending a Catholic institution, 8% of Catholic students leave the Catholic faith.59 In October 2008, The Cardinal Newman Society published a comprehensive study of practices and beliefs of current and recent students at Catholic colleges and universities. The study, conducted by the reputable Washington, D.C., polling firm QEV Analytics, found that:

 Nearly 1 in 5 respondents knew another student who had obtained or paid for an abortion.


Roman Catholic Diocese of Charlotte website, “Worthy to receive the Lamb: Catholics in Political Life and the Reception of Holy Communion,” accessed February 19, 2011,, © 2011 The Roman Catholic Diocese of Charlotte. 59, “New Study Confirms Crisis in Catholic Higher Education,” February 2, 2010. The study was presented to the Association of Catholic Colleges and Universities (ACCU) by researchers at Georgetown University’s Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate (CARA), accessed February 19, 2011,



 46% of current and recent students—and 50% of females—said they engaged in sex outside of marriage.  84% said they had friends who engaged in premarital sex  60% agreed strongly or somewhat that abortion should be legal.  60% agreed strongly or somewhat that premarital sex is not a sin.  78% disagreed strongly or somewhat that using a condom to prevent pregnancy was a serious sin.  57% agreed strongly or somewhat that same-sex “marriage” should be legal.  57% said the experience of attending a Catholic college or university had no effect on their participation in Mass and the sacrament of reconciliation.  54% of respondents said that their experience of attending a Catholic college or university had no effect on their support for the teachings of the Catholic Church.  56% said their experience had no effect on their respect for the pope and bishops.60 Please answer questions 15 through 21 in the Survey Questions Booklet.


Cardinal Newman Society website, “Study of practices and beliefs of current and recent students at Catholic colleges and universities,” October, 2008, accessed January 18, 2011, x.


Chapter 4 – Warnings, Causes, and Remedies
Self-Deception In his conference on self-deception, the famous Anglican convert to Catholicism, Father Frederick Faber, said (paraphrased in modern English), [S]elf-deceit is without doubt the most fundamental corruption of every human creature. It was Adam's. It was Eve's. It is ours. So, uncomfortable or not, disquieting or not, selfdeceit must be dealt with before all other weaknesses. To put it another way, every person must seek the truth above all else and follow it no matter what the consequences. Only the truth can lead to heaven; all else leads to hell. But, unfortunately, liars are not rare. In fact, a truthful person is the rarest of all phenomena. It's unlikely that we have ever seen a totally truthful man.61 And Father Faber was only echoing Saint Paul who tells us, “But God is true, and every man a liar.”62 The inability to either see or to speak the whole truth is a major cause of the continuing crisis in the Catholic Church. This book speaks at length about the necessity for truthfulness and what the pre-Conciliar popes say about how to know truth. It must be said again, a problem cannot be solved without first knowing and acknowledging its causes. Unless Church leaders fully acknowledge the real causes of this crisis and the remedies clearly identified by pre–Vatican II popes, it will continue to worsen. The Warnings of Approved Marian Apparitions The pre-Vatican II popes were genuinely concerned about the repeated warnings of the Blessed Virgin Mary against those in the Church who would alter Her traditional doctrines and sacred liturgy. Cardinal Eugenio Pacelli, who would become Pope Pius XII, when he was Secretary of State to Pope Pius XI, said: “I am worried by the Blessed Virgin's messages to Lucy of Fatima. This persistence of Mary about the dangers which menace the Church is a divine warning against the suicide of altering the faith, in Her liturgy, Her theology and Her soul. . . . I hear all around me innovators who wish to dismantle the Sacred Chapel, destroy the universal flame of the Church, reject Her ornaments and make Her feel remorse for Her historical past. . . . A day will come when the civilized world will deny its God, when the Church will doubt as Peter doubted. She will be tempted to believe that man has become God. In our churches, Christians will search in vain for the red lamp where God awaits them, like Mary Magdalene weeping before the empty tomb, they will ask, ‘where have they taken Him?’ ” 63 After Vatican II, this concern about Mary’s warnings vanished in the Catholic clergy and faithful. Here, in chronological order, are the principle warnings from the Blessed Virgin. Guadalupe, Mexico, 1531 The first major apparition of Our Lady in the Americas occurred near Mexico City, Mexico, in 1531, where she became known as Our Lady of Guadalupe. She appeared to Juan Diego, an Aztec Indian, and the seer of Guadalupe, asking him to go to his bishop and ask for a church to be built in

Fr. Frederick William Faber, D.D., Spiritual Conferences (Charlotte, NC: TAN Books and Publishers, 2009), pp. 182ff. 62 Romans 3:4. 63 Georges Roche & Philippe Saint Germain, Pie XII devant l'Histoire (Paris: Robert Lafont, 1972), pp. 52-53.



her honor. Her image was miraculously imprinted on the tilma or cloak of Juan Diego and is miraculously preserved to this day. Motivated by Our Lady and her miraculous image, five million Aztecs were converted to the Catholic faith at the same time that approximately five million English Protestants left the Catholic faith during the Protestant Revolt. 64 The lesson we must learn from Our Lady of Guadalupe is to heed her words and do her will which is synonymous with the will of her divine Son. Catholics today, both laity and clergy, are not listening to her words, not following her instructions, not doing her will. Our Lady of Good Success, Quito, Ecuador, 1600s In the seventeenth century the Blessed Virgin Mary appeared to a Conceptionist religious, Mother Mariana, of Quito, Ecuador, under the title of Our Lady of Good Success. She revealed to the sister a message that would be relevant only for Catholics in the 20th century, four centuries later! Marian Horvat tells the story – Our Lady told Mother Mariana that in our lamentable times (the 20th century), heresies would abound, the corruption of manners and customs would be almost complete and the light of the faith would be nearly extinguished. . . . I was amazed to find that Our Lady, in a three-centuries-old approved apparition, was addressing the problems of our own days. There is absolutely no way that a Spanish religious in the 1600s could have had any idea of what would be occurring in our century. But there it all was: Our Lady warned Mother Mariana that the sacraments would be abused and set aside, that vocations would perish because of poor formation and education in Catholic schools and monasteries[.]65 Quito Prophesies Confirmed by Pope Benedict XVI The sixteenth century prophesies of Our Lady of Good Success for the twentieth century were confirmed by Pope Benedict XVI in his letter of March 10, 2009, to all the Catholic bishops of the world entitled “Concerning the Remission of the Excommunication of the Four Bishops Consecrated by Archbishop Lefebvre.” Pope Benedict XVI had the following to say about the state of the Church in the world today. In our days, when in vast areas of the world the faith is in danger of dying out like a flame which no longer has fuel, the overriding priority is to make God present in this world and to show men and women the way to God. . . . The real problem at this moment of our history is that God is disappearing from the human horizon, and, with the dimming of the light which comes from God, humanity is losing its bearings, with increasingly evident destructive effects.66 “[I]n vast areas of the world . . . the faith is in danger of dying out . . . God is disappearing from the human horizon.” There are no vast areas of the world where Catholic bishops do not have jurisdiction. Therefore, the pope has acknowledged that “the real problem at this moment in history” is not the unsanctioned consecration of four traditional bishops, but that Catholic bishops have

Marian T. Horvat, Ph.D., “Our Lady of Good Success and Our Lady of Fatima: Prophecies for Our Times ,” Tradition in Action, accessed November 22, 2011, 65 Marian T. Horvat, Ph.D., “Our Lady of Good Success and Our Lady of Fatima: Prophecies for Our Times ,” Tradition in Action (undated), accessed November 22, 2011, 66 Christopher A. Ferrara, “Pope Stands With Traditionalists,” The Remnant Newspaper, March 15, 2009, p. 1, accessed November 22, 2010,


allowed the “flame” of Catholic faith to die out in vast areas of the world. The article just cited continues, Moreover, by connecting his recognition of a vast apostasy to his protest against intolerance of the Society [of Saint Pius X], and by calling that apostasy “the real problem” confronting the Church today, the Holy Father is implicitly arguing for the role the Society must play in reversing the apostasy. Why else would His Holiness be at pains to note, only a few lines later, that the Church cannot be indifferent to the fate of “a community which has 491 priests, 215 seminarians, 6 seminaries, 88 schools, 2 university-level institutes, 117 religious brothers, 164 religious sisters and thousands of lay faithful”? Note well: lay faithful. That is, there is no apostasy in the Society, but rather a source of hope (of course, not the only one) in a world that has turned its back on God.67 Fatima, Portugal, 1917 The 1917 apparitions of the Blessed Virgin Mary at Fatima, Portugal, constituted “the most stupendous miracle since Christ's Resurrection and the greatest public miracle since the parting of the Red Sea.” 68 This fact is not acknowledged by most Catholics, including bishops and priests, although the message of Our Lady at Fatima has been promoted worldwide most emphatically and courageously by Fr. Nicholas Gruner. Foretold three months in advance and witnessed by seventy-thousand people, the miracle of the sun, crashing toward the earth and the frightened crowd below, marks Fatima as unique among all Church -authenticated Marian apparitions. To fully understand the Miracle, we must understand Fatima in its relation to what Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, called “the absolute importance of history.” . . . In 1984, after admitting he had read the Third Secret, he was asked why it was still not released. His response revealed that the Third Secret possesses the following “six themes ” (mysteriously correlating with the same number of times Our Lady appeared at Fatima): 1) It is in accord with Divine Revelation, 2) it demands a radical call to conversion and penance, 3) it refers to the absolute importance of history, 4) it alerts the Church and the world to the dangers threatening the faith , the life of the Christian and, therefore, the world, 5) it is integral to the importance of the last times, and 6) although it could be mistaken for sensationalism, it is nevertheless a religious prophesy corresponding to Scripture and confirmed by many other Marian apparitions. 69 These warnings of Our Lady of Fatima on “dangers threatening the faith,” have been noted because today they not only threaten but have actually overtaken the faith and the Church. Sister Lucia Santos, the principle seer of the apparitions at Fatima, spoke of a “diabolical disorientation” in the Church. She said in 1970, Our Lady requested and recommended that the Rosary be prayed every day, having repeated this in all the apparitions as if forewarning us that in these times of diabolical disorientation, we must not let ourselves be deceived by false doctrines.70 Many books have been written on the apparitions and messages of Our Lady, warning of the crisis now afflicting the Church. These apparitions constitute supernatural warnings from God
67 68

Ibid. Keeping It Catholic (blog), “Fatima’s Miracle of the Sun: The Meaning of the Great Sign,” October 4, 2008, accessed January 18, 2011, 69 Ibid. 70 The Fatima Network website, “Sister Lucy on “Diabolical Disorientation,” accessed December 16, 2010,



and the Blessed Virgin echoing the warnings of the popes quoted, or perhaps in some instances the popes were quoting Our Lady. Why these natural and supernatural warnings have gone virtually unheeded by the majority of bishops, clergy and laity in the Church is a mystery. Sister Lucy called it diabolical disorientation. The decision by Progressivists at Vatican II to ignore these supernatural warnings of impending disaster, and the current statistical evidence of the disastrous consequence of that decision in the Church today, is a strong cause and effect relationship linking the implementation of Vatican II with the current crisis. Also, the refusal by the Progressivists at Vatican II to heed the supernatural warnings of God and Our Blessed Mother was, essentially, a refusal to heed The Papal Plan for Restoration outlined here. Was the Progressivist opposition to this papal plan the basic reason for ignoring the warnings? The Blessed Virgin Mary warned at Fatima of the errors of Russia and gave her heavenly command, which is also obviously her Son’s, that the pope, together with all of the world’s Catholic bishops, consecrate Russia to her Immaculate Heart. She said, If my requests are heard, Russia will be converted and there shall be peace. If not, she will spread her errors throughout the world, causing wars and persecutions of the Church. The good will be martyred; the Holy Father will have much to suffer, and several nations will be annihilated. At the end, my Immaculate Heart will triumph. The Holy Father will consecrate Russia to me, Russia will be converted and there will be a time of peace.71 What will humanity and the Catholic Church look like in this era of peace resulting from the consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary (and the resulting worldwide triumph of the Catholic faith and the Catholic Church)? Because the Blessed Virgin Mary would not contradict the teachings of our quoted popes, there could be no more accurate and comprehensive picture of the Church and the world in the triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary than a world living The Papal Plan for Restoration. Could The Papal Plan for Restoration bring about the consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary by the pope and bishops of the world, followed by an era of peace as prophesied by Our Lady at Fatima in 1917? Or, will that consecration bring about The Papal Plan for Restoration in the era of peace? Either way, The Papal Plan for Restoration is essential if there is to be peace in the Church, and thus, in the world. The complete story of Our Lady’s apparitions at Fatima and the importance of those apparitions to the Church and the entire world of today have been thoroughly documented in the books referenced in the footnotes below.72, 73 They need to be read and heeded by every Catholic, indeed, every person in the world. Our Lady of America, USA, 1950s The following is an excerpt from an article by Br. André Marie, M.I.C.M., describing one of a number of apparitions of Our Lady of America to the holy religious in Ohio, Sister Mary Ephrem (Mildred Neuzil). While there are many supposed apparitions that claim our attention, we put no credence in those lacking the Church’s approbation. The apparitions of Our Lady of America are approved by the Church, as shown by the recent canonical study of the case by Archbishop


Australia Needs Fatima website, “The Fatima Story,” Accessed January 18, 2011, 72 Father John De Marchi, I.M.C., The True Story of Fatima (Constable, NY: The Fatima Center, 2009). 73 Father Paul Cramer, editor, The Devil’s Final Battle, Second Edition (Kenmore, NY: Saint Joseph Books, 2010).


Burke.74 Since this apparition is approved, and since it has a message for the Church in America, we consider it worthy of attention, especially now. On the evening of the feast of the Most Holy Rosary, October 7, 1957, Our Lady again appeared. Her hands were clasped in an attitude of prayer. Her look was serious, though her countenance retained its usual deep serenity. Hanging from her right hand was a blue rosary of a glass-like quality. I was conscious of the fact that what she was about to say to me was not only very grave but of the utmost importance. Our Lady reiterated in a similar manner her first warnings: “My beloved daughter, what I am about to tell you concerns in a particular way my children in America. Unless they do penance by mortification and self-denial and thus reform their lives, God will visit them with punishments hitherto unknown to them. “My child, there will be peace, as has been promised, but not until my children are purified and cleansed from defilement, and clothed thus with the white garment of grace, are made ready to receive this peace, so long promised and so long held back because of the sins of men. “My dear children, either you will do as I desire and reform your lives, or God Himself will need to cleanse you in the fires of untold punishment. You must be prepared to receive His great gift of peace. If you will not prepare yourselves, God will Himself be forced to do so in His justice and mercy. “Making the rosary a family prayer is very pleasing to me. I ask that all families strive to do so. But be careful to say it with great devotion, meditating on each mystery and striving to imitate in your daily lives the virtues depicted therein. Live the mysteries of the rosary as I lived them, and it will become a chain binding you to me forever. They who are found in the circle of my rosary will never be lost. I myself will lead them at death to the throne of my Son, to be eternally united to Him. ‘“Write these words upon your hearts, my dear children, because of the compassion I have for you in my Immaculate Heart. Oh, if you knew the punishments I am holding back from you by my pleading and intercession on your behalf! “Will you do as I wish at last, my children?” The cynic may say that every apparition – true and false – speaks of chastisements of some sort, and often in a general way. True, but this apparition is approved by the Church, and is for the Church in America. Whatever it says pertains not to the Church in general, but to the Church in our Republic. Because of this, we should pay particular attention to its warnings, which speak of “punishments hitherto unknown” to us if we fail to “reform [our] lives.” And we – we American Catholics – have failed to reform our lives from the time this message was given fifty-one years ago. The president whose term we await with dread [Barack Obama] received 54% of the Catholic vote. More than half of the Catholics of our Republic made themselves accomplices to an Orwellian anti-Christian program. But there is hope here, for Our Lady of America also tells us that this suffering will be “purifying,” and that it will prepare us to “receive [God's] great gift of peace.” Thus, the condition for America’s conversion, according to a great nineteenth-century Catholic philosopher and a beatified missionary from the same era, will be realized in what Our Lady has prophesied.75


Archbishop Raymond L. Burke is an American prelate of the Roman Catholic Church. He is the current Prefect of the Vatican’s Apostolic Signatura. 75 Brother André Marie, M.I.C.M., Brother André Marie’s Weblog (blog), Our Lady of America and the Obama Nation, accessed January 18, 2011,



Akita, Japan, 1973 Cardinal Ratzinger also said the message of Fatima coincides with the Church-approved 1973 revelation of Our Lady at Akita, Japan. Sister Agnes Sasagawa, seer of the apparitions at Akita, received the following revelation from Our Lady: The work of the devil will infiltrate even into the Church in such a way that one will see cardinals opposing cardinals, bishops against other bishops. The priests who venerate me will be scorned and opposed by their confreres (other priests). Churches and altars will be sacked. The Church will be full of those who accept compromises and the demon will press many priests and consecrated souls to leave the service of the Lord.76 Since Cardinal Ratzinger had read the still-unrevealed third secret of Fatima and said the message of that secret coincides with the message of Akita, we can conclude that the third secret also warns of a crisis in the Church at the highest levels. That crisis, a reality in the Church today, could have been averted had the prophesies and warnings of the Blessed Virgin Mary at Quito, Fatima, the US and Akita been heeded by Church leaders. Please answer questions 22 and 23 in the Survey Questions booklet. Warnings of Pre-Conciliar Popes and Paul VI Encyclicals and Papal Writings Against Modern Errors The writings of pre-Conciliar popes contain strong warnings of mounting danger and crisis in the Church. The tone of all of the following quotations from nineteen pre-Conciliar papal documents reflects the sense of danger felt by the popes who authored them.77 And these dangers have grown even more serious as time has passed, until today the reign of Christ is absent from virtually every nation on earth. Yet the documents of Vatican II do not reflect a sense of danger to the Church and to the faithful from a world now so hostile to Christ. The theme of Pope John’s council was aggiornamento, an opening of the Church to the world. And through this opening, this “crack” as Pope Paul VI expressed it, the world flowed into the Church and the statistical data presented here show the devastating consequences. After short quotes from fourteen of these documents, a detailed study of six of them reveals the predictions of the crisis as well as its causes and remedies, taught by five popes prior to Vatican II and Pope Paul VI in 1968. Taken together, these six encyclicals form a prophetic blueprint for the resolution of the present crisis in the Church, a comprehensive plan for restoration of vitality, The Papal Plan for Restoration. A lecture on four of these encyclicals given at Saint Benedict Center in Richmond, NH, by Brother Francis Maluf, M.I.C.M, PhD, early in the twenty-first century was the original motivation for this book. The reader will see and feel the danger and urgency reflected in the words of every one of these popes but, unexplainably, not reflected in the documents of Vatican II. A logical mind must conclude that this refusal at Vatican II to address the dangers threatening the Church and the decision to ignore the corrective measures demanded by the pre–Vatican II popes is a major cause of the current crisis in the Church. This willingness to disregard the traditional militancy of the pre– Vatican II popes was a signal to the Progressivists that they could proceed unopposed and, as should

The Work of God Apostolate website, Apparitions – Akita – Messages, accessed November 22, 2010, 77 The popes Against Modern Errors (Charlotte, NC: TAN Books, 1999). Topic Headings taken from the Table of Contents on pages vii – xv. All quotations of text in these encyclicals are taken from the website Papal Encyclicals Online, .


have been expected and some predicted, the crisis exploded immediately after the close of the Council. All of the following direct quotes from these papal documents are taken from the complete contents of each of them, publicly available on the Internet at Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos, Against Liberalism, 1832 You know what storms of evil and toil, at the beginning of Our pontificate, drove Us suddenly into the depths of the sea. If the right hand of God had not given Us strength, We would have drowned as the result of the terrible conspiracy of impious men. The mind recoils from renewing this grief by enumerating so many dangers. Instead We bless the Father of consolation who, having overthrown all enemies, snatched Us from the present danger. [The following topics are addressed in the encyclical:] Powers of Darkness Dominate The Sacred is Despised Shepherds Must Be Watchful Discipline of the Church Must Be Respected Celibacy Must Be Defended Marriage Cannot Be Dissolved Indifference Is a Perverse Opinion Liberty of Conscience Is an Error Promotion of False Liberty All Authority Comes From God Church and State Cannot Be Separated Pope Pius IX, Quanta Cura, Errors Afflicting the Church, 1864 And truly the same Our Predecessors, asserters of justice, being especially anxious for the salvation of Souls, had nothing ever more at heart than by their Most wise Letters and Constitutions to unveil and condemn all those heresies and errors which, being adverse to our Divine Faith, to the doctrine of the Catholic Church, to purity of morals and to the eternal salvation of men, have frequently excited violent tempests, and have miserably afflicted both Church and State. [The following topics are addressed in the encyclical:] Grievous Errors Flourish. Liberty of Conscience and Worship Are Grave Errors. Unjust Civil Law Replaces Church Teaching. Church Authority Subverted to Civil Authority. Many Openly Deny Christ Worldwide. Kingdoms Must Rest on the Foundation of Faith
Pope Pius IX, Syllabus Errorum, Syllabus of Errors, 1864

Syllabus of the principle errors of our time, which are censured in the consistorial Allocutions, Encyclicals and other Apostolic Letters of our most Holy Lord, Pope Pius IX. [Each of the following major headings contains multiple references to these allocutions, encyclicals and other apostolic letters of the pope.] Pantheism, Naturalism and Absolute Rationalism. Moderate Rationalism. Indifferentism and False Tolerance. Socialism, Communism, Secret Societies, Biblical Societies, Clerico-Liberal Societies. Errors Concerning the Church and Her Rights. 45


Errors about Civil Society, Considered Both In Itself and In Its Relationship with The Church. Errors Concerning Natural and Christian Ethics. Errors Concerning Christian Marriage. Errors Regarding the Civil Powers of the Sovereign Pontiff. Errors Having Reference to Modern Liberalism. Pope Leo XIII, Aeterni Patris, On Scholastic Philosophy, 1879 See the detailed analysis which follows.
Pope Leo XIII, Diuturnum Illud, On Government Authority, 1881

1. The long-continued and most bitter war waged against the divine authority of the Church has reached the culmination to which it was tending, the common danger, namely, of human society, and especially of the civil power on which the public safety chiefly reposes. In our own times most particularly this result is apparent. For popular passions now reject, with more boldness than formerly, every restraint of authority. So great is the license on all sides, so frequent are seditions and tumults, that not only is obedience often refused to those who rule states, but a sufficiently safe guarantee of security does not seem to have been left to them. Pope Leo XIII, Humanum Genis, Against Freemasonry, 1884 3. At so urgent a crisis, when so fierce and so pressing an onslaught is made upon the Christian name, it is Our office to point out the danger, to mark who are the adversaries and to the best of Our power to make head against their plans and devices, that those may not perish whose salvation is committed to Us, and that the kingdom of Jesus Christ entrusted to Our charge may not only stand and remain whole, but may be enlarged by an everincreasing growth throughout the world. 5. The first warning of the danger was given by Clement XII in the year 1738, and his constitution was confirmed and renewed by Benedict XIV. Pius VII followed the same path; and Leo XII, by his apostolic constitution, Quo Graviora, put together the acts and decrees of former Pontiffs on this subject, and ratified and confirmed them forever. In the same sense spoke Pius VIII, Gregory XVI, and, many times over, Pius IX.
Pope Leo XIII, Libertas Praestantissimum, On True Liberty, 1888

Liberals Follow in the Footsteps of Lucifer 14. If when men discuss the question of liberty they were careful to grasp its true and legitimate meaning, such as reason and reasoning have just explained, they would never venture to affix such a calumny on the Church as to assert that She is the foe of individual and public liberty. But many there are who follow in the footsteps of Lucifer, and adopt as their own his rebellious cry, “I will not serve;” and consequently substitute for true liberty what is sheer and most foolish license. Such, for instance, are the men belonging to that widely spread and powerful organisation, who, usurping the name of liberty, style themselves liberals. Pope Leo XIII, Rerum Novarum, On the Working Class, 1891 I. Once the passion for revolutionary change was aroused – a passion long disturbing governments – it was bound to follow sooner or later that eagerness for change would pass from the political sphere over into the related field of' economics. In fact, new developments in industry, new techniques striking out on new paths, changed relations of' employer and 46

employee, abounding wealth among a very small number and destitution among the masses, increased self-reliance on the part of workers as a closer bond of union with one another, and in addition to all this, a decline in morals have caused conflict to break forth. Pope Leo XIII, Graves de Communi Re, On Democracy, 1901 I. The grave discussions on economic questions which for some time past have disturbed the peace of several countries of the world are growing, in frequency and intensity to such a degree that the minds of thoughtful men are filled, and rightly so, with worry and alarm. These discussions take their rise in the bad philosophical and ethical teaching which is now widespread among the people. The changes, also, which the mechanical inventions of the age have introduced, the rapidity of communication between places, and the devices of every kind for diminishing labor and increasing gain, all add bitterness to the strife: and, lastly, matters have been brought to such a pass by the struggle between capital and labor, fomented as it is by professional agitators, that the countries where these disturbances most frequently occur find themselves confronted with ruin and disaster. Pope St. Pius X, E Supremi, Restoration in Christ, 1903 3. We were terrified beyond all else by the disastrous state of human society today. For who can fail to see that society is at the present time, more than in any past age, suffering from a terrible and deep-rooted malady which, developing every day and eating into its inmost being, is dragging it to destruction? You understand, Venerable Brethren, what this disease is – apostasy from God, than which in truth nothing is more allied with ruin, according to the word of the Prophet: "For behold they that go far from Thee shall perish" (Ps. 72:27). We saw therefore that, in virtue of the ministry of the Pontificate, which was to be entrusted to Us, We must hasten to find a remedy for this great evil, considering as addressed to Us that Divine command: “Lo, I have set thee this day over the nations and over kingdoms, to root up, and to pull down, and to waste, and to destroy, and to build, and to plant” (Jer. 1:10). But, cognizant of Our weakness, We recoiled in terror from a task as urgent as it is arduous. And, obviously, the destruction of society and the Church at the time of Vatican II was far more advanced than in 1903. The remainder of this prophetic encyclical is presented under the heading, A Detailed Analysis of Six Key Encyclicals, on page 50. Pope St. Pius X, Lamentabili Sane, Against Modernists, 1907 With truly lamentable results, our age, casting aside all restraint in its search for the ultimate causes of things, frequently pursues novelties so ardently that it rejects the legacy of the human race. Thus it falls into very serious errors which are even more serious when they concern sacred authority, the interpretation of Sacred Scripture and the principal mysteries of Faith. The fact that many Catholic writers also go beyond the limits determined by the fathers and the Church Herself is extremely regrettable. In the name of higher knowledge and historical research (they say), they are looking for that progress of dogmas which is, in reality, nothing but the corruption of dogmas. These errors are being daily spread among the faithful. Lest they captivate the faithful's minds and corrupt the purity of their faith, His Holiness Pius X, by Divine Providence, Pope, has decided that the chief errors should he noted and condemned by the Office of this Holy Roman and Universal Inquisition. Therefore, after a very diligent investigation and Consultation with the Reverend Consultors, the Most Eminent and Reverend Lord Cardinals, the General Inquisitors in matters of faith and morals have judged the following propositions to be condemned and proscribed. In fact, by this general decree, they are condemned and proscribed. [Sixty-five errors are then 47


listed. Rather than simply including the list here, the reasons for the errors are examined in the following detailed study of the encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis by Pope St. Pius X.] Pope St. Pius X, Pascendi Dominici Gregis, Against Modernism, 1907 See the detailed analysis which follows. Pope St. Pius X, Notre Charge Apostolique, On the Sillon, 1910 I. Our Apostolic mandate requires from Us that We watch over the purity of the faith and the integrity of Catholic discipline. It requires from Us that We protect the faithful from evil and error; especially so when evil and error are presented in dynamic language which, concealing vague notions and ambiguous expressions with emotional and high-sounding words is likely to set ablaze the hearts of men in the pursuit of ideals which, while attractive, are nonetheless nefarious. Such were not so long ago the doctrines of the so-called philosophers of the 18th century, doctrines of the Revolution and Liberalism which have been so often condemned. Such are even today the theories of the Sillon, which under the appearance of generosity, are all too often wanting in clarity, logic and truth. These theories do not belong to the Catholic, or for that matter, to the French spirit. Pope St. Pius X, Ad Tuendam Fidem, Oath Against Modernism, 1910 To be sworn to by all clergy, pastors, confessors, preachers, religious superiors, and professors in philosophical-theological seminaries. I, ____, firmly embrace and accept each and every definition that has been set forth and declared by the unerring teaching authority of the Church, especially those principal truths which are directly opposed to the errors of this day. And first of all, I profess that God, the origin and end of all things, can be known with certainty by the natural light of reason from the created world (see Rom. 1:90), that is, from the visible works of creation, as a cause from its effects, and that, therefore, His existence can also be demonstrated: Secondly, I accept and acknowledge the external proofs of revelation, that is, divine acts and especially miracles and prophecies as the surest signs of the divine origin of the Christian religion and I hold that these same proofs are well adapted to the understanding of all eras and all men, even of this time. Thirdly, I believe with equally firm faith that the Church, the guardian and teacher of the revealed word, was personally instituted by the real and historical Christ when He lived among us, and that the Church was built upon Peter, the prince of the apostolic hierarchy, and his successors for the duration of time. Fourthly, I sincerely hold that the doctrine of faith was handed down to us from the apostles through the orthodox fathers in exactly the same meaning and always in the same purport. Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously. I also condemn every error according to which, in place of the divine deposit which has been given to the spouse of Christ to be carefully guarded by Her, there is but a philosophical figment or product of a human conscience that has gradually been developed by human effort and will continue to develop indefinitely. Fifthly, I hold with certainty and sincerely confess that faith is not a blind sentiment of religion welling up from the depths of the subconscious under the impulse of the heart and the motion of a will trained to morality; but faith is a genuine assent of the intellect to truth received by hearing from an external source. By this assent, because of the authority of the supremely truthful God, we believe to be true that which has been revealed and attested to by a personal God, our creator and lord. 48

Furthermore, with due reverence, I submit and adhere with my whole heart to the condemnations, declarations, and all the prescripts contained in the encyclical Pascendi and in the decree Lamentabili, especially those concerning what is known as the history of dogmas. I also reject the error of those who say that the faith held by the Church can contradict history, and that Catholic dogmas, in the sense in which they are now understood, are irreconcilable with a more realistic view of the origins of the Christian religion. I also condemn and reject the opinion of those who say that a well-educated Christian assumes a dual personality – that of a believer and at the same time of a historian, as if it were permissible for a historian to hold things that contradict the faith of the believer, or to establish premises which, provided there be no direct denial of dogmas, would lead to the conclusion that dogmas are either false or doubtful. Likewise, I reject that method of judging and interpreting Sacred Scripture which, departing from the tradition of the Church, the analogy of faith, and the norms of the Apostolic See, embraces the misrepresentations of the rationalists and with no prudence or restraint adopts textual criticism as the one and supreme norm. Furthermore, I reject the opinion of those who hold that a professor lecturing or writing on a historical–theological subject should first put aside any preconceived opinion about the supernatural origin of Catholic tradition or about the divine promise of help to preserve all revealed truth forever; and that they should then interpret the writings of each of the fathers solely by scientific principles, excluding all sacred authority, and with the same liberty of judgment that is common in the investigation of all ordinary historical documents. Finally, I declare that I am completely opposed to the error of the modernists who hold that there is nothing divine in sacred tradition; or what is far worse, say that there is, but in a pantheistic sense, with the result that there would remain nothing but this plain simple fact – one to be put on a par with the ordinary facts of history – the fact, namely, that a group of men by their own labor, skill, and talent have continued through subsequent ages a school begun by Christ and his apostles. I firmly hold, then, and shall hold to my dying breath the belief of the fathers in the charism of truth, which certainly is, was, and always will be in the succession of the episcopacy from the apostles. The purpose of this is, then, not that dogma may be tailored according to what seems better and more suited to the culture of each age; rather, that the absolute and immutable truth preached by the apostles from the beginning may never be believed to be different, may never be understood in any other way. I promise that I shall keep all these articles faithfully, entirely, and sincerely, and guard them inviolate, in no way deviating from them in teaching or in any way in word or in writing. Thus I promise, this I swear, so help me God. Pope Pius XI, Quas Primus, The Kingship of Christ, 1925 1. In the first Encyclical Letter which We addressed at the beginning of Our Pontificate to the bishops of the universal Church, We referred to the chief causes of the difficulties under which mankind was laboring. And We remember saying that these manifold evils in the world were due to the fact that the majority of men had thrust Jesus Christ and His holy law out of their lives; that these had no place either in private affairs or in politics: and We said further, that as long as individuals and states refused to submit to the rule of Our Saviour, there would be no really hopeful prospect of a lasting peace among nations. Men must look for the peace of Christ in the Kingdom of Christ; and that We promised to do as far as lay in Our power. Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, Against False Ecumenism, 1928 49


See the detailed analysis which follows. Pope Pius XI, Divini Redemptoris, Against Communism, 1937 4. In the face of such a threat, the Catholic Church could not and does not remain silent. This Apostolic See, above all, has not refrained from raising its voice, for it knows that its proper and special mission is to defend truth, justice and all those eternal values which Communism ignores or attacks. Ever since the days when groups of “intellectuals” were formed in an arrogant attempt to free civilization from the bonds of morality and religion, Our Predecessors overtly and explicitly drew the attention of the world to the consequences of the dechristianization of human society. 5. In Our Encyclicals Misserentissimus Redemptor, Quadragesimo Anno, Caritate Christi, Acerba Animi and Dilectissima Nobis, We raised a solemn protest against the persecutions unleashed in Russia, in Mexico and now in Spain . . . the Papacy has continued faithfully to protect the sanctuary of the Christian religion, and that it has called public attention to the perils of Communism more frequently and more effectively than any other public authority on earth. [But this militant defense against the perils of Communism was removed, reversed, neutralized by Progressivists just prior to Vatican II]. 6. To Our great satisfaction, Venerable Brethren, you have, by means of individual and even joint Pastoral Letters, accurately transmitted and explained to the faithful these admonitions. Yet despite Our frequent and paternal warnings the peril only grows greater from day to day because of the pressure exerted by clever agitators. Therefore We believe it to be Our duty to raise Our voice once more, in a still more solemn missive, in accord with the tradition of this Apostolic See, the Teacher of Truth and in accord with the desire of the whole Catholic world, which makes the appearance of such a document but natural. We trust that the echo of Our voice will reach every mind free from prejudice and every heart sincerely desirous of the good of mankind. We wish this the more because Our words are now receiving sorry confirmation from the spectacle of the bitter fruits of subversive ideas, which We foresaw and foretold, and which are in fact multiplying fearfully in the countries already stricken, or threatening every other country of the world. Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis, Against Liberalism, 1950 See the detailed analysis which follows. Pope Paul VI, Humanae Vitae, Against Contraception, 1968 See the detailed analysis which follows. A Detailed Analysis of Six Key Encyclicals
Pope St. Pius X, E Supremi, To Restore All Things in Christ

This encyclical needs no introduction. It speaks so eloquently, in 1903, of the restoration needed in Catholicism today, which is the theme and purpose of this book. Here are the words of this Catholic saint. 4. Since, however, it has been pleasing to the Divine Will to raise Our lowliness to such sublimity of power, We take courage in Him who strengthens Us; and setting Ourselves to work, relying on the power of God, We proclaim that We have no other program in the Supreme Pontificate but that “of restoring all things in Christ” (Eph. 1:10), so that “Christ may be all and in all” (Col. 3:2). 50

Hence, should anyone ask Us for a symbol as the expression of Our will, We will give this and no other: “To renew all things in Christ.” For in truth, “The nations have raged and the peoples imagined vain things” (Ps. 22:1.) against their Creator, so frequent is the cry of the enemies of God: "Depart from us" (Job. 21:14). And as might be expected we find extinguished among the majority of men all respect for the Eternal God, and no regard paid in the manifestations of public and private life to the Supreme Will – nay, every effort and every artifice is used to destroy utterly the memory and the knowledge of God. 5. Such, in truth, is the audacity and the wrath employed everywhere in persecuting religion, in combating the dogmas of the faith, in brazen effort to uproot and destroy all relations between man and the Divinity! 7. For, Venerable Brethren, who can avoid being appalled and afflicted when he beholds, in the midst of a progress in civilization which is justly extolled, the greater part of mankind fighting among themselves so savagely as to make it seem as though strife were universal? The desire for peace is certainly harbored in every breast, and there is no one who does not ardently invoke it. But to want peace without God is an absurdity, seeing that where God is absent thence too justice flies, and when justice is taken away it is vain to cherish the hope of peace. “Peace is the work of justice” (Is. 22:17). There are many, We are well aware, who, in their yearning for peace, that is for the tranquility of order, band themselves into societies and parties, which they style parties of order. Hope and labor lost. For there is but one party of order capable of restoring peace in the midst of all this turmoil, and that is the party of God. It is this party, therefore, that we must advance, and to it attract as many as possible, if we are really urged by the love of peace. 8. Hence it follows that to restore all things in Christ and to lead men back to submission to God is one and the same aim. To this, then, it behooves Us to devote Our care – to lead back mankind under the dominion of Christ; this done, We shall have brought it back to God. 9. Now the way to reach Christ is not hard to find: it is the Church. Rightly does Chrysostom inculcate: "The Church is thy hope, the Church is thy salvation, the Church is thy refuge." (Hom. de capto Euthropio, n. 6.) It was for this that Christ founded it, gaining it at the price of His blood, and made it the depositary of His doctrine and His laws, bestowing upon it at the same time an inexhaustible treasury of graces for the sanctification and salvation of men. You see, then, Venerable Brethren, the duty that has been imposed alike upon Us and upon you of bringing back to the discipline of the Church human society, now estranged from the wisdom of Christ; the Church will then subject it to Christ, and Christ to God. If We, through the goodness of God Himself, bring this task to a happy issue, We shall be rejoiced to see evil giving place to good, and hear, for our gladness, " a loud voice from heaven saying: Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God and the power of his Christ." (Apoc. xii., 10.) But if our desire to obtain this is to be fulfilled, we must use every means and exert all our energy to bring about the utter disappearance of the enormous and detestable wickedness, so characteristic of our time - the substitution of man for God[.] 10. As to the means to be employed in attaining this great end, it seems superfluous to name them, for they are obvious of themselves. Let your first care be to form Christ in those who are destined from the duty of their vocation to form Him in others. We speak of the priests, Venerable Brethren. For all who bear the seal of the priesthood must know that they have the same mission to the people in the midst of whom they live as that which Paul proclaimed that he received in these tender words: "My little children, of whom I am in labor again until Christ be formed in you" (Gal. iv., 19). 11. This being so, Venerable Brethren, of what nature and magnitude is the care that must be taken by you in forming the clergy to holiness! All other tasks must yield to this one. 51


Wherefore the chief part of your diligence will be directed to governing and ordering your seminaries aright so that they may flourish equally in the soundness of their teaching and in the spotlessness of their morals. Regard your seminary as the delight of your hearts, and neglect on its behalf none of those provisions which the Council of Trent has with admirable forethought prescribed. And when the time comes for promoting the youthful candidates to holy orders, ah! do not forget what Paul wrote to Timothy: "Impose not hands lightly upon any man" (I. Tim. v., 22), bearing carefully in mind that as a general rule the faithful will be such as are those whom you call to the priesthood. 12. Yet who can fail to see, Venerable Brethren, that while men are led by reason and liberty, the principal way to restore the empire of God in their souls is religious instruction? How many there are who mimic Christ and abhor the Church and the Gospel more through ignorance than through badness of mind, of whom it may well be said: "They blaspheme whatever things they know not" (Jude ii., 10). This is found to be the case not only among the people at large and among the lowest classes, who are thus easily led astray, but even among the more cultivated and among those endowed moreover with uncommon education. The result is for a great many the loss of the faith. For it is not true that the progress of knowledge extinguishes the faith; rather is it ignorance, and the more ignorance prevails the greater is the havoc wrought by incredulity. And this is why Christ commanded the Apostles: "Going forth teach all nations" (Matth. xxvii., 19). 13. But in order that the desired fruit may be derived from this apostolate and this zeal for teaching, and that Christ may be formed in all, be it remembered, Venerable Brethren, that no means is more efficacious than charity. "For the Lord is not in the earthquake" (III Kings xix., II) - it is vain to hope to attract souls to God by a bitter zeal. On the contrary, harm is done more often than good by taunting men harshly with their faults, and reproving their vices with asperity. True the Apostle exhorted Timothy: "Accuse, beseech, rebuke," but he took care to add: "with all patience" (II. Tim. iv., 2). Jesus has certainly left us examples of this. "Come to me," we find Him saying, "come to me all ye that labor and are burdened and I will refresh you" (Matth. xi., 28). And by those that labor and are burdened he meant only those who are slaves of sin and error. What gentleness was that shown by the Divine Master! What tenderness, what compassion towards all kinds of misery! Isaias has marvelously described His heart in the words: "I will set my spirit upon him; he shall not contend, nor cry out; the bruised reed he will not break, he will not extinguish the smoking flax" (Is. xlii., I, s.). This charity, "patient and kind" (I. Cor. xiii., 4.), will extend itself also to those who are hostile to us and persecute us. "We are reviled," thus did St. Paul protest, "and we bless; we are persecuted and we suffer it; we are blasphemed and we entreat" (I. Cor., iv., 12, s.). They perhaps seem to be worse than they really are. Their associations with others, prejudice, the counsel, advice and example of others, and finally an ill-advised shame have dragged them to the side of the impious; but their wills are not so depraved as they themselves would seek to make people believe. Who will prevent us from hoping that the flame of Christian charity may dispel the darkness from their minds and bring to them light and the peace of God? It may be that the fruit of our labors may be slow in coming, but charity wearies not with waiting, knowing that God prepares His rewards not for the results of toil but for the good will shown in it. 14. It is true, Venerable Brethren, that in this arduous task of the restoration of the human race in Christ neither you nor your clergy should exclude all assistance. We know that God recommended everyone to have a care for his neighbor (Eccli. xvii., 12). For it is not priests alone, but all the faithful without exception, who must concern themselves with the interests of God and souls - not, of course, according to their own views, but always under the direction 52

and orders of the bishops; for to no one in the Church except you is it given to preside over, to teach, to "govern the Church of God which the Holy Ghost has placed you to rule" (Acts xx., 28). The times we live in demand action - but action which consists entirely in observing with fidelity and zeal the divine laws and the precepts of the Church, in the frank and open profession of religion, in the exercise of every kind of charitable works, without regard to selfinterest or worldly advantage. 15. May God, "who is rich in mercy" (Ephes. ii., 4), benignly speed this restoration of the human race in Jesus Christ for "it is not of him that willeth, or of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy" (Rom. ix., 16). And let us, Venerable Brethren, "in the spirit of humility" (Dan. iii., 39), with continuous and urgent prayer ask this of Him through the merits of Jesus Christ. Let us turn, too, to the most powerful intercession of the Divine Mother - to obtain which We, addressing to you this Letter of Ours on the day appointed especially for commemorating the Holy Rosary, ordain and confirm all Our Predecessor's prescriptions with regard to the dedication of the present month to the august Virgin, by the public recitation of the Rosary in all churches; with the further exhortation that as intercessors with God appeal be also made to the most pure Spouse of Mary, the Patron of the Catholic Church, and the holy Princes of the Apostles, Peter and Paul.
Pope Leo XIII, Aeterni Patris, On Scholastic Philosophy In his 1879 encyclical Aeterni Patris, Pope Leo XIII commanded Catholic bishops to reinforce and restore the teaching of the philosophy of Saint Thomas Aquinas (called Thomistic philosophy, Scholastic philosophy, Philosophia Perennis). This encyclical was selected for detailed analysis here because Thomistic philosophy is the foundation upon which Catholic faith and morals have been defined since the time of Saint Thomas in the thirteenth century. Before Vatican II Catholic truth was defined in terms of Thomistic philosophy. The abandonment of Thomistic philosophy after Vatican II permitted false modernist philosophies and false interpretations of Catholic dogma and doctrine to appear and flourish. The foundation of truth was shaken and modernist heresies began to conflict with traditional Catholicism. Pope Leo XII saw this error being propagated in his time and took stern measures to combat it, but Progressivists at the Second Vatican Council had to suppress Thomistic philosophy in order to promote the new theology of their modern agenda. In order for the errors that produced the current crisis in the Church to be identified and corrected, Catholics must heed the admonitions of Pope Leo XIII in Aeterni Patris and restore the teaching of Thomistic philosophy throughout the Church and its institutions. We begin our analysis of the encyclical here.

In section 1 His Holiness writes that finding the truth in the natural sciences (philosophy is a natural science), based on human intellect and reason, depends on finding and knowing the truth in philosophical matters. 1. He commanded the Apostles to go and teach all nations, and left the Church which He had founded to be the common and supreme teacher of the peoples. For men whom the truth had set free were to be preserved by the truth; . . . the supreme pastors of the Church have always thought it their duty to advance, by every means in their power, science truly so called, and at the same time to provide with special care that all studies should accord with the Catholic faith, especially philosophy, on which a right interpretation of the other sciences in great part depends[.] Next he says that the reasons for the evils that afflict the Church are the promotion of false philosophies and their acceptance by the masses. 53


2. Whoso turns his attention to the bitter strifes of these days and seeks a reason for the troubles that vex public and private life must come to the conclusion that a fruitful cause of the evils which now afflict, as well as those which threaten us, lies in this: that false conclusions concerning divine and human things, which originated in the schools of philosophy, have now crept into all the orders of the State, and have been accepted by the common consent of the masses[.] And in section 4 he points out the necessity of true philosophy. 4. In the first place, philosophy, if rightly made use of by the wise, in a certain way tends to smooth and fortify the road to true faith, and to prepare the souls of its disciples for the fit reception of revelation[.] After reviewing the many advantages of teaching true philosophy, the Holy Father concludes, 7. Lastly, the duty of religiously defending the truths divinely delivered, and of resisting those who dare oppose them, pertains to philosophic pursuits. Wherefore, it is the glory of philosophy to be esteemed as the bulwark of faith and the strong defense of religion. . . . Moreover, the Church Herself not only urges, but even commands, Christian teachers to seek help from philosophy[.] Next he makes the point that those responsible for teaching philosophy in the Church must teach the true philosophy that is not opposed to revealed doctrine. [S]ince it is established that those things which become known by revelation have the force of certain truth, and that those things which war against faith war equally against right reason, the Catholic philosopher will know that he violates at once faith and the laws of reason if he accepts any conclusion which he understands to be opposed to revealed doctrine. Those, therefore, who to the study of philosophy unite obedience to the Christian faith, are philosophizing in the best possible way; for the splendor of the divine truths, received into the mind, helps the understanding, and not only detracts in nowise from its dignity, but adds greatly to its nobility, keenness, and stability. And the experience of the Church has been that Her adversaries oppose Her doctrines but true philosophy has been the key to thwarting their opposition. Thus, from the very first ages of the Church, the Catholic doctrine has encountered a multitude of most bitter adversaries, who, deriding the Christian dogmas and institutions, maintained that there were many gods, that the material world never had a beginning or cause, and that the course of events was one of blind and fatal necessity, not regulated by the will of Divine Providence. 11. But the learned men whom We call apologists speedily encountered these teachers of foolish doctrine and, under the guidance of faith, found arguments in human wisdom also to prove that one God, who stands pre-eminent in every kind of perfection, is to be worshiped; that all things were created from nothing by His omnipotent power; that by His wisdom they flourish and serve each their own special purposes. He introduces the true philosophy, called Scholastic or Thomistic philosophy or Philosophia Perennis, developed in the middle ages and taught perennially by the Church. He speaks of the great and urgent need to teach this philosophy again in our days. 14. Later on, the doctors of the middle ages, who are called Scholastics, addressed themselves to a great work – that of diligently collecting, and sifting, and storing up, as it 54

were, in one place, for the use and convenience of posterity the rich and fertile harvests of Christian learning scattered abroad in the voluminous works of the holy fathers. [A]nd in these late days, when those dangerous times described by the Apostle are already upon us, when the blasphemers, the proud, and the seducers go from bad to worse, erring themselves and causing others to err, there is surely a very great need of confirming the dogmas of Catholic faith and confuting heresies. 16. For, the noble endowments which make the Scholastic theology so formidable to the enemies of truth – to wit, as the same Pontiff adds, “that ready and close coherence of cause and effect, that order and array as of a disciplined army in battle, those clear definitions and distinctions, that strength of argument and those keen discussions, by which light is distinguished from darkness, the true from the false, expose and strip naked, as it were, the falsehoods of heretics wrapped around by a cloud of subterfuges and fallacies[.] He introduces Saint Thomas Aquinas, the Angelic Doctor, and explains the need for all bishops of all time to teach the Scholastic philosophy of Saint Thomas. He points out the dire consequences of failing to do so. 17. Among the Scholastic doctors, the chief and master of all towers Thomas Aquinas, who, as Cajetan observes, because “he most venerated the ancient doctors of the Church, in a certain way seems to have inherited the intellect of all. It is known that nearly all the founders and lawgivers of the religious orders commanded their members to study and religiously adhere to the teachings of Saint Thomas, fearful lest any of them should swerve even in the slightest degree from the footsteps of so great a man. 24. Therefore, venerable brethren, as often as We contemplate the good, the force, and the singular advantages to be derived from his philosophic discipline which Our Fathers so dearly loved, We think it hazardous that its special honor should not always and everywhere remain, especially when it is established that daily experience, and the judgment of the greatest men, and, to crown all, the voice of the Church, have favored the Scholastic philosophy. Please answer questions 24 and 25 in the Survey Questions Booklet. . But, alas, the pope says that even leaders in the Church neglected or abandoned the teaching of Scholastic philosophy and began to teach the false philosophies of modern atheists, agnostics, heretics and schismatics. 25. Hence, it was natural that systems of philosophy multiplied beyond measure, and conclusions differing and clashing one with another arose about those matters even which are the most important in human knowledge. From a mass of conclusions men often come to wavering and doubt; and who knows not how easily the mind slips from doubt to error? But, as men are apt to follow the lead given them, this new pursuit seems to have caught the souls of certain Catholic philosophers, who, throwing aside the patrimony of ancient wisdom, chose rather to build up a new edifice than to strengthen and complete the old by aid of the new ill-advisedly, in sooth, and not without detriment to the sciences. The Holy Father commands the bishops to hold fast to the philosophy taught by Saint Thomas, the Angelic Doctor, and teach it unfailingly to young Catholics. 26. We have learned with great joy that many members of your order, venerable brethren, have taken this plan to heart; and while We earnestly commend their efforts, We exhort them to hold fast to their purpose, and remind each and all of you that Our first and most cherished idea is that you should all furnish to studious youth a generous and copious 55


supply of those purest streams of wisdom flowing inexhaustibly from the precious fountainhead of the Angelic Doctor. 27. Many are the reasons why We are so desirous of this. In the first place, then, since in the tempest that is on us the Christian faith is being constantly assailed by the machinations and craft of a certain false wisdom, all youths, but especially those who are the growing hope of the Church, should be nourished on the strong and robust food of doctrine[.] [A]ll studies ought to find hope of advancement and promise of assistance in this restoration of philosophic discipline which We have proposed. 31. While, therefore, We hold that every word of wisdom, every useful thing by whomsoever discovered or planned, ought to be received with a willing and grateful mind, We exhort you, venerable brethren, in all earnestness to restore the golden wisdom of St. Thomas, and to spread it far and wide for the defense and beauty of the Catholic faith[.] 33. Therefore in this also let us follow the example of the Angelic Doctor, who never gave himself to reading or writing without first begging the blessing of God, who modestly confessed that whatever he knew he had acquired not so much by his own study and labor as by the divine gift; and therefore let us all, in humble and united prayer, beseech God to send forth the spirit of knowledge and of understanding to the children of the Church and open their senses for the understanding of wisdom. And that we may receive fuller fruits of the divine goodness, offer up to God the most efficacious patronage of the Blessed Virgin Mary, who is called the seat of wisdom[.]78 Rarely is Saint Thomas studied diligently, if at all, even in Catholic seminaries. The Church and the faithful therefore suffer the consequences predicted by the pope; an ongoing crisis of truth.
Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi Dominici Gregis, Against Modernism

Modernism has been exposed as an organized opposition to the legitimate authority of the Magisterium and the Roman Pontiffs, and has been condemned by the Church – most specifically in 1907 by Pope Saint Pius X in his encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis (On the Doctrine of the Modernists). Father Karl Rahner’s “Anonymous Christian” One of the most widely read advocates of the principles of Modernism is the German theologian, Father Karl Rahner, S.J. Prior to the Council his theology was seriously questioned and he was not permitted to publish anything without prior review and approval by the Vatican. Yet Pope John XXIII allowed him to not only participate in the council but allowed his theology to dominate it. He was described as having been the most influential peritus (advisor) at the Second Vatican Council. Subsequent to the Council he revealed his theological bent by openly advocating the heresy of universal salvation. In his book, The Anonymous Christian, published in 1976, Father Rahner wrote: There can be, and actually are, individuals who are justified in the grace of God who attain to supernatural salvation in God's sight . . . yet who do not belong to the Church . . . as a visible historical reality. . . . It was declared at the Second Vatican Council that atheists too are not excluded from this possibility of salvation[.] . . . The only necessary condition which is recognized here is the necessity of faithfulness and obedience to the individual's own personal conscience. 79

PAPAL ENCYCLICALS ONLINE, Pope Leo XIII, “Aeterni Patris,” 1879, accessed November 15, 2010,


Anonymous Christian is the controversial notion introduced by the Jesuit theologian Karl Rahner (1904 - 1984) that declares that people who have never heard the Christian Gospel or even rejected 56

This contradicts the Church’s fundamental dogma, outside the Church there is no salvation, thrice defined infallibly, as shall be clearly shown in Chapter 6.
Rahner in Vatican II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church

And Father Rahner’s modernist influence at the Council has now penetrated to the heart of the Church. It is officially taught in the documents of Vatican II and in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which states Rahner’s thesis thusly, #1260 Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny . . . we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery. [ Gaudium et Spes 22, #5] Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. #1260 says that it is not necessary to have faith, an understanding of the Gospel or the Church’s teaching in order to be saved. This is contrary to infallibly defined Catholic dogma, as shall be shown in Chapter 6. The catechism fails to complete the sentence with the necessary qualifier, “if before his death he enters the Catholic Church and dies in the state of sanctifying grace.” The encyclical Pascendi and its teaching, as well as infallibly defined dogma are not referenced and are thus being ignored in these official documents. Why? Understanding the encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis by Pope Saint Pius X is essential to understanding the causes and the remedy of the current crisis. It is a very long encyclical but a review of its basic teachings follows. One can do no better than to let it speak for itself and therefore key quotations have been selected from each numbered section of the encyclical to represent its major points. A Detailed Review of Pascendi Dominici Gregis The numbers at the left are the section numbers of the encyclical. The texts in brackets [ . . . ] are the editor’s comments. All other texts are quotes from the encyclical. 1. [T]hese latter days have witnessed a notable increase in the number of the enemies of the Cross of Christ, who, by arts entirely new and full of deceit, are striving to destroy the vital energy of the Church, and, as far as in them lies, utterly to subvert the very Kingdom of Christ. Wherefore We may no longer keep silence[.] [Destruction of the vital energy of the Church is precisely what is happening in the Church today. Here in this book it is called “a loss of vitality,” which is proven by the statistical data quoted and the words of our popes.] 2. That we should act without delay in this matter is made imperative especially by the fact that the partisans of error are to be sought not only among the Church's open enemies; but, what is to be most dreaded and deplored, in Her very bosom[.] We allude, Venerable Brethren, to many who belong to the Catholic laity, and, what is much more sad, to the ranks of the priesthood. it might be saved through Christ. Non-Christians could have “in [their] basic orientation and fundamental decision,” Rahner wrote, “accepted the salvific grace of God, through Christ, although [they] may never have heard of the Christian revelation.” Quoted from, Stephen Clinton,
“Peter, Paul and the Anonymous Christian: A Response to the Mission Theology of Rahner and Vatican II, October, 1998,” The Orlando Institute, Leadership Forum, Evangelical Theological Society, November, 1998, accessed November 21, 2011,



3. [T]he danger is present almost in the very veins and heart of the Church, whose injury is the more certain from the very fact that their knowledge of Her is more intimate. [T]here is no part of Catholic truth which they leave untouched, none that they do not strive to corrupt. [T]hey play the double part of rationalist and Catholic, and this so craftily that they easily lead the unwary into error [T]he security of the Catholic name is at stake[.] 4. It is one of the cleverest devices of the Modernists (as they are commonly and rightly called) to present their doctrines without order and systematic arrangement, in a scattered and disjointed manner, so as to make it appear as if their minds were in doubt or hesitation, whereas in reality they are quite fixed and steadfast. For this reason it will be of advantage, Venerable Brethren, to bring their teachings together here into one group, and to point out their interconnection, and thus to pass to an examination of the sources of the errors, and to prescribe remedies for averting the evil results. [A principal purpose of this book is to examine the sources of the errors, i.e., the causes, and their remedies, as given by this pope and others.] 5. [T]he Modernist sustains and includes within himself a manifold personality; he is a philosopher, a believer, a theologian, an historian, a critic, an apologist, a reformer. [Each will be examined by the pope.] 6. We begin, then, with the philosopher. Modernists place the foundation of religious philosophy in that doctrine which is commonly called Agnosticism, which was condemned by Vatican Council I. [Agnostics believe nothing exists above the material universe and human reason.] 7. However, this Agnosticism is only the negative part of the system of the Modernists: the positive part consists in what they call vital immanence. [By vital immanence they mean the explanation of everything must be sought in the natural, immanent, material phenomena associated with the life of man.] 8. [Modernists say,] Is not that religious sense which is perceptible in the conscience, revelation, or at least the beginning of revelation? Nay, is it not God Himself manifesting Himself, indistinctly, it is true, in this same religious sense, to the soul? And they add: Since God is both the object and the cause of faith, this revelation is at the same time of God and from God, that is to say, God is both the Revealer and the Revealed. . . . From this, Venerable Brethren, springs that most absurd tenet of the Modernists, that every religion, according to the different aspect under which it is viewed, must be considered as both natural and supernatural. 9. In all this process, from which, according to the Modernists, faith and revelation spring, one point is to be particularly noted, for it is of capital importance on account of the historicocritical corollaries which they deduce from it. . . . An example may be sought in the Person of Christ. In the Person of Christ, they say, science and history encounter nothing that is not human. [W]hatever there is in His history suggestive of the divine must be rejected. [E]verything that raises it above historical conditions must be removed. [E]verything should be excluded, deeds and words and all else that is not in strict keeping with His character, condition, and education, and with the place and time in which He lived. 10. In hearing these things we shudder indeed at so great an audacity of assertion and so great a sacrilege. And yet, Venerable Brethren, these are not merely the foolish babblings of unbelievers. There are Catholics, yea, and priests, too, who say these things openly; and they boast that they are going to reform the Church by these ravings! 58

11. [T]hey say God, indeed, presents Himself to man, but in a manner so confused and indistinct that He can hardly be perceived by the believer. It is therefore necessary that a certain light should be cast upon this sense so that God may clearly stand out in relief and be set apart from it. This is the task of the intellect, whose office it is to reflect and to analyze; and by means of it, man first transforms into mental pictures the vital phenomena which arise within him, and then expresses them in words. . . . The operation of the mind in this work is a double one: first, by a natural and spontaneous act it expresses its concept in a simple, popular statement; then, on reflection and deeper consideration, or, as they say, by elaborating its thought, it expresses the idea in secondary propositions, which are derived from the first, but are more precise and distinct. 12. [D]ogma itself, they apparently hold, strictly consists in the secondary formulas[.] To ascertain the nature of dogma, we must first find the relation which exists between the religious formulas and the religious sense. 13. Consequently, the formulas which we call dogma must be subject to these vicissitudes [of religious sense or feelings], and are, therefore, liable to change. Thus the way is open to the intrinsic evolution of dogma. Here we have an immense structure of sophisms which ruin and wreck all religion. [The encyclicals of pre–Vatican II popes are part of the Tradition of the Church. The documents of Vatican II almost never refer to these encyclicals. Our author, Pope Saint Pius X, says the rejection of the unchangeable in favor of the evolution of dogma is one of the indicators of modernist influence.] 14. [They say] Dogma is not only able, but ought to evolve and to be changed. . . . What is necessary is that the religious sense – with some modification when needful – should vitally assimilate them. In other words, it is necessary that the primitive formula be accepted and sanctioned by the heart; and similarly the subsequent work from which are brought forth the secondary formulas, must proceed under the guidance of the heart. . . . In view of the fact that the character and lot of dogmatic formulas are so unstable [in the view of the modernists], it is no wonder that Modernists should regard them so lightly and in such open disrespect, and have no consideration or praise for anything but the religious sense and for the religious life. [This emphasis on religious sense or inner feelings is the essence of Protestantism.] 15. If you ask on what foundation this assertion of the believer [that God exists] rests, he answers: In the personal experience of the individual. . . . It is this experience which makes the person who acquires it to be properly and truly a believer[.] How far this position is removed from that of Catholic teaching! 16. There is yet another element in this part of their teaching which is absolutely contrary to Catholic truth. For what is laid down as to experience is also applied with destructive effect to tradition which has always been maintained by the Catholic Church. . . . For the Modernists, to live is a proof of truth, since for them life and truth are one and the same thing. Thus we are once more led to infer that all existing religions are equally true, for otherwise they would not survive. [This Modernist tenet is reflected in the statistics we presented showing the belief currently prevalent in Catholic clergy and laity that salvation is attainable outside the Catholic Church, in other religions or in no religion at all.] 17. [Modernists say,] faith occupies itself solely with something which science declares to be for it unknowable. . . . Thus it is contended that there can never be any dissension between



faith and science, for if each keeps on its own ground they can never meet and therefore never can be in contradiction. 18. [S]cience is to be entirely independent of faith, while on the other hand, and notwithstanding that they are supposed to be strangers to each other, faith is made subject to science. 19. [I]n their books one finds some things which might well be approved by a Catholic, but on turning over the page one is confronted by other things which might well have been dictated by a rationalist. When they write history they make no mention of the divinity of Christ, but when they are in the pulpit they profess it clearly[.] 20. At this point, Venerable Brethren, the way is opened for us to consider the Modernists in the theological arena – a difficult task, yet one that may be disposed of briefly. It is a question of effecting the conciliation of faith with science, but always by making the one subject to the other. . . . The philosopher has declared: The principle of faith is immanent; the believer has added: This principle is God; and the theologian draws the conclusion: God is immanent in man. Thus we have theological immanence. . . . Concerning immanence it is not easy to determine what Modernists precisely mean by it, for their own opinions on the subject vary. Some understand it in the sense that God working in man is more intimately present in him than man is even in himself; and this conception, if properly understood, is irreproachable. Others hold that the divine action is one with the action of nature, as the action of the first cause is one with the action of the secondary cause; and this would destroy the supernatural order. Others, finally, explain it in a way which savors of pantheism, and this, in truth, is the sense which best fits in with the rest of their doctrines. 21. With this principle of immanence is connected another which may be called the principle of divine permanence. It differs from the first in much the same way as the private experience differs from the experience transmitted by tradition. An example illustrating what is meant will be found in the Church and the sacraments. The Church and the sacraments according to the Modernists, are not to be regarded as having been instituted by Christ Himself. 22. The Modernists would express their mind more clearly were they to affirm that the sacraments are instituted solely to foster the faith but this is condemned by the Council of Trent: If anyone says that these sacraments are instituted solely to foster the faith, let him be anathema. 23. The Modernists assert a general inspiration of the Sacred Books, but they admit no inspiration in the Catholic sense. 24. [Modernists say,] What, then, is the Church? It is the product of the collective conscience, that is to say, of the association of individual consciences which, by virtue of the principle of vital permanence, depend all on one first believer, who for Catholics is Christ. 25. [Modernists say] Every Catholic, from the fact that he is also a citizen, has the right and the duty to work for the common good in the way he thinks best, without troubling himself about the authority of the Church, without paying any heed to its wishes, its counsels, its orders – nay, even in spite of its rebukes. For the Church to trace out and prescribe for the citizen any line of action, on any pretext whatsoever, is to be guilty of an abuse of authority, against which one is bound to protest with all one's might. Venerable Brethren, the principles from which these doctrines spring have been solemnly condemned by Our predecessor, Pius VI, in his Apostolic Constitution Auctorem Fidei. [This Modernist tenet is found in the current almost-total dissent of Catholics from the Church’s teaching against artificial birth control, contraception, and to a large degree, abortion. Thus proabortion Catholic politicians go uncensored by most Catholic bishops. Modern Catholics have small 60

families while Muslims have large families, resulting in the incontrovertible statistic that Muslims now outnumber Catholics in the world.80 Significantly, traditional Catholic parents still have large families. Therein lays the restoration of true Catholicism and the vitality of the Church.] 26. [Modernists say] as this magisterium springs, in its last analysis, from the individual consciences, and possesses its mandate of public utility for their benefit, it necessarily follows that the ecclesiastical magisterium must be dependent upon them, and should therefore be made to bow to the popular ideals. 27. [T]hey lay down the general principle that in a living religion everything is subject to change, and must in fact be changed. In this way they pass to what is practically their principal doctrine, namely, evolution. To the laws of evolution everything is subject under penalty of death – dogma, Church, worship, the Books we revere as sacred, even faith itself[.] 28. [B]y those who study more closely the ideas of the Modernists, evolution is described as a resultant from the conflict of two forces, one of them tending towards progress, the other towards conservation. 29. [F]or the Modernists, whether as authors or propagandists, there is to be nothing stable, nothing immutable in the Church. . . . Our predecessor Pius IX wrote: “These enemies of divine revelation extol human progress to the skies, and with rash and sacrilegious daring would have it introduced into the Catholic religion as if this religion were not the work of God but of man or some kind of philosophical discovery susceptible of perfection by human efforts.” 30. We have studied the Modernist as philosopher, believer, and theologian. It now remains for us to consider him as historian, critic, apologist, and reformer. 31. Their three first laws are contained in those three principles of their philosophy already dealt with: the principle of agnosticism, the theorem of the transfiguration of things by faith, and that other which may be called the principle of disfiguration. Let us see what consequences flow from each of these. [A]bsolutely a priori and acting on philosophical principles which they hold but which they profess to ignore, they proclaim that Christ, according to what they call His real history, was not God and never did anything divine, and that as man He did and said only what they, judging from the time in which He lived, consider that He ought to have said or done. 32. Thus, as we have already said, we have a twofold Christ: a real Christ, and a Christ, the one of faith, who never really existed[.] 33. And since the cause or condition of every vital emanation whatsoever is to be found in some need or want [of man], it follows that no fact can be regarded as antecedent to the need which produced it – historically the fact must be posterior to the need. [By this method Modernists rewrite Catholic biblical and ecclesiastical history according to the beliefs of their own philosophy.] 34. The history is finished. Now We ask here: Who is the author of this history? The historian? The critic? Assuredly neither of these but the philosopher. From beginning to end everything in it is a priori, and an apriorism that reeks of heresy. These men are certainly to be pitied, of whom the Apostle might well say: “They became vain in their thoughts . . .

Ad Majorum Dei blog, Muslims Outnumber Catholics, March 21, 2008, accessed February 20, 2011, Islam has surpassed Roman Catholicism as the world's largest religion, the Vatican newspaper said Sunday. “For the first time in history, we are no longer at the top: Muslims have overtaken us,” Monsignor Vittorio Formenti said in an interview with the Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano. Formenti compiles the Vatican's yearbook.



professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.” At the same time, they excite resentment when they accuse the Church of arranging and confusing the texts after Her own fashion, and for the needs of Her cause. In this they are accusing the Church of something for which their own conscience plainly reproaches them. 35. [T]he result of this dismembering of the records, and this partition of them throughout the centuries is naturally that the Scriptures can no longer be attributed to the authors whose names they bear. [I]t is much a matter for surprise that it should have found acceptance to such an extent among certain Catholics. Two causes may be assigned for this: first, the close alliance which the historians and critics of this school have formed among themselves independent of all differences of nationality or religion; second, their boundless effrontery by which, if one then makes any utterance, the others applaud him in chorus, proclaiming that science has made another step forward, while if an outsider should desire to inspect the new discovery for himself, they form a coalition against him. 36. Let us see how the Modernist conducts his apologetics. The aim he sets before himself is to make one who is still without faith, attain that experience of the Catholic religion which, according to the system, is the sole basis of faith. But while they endeavor by this line of reasoning to prove and plead for the Catholic religion, these new apologists are more than willing to grant and to recognize that there are in it many things which are repulsive. 37. Nay, they admit openly, and with ill-concealed satisfaction, that they have found that even its dogma is not exempt from errors and contradictions. They add also that this is not only excusable but – curiously enough – that it is even right and proper[.] Finally, the Modernists, losing all sense of control, go so far as to proclaim as true and legitimate whatever is explained by life. . . . We, Venerable Brethren, for whom there is but one and only one truth, and who hold that the Sacred Books, “written under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, have God for their author'' declare that this is equivalent to attributing to God Himself the lie of utility or officious lie, and We say with St. Augustine: “In an authority so high, admit but one officious lie, and there will not remain a single passage of those apparently difficult to practice or to believe, which on the same most pernicious rule may not be explained as a lie uttered by the author willfully and to serve a purpose. ” And thus it will come about, the holy Doctor continues, that “everybody will believe and refuse to believe what he likes or dislikes in them,” . . . In short, to maintain and defend these theories they do not hesitate to declare that the noblest homage that can be paid to the Infinite is to make it the object of contradictory statements! But when they justify even contradictions, what is it that they will refuse to justify? [Thus Catholics are now taught to believe that the Church’s dogma “no salvation outside the Church “really means salvation can be found outside the Church, in any religion or no religion.] 38. Such, Venerable Brethren, is a summary description of the apologetic method of the Modernists, in perfect harmony with their doctrines – methods and doctrines replete with errors, made not for edification but for destruction, not for the making of Catholics but for the seduction of those who are Catholics into heresy; and tending to the utter subversion of all religion[.] 39. They wish philosophy to be reformed, especially in the ecclesiastical seminaries. They wish the Scholastic philosophy to be relegated to the history of philosophy and to be classed among absolute systems, and the young men to be taught modern philosophy which alone [they believe] is true and suited to the times in which we live.


[This Modernist tenet has all but eliminated the teaching of Thomistic Philosophy in Catholic seminaries today, except for the traditional seminaries using the traditional Latin Mass and Sacraments.] 40. Let us turn for a moment, Venerable Brethren, to that most disastrous doctrine of agnosticism. By it every avenue to God on the side of the intellect is barred to man, while a better way is supposed to be opened from the side of a certain sense of the soul and action [The pope here speaks of spiritual feelings, emotion.] But who does not see how mistaken is such a contention? For the sense of the soul is the response to the action of the thing which the intellect or the outward senses set before it. Take away the intelligence, and man, already inclined to follow the senses, becomes their slave. Doubly mistaken, from another point of view, for all these fantasies of the religious sense will never be able to destroy common sense, and common sense tells us that emotion and everything that leads the heart captive proves a hindrance instead of a help to the discovery of truth. We speak of truth in itself – for that other purely subjective truth, the fruit of the internal sense and action, if it serves its purpose for the play of words, is of no benefit to the man who wants above all things to know whether outside himself there is a God into whose hands he is one day to fall. [The pope thus describes the emotional crisis of truth gripping and paralyzing the Church today. It is a totally Protestant influence and phenomenon, brought about to a great extent by the abandonment of scholastic reasoning and truth.] 41. To penetrate still deeper into the meaning of Modernism and to find a suitable remedy for so deep a sore, it behooves Us, Venerable Brethren, to investigate the causes which have engendered it and which foster its growth. That the proximate and immediate cause consists in an error of the mind cannot be open to doubt. We recognize that the remote causes may be reduced to two: curiosity and pride. 42. If we pass on from the moral to the intellectual causes of Modernism, the first and the chief which presents itself is ignorance. Yes, these very Modernists who seek to be esteemed as doctors of the Church, who speak so loftily of modern philosophy and show such contempt for scholasticism, [as is the case in virtually all non-traditional Catholic schools and seminaries today] have embraced the one with all its false glamour, precisely because their ignorance of the other has left them without the means of being able to recognize confusion of thought and to refute sophistry. Their whole system, containing as it does errors so many and so great, has been born of the union between faith and false philosophy. 43. They recognize that the three chief difficulties which stand in their way are the scholastic method of philosophy, the authority and tradition of the fathers, and the magisterium of the Church, and on these they wage unrelenting war. Against Scholastic philosophy and theology they use the weapons of ridicule and contempt. Whether it is ignorance or fear, or both, that inspires this conduct in them, certain it is that the passion for novelty is always united in them with hatred of scholasticism, and there is no surer sign that a man is tending to Modernism than when he begins to show his dislike for the scholastic method. . . . They exercise all their ingenuity in an effort to weaken the force and falsify the character of tradition, so as to rob it of all its weight and authority. But for Catholics nothing will remove the authority of the second Council of Nicea, where it condemns those “who dare, after the impious fashion of heretics, to deride the ecclesiastical traditions, to invent novelties of some kind . . . or endeavor by malice or craft to overthrow any one of the legitimate traditions of the Catholic Church”; nor that of the declaration of the fourth Council of Constantinople: “We therefore profess to preserve and guard the rules bequeathed to the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, by the Holy and most illustrious Apostles, by the orthodox Councils, both general and local, and by every one of those divine interpreters, the 63


fathers and doctors of the Church.” Wherefore the Roman Pontiffs, Pius IV and Pius IX, ordered the insertion in the profession of faith of the following declaration: “I most firmly admit and embrace the apostolic and ecclesiastical traditions and other observances and constitutions of the Church.'' Please answer questions 26 and 27 in the Survey Questions Booklet. 44. In short, with feverish activity they leave nothing untried in act, speech, and writing. And with what result? We have to deplore the spectacle of many young men, once full of promise and capable of rendering great services to the Church, now gone astray. 45. Against this host of grave errors, and its secret and open advance, Our predecessor Leo XIII, of happy memory, worked strenuously, both in his words and his acts, especially as regards the study of the Bible. But, as we have seen, the Modernists are not easily deterred by such weapons. With an affectation of great submission and respect, they proceeded to twist the words of the Pontiff to their own sense, while they described his action as directed against others than themselves. Thus the evil has gone on increasing from day to day. We, therefore, Venerable Brethren, have decided to suffer no longer delay, and to adopt measures which are more efficacious. We exhort and conjure you to see to it that in this most grave matter no one shall be in a position to say that you have been in the slightest degree wanting in vigilance, zeal, or firmness. And what We ask of you and expect of you, We ask and expect also of all other pastors of souls, of all educators and professors of clerics, and in a very special way of the superiors of religious communities. 46. In the first place, with regard to studies, We will and strictly ordain that Scholastic philosophy be made the basis of the sacred sciences. . . . And let it be clearly understood above all things that when We prescribe Scholastic philosophy We understand chiefly that which the Angelic Doctor has bequeathed to us, and We, therefore, declare that all the ordinances of Our predecessor on this subject continue fully in force, and, as far as may be necessary, We do decree anew, and confirm, and order that they shall be strictly observed by all. In seminaries where they have been neglected it will be for the bishops to exact and require their observance in the future. 47. On this philosophical foundation the theological edifice is to be carefully raised. Promote the study of theology, Venerable Brethren, by all means in your power, so that your clerics on leaving the seminaries may carry with them a deep admiration and love of it, and always find in it a source of delight. 48. With regard to secular studies, let it suffice to recall here what our predecessor has admirably said: . . . “If you carefully search for the cause of those errors you will find that it lies in the fact that in these days when the natural sciences absorb so much study, the more severe and lofty studies have been proportionately neglected – some of them have almost passed into oblivion, some of them are pursued in a half-hearted or superficial way, and, sad to say, now that the splendor of the former estate is dimmed, they have been disfigured by perverse doctrines and monstrous errors.” We ordain, therefore, that the study of natural sciences in the seminaries be carried out according to this law. 49. All these prescriptions, both Our own and those of Our predecessor, are to be kept in view whenever there is question of choosing directors and professors for seminaries and Catholic universities. Anyone who in any way is found to be tainted with Modernism is to be excluded without compunction from these offices, whether of government or of teaching, and those who already occupy them are to be removed. 50. Equal diligence and severity are to be used in examining and selecting candidates for Holy Orders. Far, far from the clergy be the love of novelty! God hateth the proud and the obstinate mind. For the future the doctorate of theology and canon law must never be 64

conferred on anyone who has not first of all made the regular course of Scholastic philosophy; if conferred, it shall be held as null and void. 51. It is also the duty of the bishops to prevent writings of Modernists, or whatever savors of Modernism or promotes it, from being read when they have been published, and to hinder their publication when they have not. No books or papers or periodicals whatever of this kind are to be permitted to seminarians or university students. 52. We will, therefore, that the bishops putting aside all fear: and the prudence of the flesh, despising the clamor of evil men, shall, gently, by all means, but firmly, do each his own part in this work, remembering the injunctions of Leo XIII in the Apostolic Constitution Officiorum: “Let the Ordinaries, acting in this also as Delegates of the Apostolic See, exert themselves to proscribe and to put out of reach of the faithful injurious books or other writings printed or circulated in their dioceses.” 53. [bishops must be strict in preventing the publication of harmful books.] 54. [bishops must be aware of what priests are publishing and censor those who publish or permit the publication of error.] 55. We have already mentioned congresses and public gatherings as among the means used by the Modernists to propagate and defend their opinions. In the future, bishops shall not permit congresses of priests except on very rare occasions. 56. [F]ollowing the example of St. Charles Borromeo, . . . establish in each of the dioceses a council consisting of approved members of both branches of the clergy, which shall be charged with the task of noting the existence of errors and the devices by which new ones are introduced and propagated, and to inform the bishop of the whole, so that he may take counsel with them as to the best means for suppressing the evil at the outset and preventing it spreading for the ruin of souls or, worse still, gaining strength and growth. We decree, therefore, that in every diocese a council of this kind, which We are pleased to name the “Council of Vigilance,'' be instituted without delay. 57. Lest what We have laid down thus far should pass into oblivion, We will and ordain that the bishops of all dioceses, a year after the publication of these letters and every three years thenceforward, furnish the Holy See with a diligent and sworn report on the things which have been decreed in this Our Letter, and on the doctrines that find currency among the clergy, and especially in the seminaries and other Catholic institutions, those not excepted which are not subject to the Ordinary, and We impose the like obligation on the Generals of religious orders with regard to those who are under them. Please answer questions 28 and 29 in the Survey Questions Booklet. . 58. Meanwhile, Venerable Brethren, fully confident in your zeal and energy, We beseech for you with Our whole heart the abundance of heavenly light, so that in the midst of this great danger to souls from the insidious invasions of error upon every hand, you may see clearly what ought to be done, and labor to do it with all your strength and courage. May Jesus Christ, the author and finisher of our faith, be with you in His power; and may the Immaculate Virgin, the destroyer of all heresies, be with you by her prayers and aid. 59. Given at St. Peter's, Rome, September 8, 1907, in the fifth year of Our Pontificate. PIUS X, POPE.81 What the pope wrote is most clear, most emphatic and most solemn. He knew that the crisis gripping the Church of his time would worsen if the remedies he commanded were not strictly

PAPAL ENCYCLICALS ONLINE, Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi Dominici Gregis, 1907, accessed September 1, 2010,



enforced by all his bishops. Yet the crisis has worsened, Pascendi, its teachings and its papal admonitions having been ignored by virtually all the current Catholic bishops except those in the Society of Saint Pius X and other traditional priestly orders. Nowhere is Pascendi to be found in the documents of Vatican II. But when the sad statistics on the current crisis are contrasted with the revitalization of the Church occurring in those yet small traditional Catholic orders and communities where Pascendi is being heeded, it is apparent Pope Saint Pius X was right, he was inspired by the Holy Ghost, Pascendi was prophetic and its admonitions are totally relevant today. Pius X is a canonized saint, yet his wisdom was disdained by the Progressivists at Vatican II and virtually all Catholics today. What would he say of them? (For the answer, see the Dedication page of this book.)
Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, Against False Ecumenism

In his encyclical Mortalium Animos of 1928, Pope Pius XI spoke of the many people who fervently desire the unity of all Christian churches and indeed all men. Of those men in the Church with this desire the pope writes, 2. [C]onventions, meetings and addresses are frequently arranged by these persons, at which a large number of listeners are present, and at which all without distinction are invited to join in the discussion, both infidels of every kind, and Christians, even those who have unhappily fallen away from Christ or who with obstinacy and pertinacity deny His divine nature and mission. Certainly such attempts can nowise be approved by Catholics, founded as they are on that false opinion which considers all religions to be more or less good and praiseworthy, since they all in different ways manifest and signify that sense which is inborn in us all, and by which we are led to God and to the obedient acknowledgment of His rule. Not only are those who hold this opinion in error and deceived but also in distorting the idea of true religion they reject it, and little by little, turn aside to naturalism and atheism, as it is called; from which it clearly follows that one who supports those who hold these theories and attempts to realize them, is altogether abandoning the divinely revealed religion. Statistical data as well as the statements of recent popes, show that in the Catholic Church today this abandonment of the true faith is well advanced. How, then, is it possible that a cause of this abandonment, the false ecumenism condemned by Pope Pius XI, is taught and followed so predominantly in the Church today? Pius XI next gives the rationale used by those who teach this false ecumenism and admonishes his bishops to invoke their zeal in combating it and those who promote it. 4. Is it not right, it is often repeated, indeed, even consonant with duty that all who invoke the name of Christ should abstain from mutual reproaches and at long last be united in mutual charity? Who would dare to say that he loved Christ, unless he worked with all his might to carry out the desires of Him, Who asked His Father that His disciples might be “one?” And did not the same Christ will that His disciples should be marked out and distinguished from others by this characteristic, namely that they loved one another: “By this shall all men know that you are my disciples, if you have love one for another” All Christians, they add, should be as “one”: for then they would be much more powerful in driving out the pest of irreligion, which like a serpent daily creeps further and becomes more widely spread, and prepares to rob the Gospel of its strength. These things and others that class of men who are known as pan-Christians continually repeat and amplify; and these men, so far from being quite few and scattered, have increased to the dimensions of an entire class, and have grouped themselves into widely spread societies, most of which are directed by non-Catholics, although they are imbued with varying doctrines concerning 66

the things of faith. This undertaking is so actively promoted as in many places to win for itself the adhesion of a number of citizens, and it even takes possession of the minds of very many Catholics and allures them with the hope of bringing about such a union as would be agreeable to the desires of Holy Mother Church, who has indeed nothing more at heart than to recall Her erring sons and to lead them back to Her bosom. But in reality beneath these enticing words and blandishments lies hid a most grave error, by which the foundations of the Catholic faith are completely destroyed. 5. Admonished, therefore, by the consciousness of Our Apostolic office that We should not permit the flock of the Lord to be cheated by dangerous fallacies, We invoke, Venerable Brethren, your zeal in avoiding this evil; [M]any non-Catholics may be found who loudly preach fraternal communion in Christ Jesus, yet you will find none at all to whom it ever occurs to submit to and obey the Vicar of Jesus Christ either in His capacity as a teacher or as a governor. Meanwhile they affirm that they would willingly treat with the Church of Rome, but on equal terms, that is as equals with an equal: but even if they could so act, it does not seem open to doubt that any pact into which they might enter would not compel them to turn from those opinions which are still the reason why they err and stray from the one fold of Christ. 8. This being so, it is clear that the Apostolic See cannot on any terms take part in their assemblies, nor is it anyway lawful for Catholics either to support or to work for such enterprises; for if they do so they will be giving countenance to a false Christianity, quite alien to the one Church of Christ. 9. These pan-Christians who turn their minds to uniting the churches seem, indeed, to pursue the noblest of ideas in promoting charity among all Christians: nevertheless how does it happen that this charity tends to injure faith? Everyone knows that John himself, the Apostle of love, who seems to reveal in his Gospel the secrets of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, and who never ceased to impress on the memories of his followers the new commandment “Love one another,” altogether forbade any intercourse with those who professed a mutilated and corrupt version of Christ's teaching: “If any man come to you and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into the house nor say to him: God speed you.” 10. So, Venerable Brethren, it is clear why this Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics: for the union of Christians can only be promoted by promoting the return to the one true Church of Christ of those who are separated from it, for in the past they have unhappily left it. To the one true Church of Christ, we say, which is visible to all, and which is to remain, according to the will of its Author, exactly the same as He instituted it. 12. Let, therefore, the separated children draw nigh to the Apostolic See, set up in the City which Peter and Paul, the Princes of the Apostles, consecrated by their blood; to that See, We repeat, which is “the root and womb whence the Church of God springs,”[27] not with the intention and the hope that “the Church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth”[28] will cast aside the integrity of the faith and tolerate their errors, but, on the contrary, that they themselves submit to its teaching and government. Would that it were Our happy lot to do that which so many of Our predecessors could not, to embrace with fatherly affection those children, whose unhappy separation from Us We now bewail. Would that God our Savior, “Who will have all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth,” would hear us when We humbly beg that He would deign to recall all who stray from the unity of the Church! In this most important undertaking We ask and 67


wish that others should ask the prayers of Blessed Mary the Virgin, Mother of divine grace, victorious over all heresies and Help of Christians, that She may implore for Us the speedy coming of the much hoped-for day, when all men shall hear the voice of Her divine Son, and shall be “careful to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.” 13. You, Venerable Brethren, understand how much this question is in Our mind, and We desire that Our children should also know, not only those who belong to the Catholic community, but also those who are separated from Us: if these latter humbly beg light from heaven, there is no doubt but that they will recognize the one true Church of Jesus Christ and will, at last, enter it, being united with us in perfect charity. 82 We have shown by the statistics documented in Chapter 3 that the encyclical Mortalium Animos of Pope Pius XI Against False Ecumenism has been not only ignored but contradicted in the Novus Ordo era Church. And as a consequence of this false ecumenism, just as Pope Pius XI warned, Catholics have suffered a significant loss of faith and apostatized to Protestantism, especially Evangelicalism; but Protestants have generally not been motivated to convert and enter the Catholic Church. The exception is the traditional Anglicans who have returned to the Catholic Church, not because of false ecumenism, but because they understand and accept that unity in orthodox Christian faith can exist only within the institutional structure of the Catholic Church, as we show in the following heading. Please answer questions 30 -31 in the Survey Questions Booklet. Pope Benedict XVI on True Ecumenism Our current Holy Father has, on occasion, taught against this error of false ecumenism. At World Youth Day, 2008, in Sydney, Pope Benedict spoke to some 260,000 young people and proposed that their lives should be “transformed from within” so that they might transform society. The pope spoke about unity among Christians and said the truth is that unity exists only in the Catholic Church. All non-Catholic “Christians” must return to that unity. This is true ecumenism. The following are quotes from the pope’s talk. Unity and reconciliation cannot be achieved through our efforts alone. God has made us for one another (cf. Gen 2:24) and only in God and His Church can we find the unity we seek. Yet, in the face of imperfections and disappointments – both individual and institutional – we are sometimes tempted to construct artificially a “perfect” community. That temptation is not new. The history of the Church includes many examples of attempts to bypass or override human weaknesses or failures in order to create a perfect unity, a spiritual utopia. Such attempts to construct unity in fact undermine it! To separate the Holy Spirit from Christ present in the Church’s institutional structure would compromise the unity of the Christian community, which is precisely the Spirit’s gift! It would betray the nature of the Church as the living temple of the Holy Spirit (cf. 1 Cor 3:16). It is the Spirit, in fact, who guides the Church in the way of all truth and unifies Her . . . Unity is of the essence of the Church (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, 813). The Pope speaks of compromising the unity that already exists, that is already present in the Catholic Church’s institutional structure. There is no institutional structure in the non-Catholic


PAPAL ENCYCLICALS ONLINE, Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, 1928, accessed November 15, 2010,


“Christian” churches. Therefore, in this sentence the pope equates the Christian community with the Catholic Church’s institutional structure. Please answer question 32 in the Survey Questions Booklet. Anglican Bishop Asks for Return to Rome The Pope said, To separate the Holy Spirit from Christ present in the Church’s institutional structure would compromise the unity of the Christian community.83 The following excerpt from a Dallas Morning News article clearly demonstrates what Pope Benedict XVI said to young Catholics on Church unity at Catholic Youth day, 2008. The Dallas newspaper reports that an entire Episcopal church diocese is requesting a return to the unity of the Christian community by a return to the Roman Catholic Church. Here is the excerpt. FORT WORTH, Texas, August 13, 2008 (CNA) - A senior Episcopal prelate recently confirmed that a delegation of Episcopal priests from Fort Worth visited the Catholic bishop of the diocese, Most Rev. Kevin Vann, to discuss how their diocese might enter full communion with the Catholic Church . . . . “The lack of a teaching office [in the Episcopalian Church] has resulted in communicating un-baptized persons, same-sex unions and liturgical chaos everywhere,” reads the document. “There are no boundaries and it is all uncontrollable. This is not theory but day to day reality.” “We came to realize that, like the Prodigal Son in the Gospel, it is up to us to make the initiative to return to the rock from whence we were hewn,” continues the priests' proposal, saying that they have come to see “the need for perusing unity with the See of Peter now.” “They make it clear that they no longer believe there is truth in the Anglican Communion, and the only way they can find truth is reunion with Rome, . . .” 84 Worldwide Anglican Communion Seeks Reunion with Rome And not only this Texas Anglican Diocese, but the worldwide Traditional Anglican Communion (TAC) asked for return to the Catholic Church, as the following article describes. The Record, Perth, Australia, Wednesday, 28 January 2009. History may be in the making. It appears Rome is on the brink of welcoming close to half a million members of the Traditional Anglican Communion into membership of the Roman Catholic Church, writes Anthony Barich. Such a move would be the most historic development in Anglican-Catholic relations in the last 500 years. But it may also be a prelude to a much greater influx of Anglicans waiting on the sidelines, pushed too far by the controversy surrounding the consecration of practising homosexual bishops, women clergy and a host of other issues. It is understood that the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has decided to recommend the Traditional Anglican Communion be accorded a personal prelature akin to Opus Dei, if talks between the TAC and the Vatican aimed at unity succeed.


Facebook, Pope Benedict's Homily at Vigil Mass of WYD '08, 19 July 2008, accessed February 20, 2011, 84 Lifesite News website, Traditional Fort Worth Episcopal Priests Seek Communion with Catholic Church , August 15, 2008, accessed October 15, 2010,



The TAC is a growing global community of approximately 400,000 members that took the historic step in 2007 of seeking full corporate and sacramental communion with the Catholic Church – a move that, if fulfilled, will be the biggest development in Catholic-Anglican relations since the English Reformation under King Henry VIII.85 Actual Grace and Sanctifying Grace The Church teaches that grace is a supernatural help, a gift given freely by our loving God. It can be of two varieties. 86 Actual grace is an aide from God to accomplish a specific good at a specific time. Even those not in the friendship of God can receive this type of grace while they are far away from Him. For example, the bible relates that when Paul of Tarsis was persecuting the Christians before his conversion to Christianity, on his way to Damascus God threw him to the ground and blinded him as a way to help convert him. At that time Paul was an enemy of God but he received a tremendous actual grace from God and responded to it. Actual grace does not remain habitually in the soul and of itself does not make the recipient a friend of God, although responding to actual graces can lead to friendship with God. One must be a friend of God to get to heaven. In Catholic theology, being a friend of God is called “being in the state of grace” (sanctifying grace, not just actual grace). Sanctifying grace ( also called habitual grace) is a habitual grace that remains with a person and makes one a friend of God or a better friend of God. An example of a source of sanctifying grace is the Sacrament of Baptism. After Paul was converted and received his sight at Damascus he was immediately baptized and began preaching that Jesus is God, which he continued to do for the remainder of his life. And immediately there fell from his eyes as it were scales, and he received his sight; and rising up, he was baptized. And when he had taken meat, he was strengthened. And he was with the disciples that were at Damascus, for some days. And immediately he preached Jesus in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God. (Acts of the Apostles 9:18-20) Jesus said of Baptism, “Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” (John 3:5) Jesus was saying that Baptism makes one a friend of God and eligible for entrance into the Kingdom of God in heaven. We shall see in our review of the Council of Trent on the issue of “baptism of desire” that Catholic faith in the heart and sanctifying grace in the soul at the moment of death are necessary for salvation. And, as we shall show, the Council of Trent teaches that only in the Catholic Church and through her Sacraments can sanctifying grace be received. This is the reason all must be in the Catholic Church and in the state of sanctifying grace at the moment of death to be saved. This is the basic reason the Anglicans of TAC desire entrance into the Catholic Church. Every person has free will and can reject God’s grace, and in doing so forfeit heaven. This freedom to reject God and His grace is one of the deepest mysteries of human existence. Universal salvation is not and has never been Catholic dogma. Universal salvation contradicts infallibly defined Catholic Dogma. Please answer questions 33-35 in the Survey Questions Booklet. Anglicanorum Coetibus Provides for Return of All Anglicans Pope Benedict XVI provided for the return of all Anglicans to the Catholic Church by his

The Record website, Healing the Reformation’s Fault Lines, January 28, 2009, accessed October 15, 2010, 86 Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (Rockford, Illinois: TAN Books and Publishers, 1974) , pp. 225, 250


Apostolic Constitution Anglicanorum Coetibus, the highest form of pontifical decree. Here are some significant excerpts from the pope’s Apostolic Constitution. Every division among the baptized in Jesus Christ wounds that which the Church is and that for which the Church exists; in fact, “such division openly contradicts the will of Christ, scandalizes the world, and damages that most holy cause, the preaching the Gospel to every creature. “[T]he society structured with hierarchical organs and the Mystical Body of Christ, the visible society and the spiritual community, the earthly Church and the Church endowed with heavenly riches, . . . form one complex reality formed from a two-fold element, human and divine.” The communion of the baptized in the teaching of the Apostles and in the breaking of the Eucharistic bread is visibly manifested in the bonds of the profession of the faith in its entirety, of the celebration of all of the sacraments instituted by Christ, and of the governance of the College of Bishops united with its head, the Roman Pontiff. This single Church of Christ, which we profess in the Creed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic subsists87 in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the bishops in communion with him.88 Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis, Against Liberalism Excerpts from the 1950 encyclical Humani Generis of Pope Pius XII against liberalism begin here. HUMANI GENERIS

1. [T]he principles of Christian culture [are] being attacked on all sides. 2. The truths that have to do with God and the relations between God and men, completely surpass the sensible order and demand self-surrender and self-abnegation in order to be put into practice and to influence practical life. Now the human intellect, in gaining the knowledge of such truths is hampered both by the activity of the senses and the imagination, and by evil passions arising from original sin. Hence men easily persuade themselves in such matters that what they do not wish to believe is false or at least doubtful. 3. It is for this reason that divine revelation must be considered morally necessary so that those religious and moral truths which are not of their nature beyond the reach of reason in the present condition of the human race, may be known by all men readily with a firm certainty and with freedom from all error. 4. Furthermore the human intelligence sometimes experiences difficulties in forming a judgment about the credibility of the Catholic faith, notwithstanding the many wonderful external signs God has given, which are sufficient to prove with certitude by the natural light of reason alone the divine origin of the Christian religion. For man can, whether from

The meaning of the word “subsists” is made clear on page 143 in our discussion of footnote four [4] of the Vatican document “Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church,” which affirms that “subsists in the Catholic Church” means “is the Catholic Church.” 88 Vatican website, Pope Benedict XVI, Apostolic Constitution Anglicanorum Coetibus, Nov. 4, 2009, accessed 2011/02/21,



prejudice or passion or bad faith, refuse and resist not only the evidence of the external proofs that are available, but also the impulses of actual grace. 5. If anyone examines the state of affairs outside the Christian fold, he will easily discover the principle trends that not a few learned men are following. Some imprudently and indiscreetly hold that evolution, which has not been fully proved even in the domain of natural sciences, explains the origin of all things, and audaciously support the monistic and pantheistic opinion that the world is in continual evolution. Communists gladly subscribe to this opinion so that, when the souls of men have been deprived of every idea of a personal God, they may the more efficaciously defend and propagate their dialectical materialism. 6. Such fictitious tenets of evolution which repudiate all that is absolute, firm and immutable, have paved the way for the new erroneous philosophy which, rivaling idealism, immanentism and pragmatism, has assumed the name of existentialism, since it concerns itself only with existence of individual things and neglects all consideration of their immutable essences. 7. There is also a certain historicism, which attributing value only to the events of man's life, overthrows the foundation of all truth and absolute law, both on the level of philosophical speculations and especially to Christian dogmas. 8. [T]he more they exalt the authority of God the Revealer, the more severely do they spurn the teaching office of the Church, which has been instituted by Christ, Our Lord, to preserve and interpret divine revelation. 9. Now Catholic theologians and philosophers, whose grave duty it is to defend natural and supernatural truth and instill it in the hearts of men, cannot afford to ignore or neglect these more or less erroneous opinions. Rather they must come to understand these same theories well, both because diseases are not properly treated unless they are rightly diagnosed, and because sometimes even in these false theories a certain amount of truth is contained, and, finally, because these theories provoke more subtle discussion and evaluation of philosophical and theological truths. 10. [I]t is apparent, however, that some today, as in apostolic times, desirous of novelty, and fearing to be considered ignorant of recent scientific findings, try to withdraw themselves from the sacred Teaching Authority. 11. Another danger is perceived, which is all the more serious because it is more concealed beneath the mask of virtue. There are many who, deploring disagreement among men and intellectual confusion, through an imprudent zeal for souls, are urged by a great and ardent desire to do away with the barrier that divides good and honest men; these advocate an “eirenism“ according to which, by setting aside the questions which divide men, they aim not only at joining forces to repel the attacks of atheism, but also at reconciling things opposed to one another in the field of dogma. And as in former times some questioned whether the traditional apologetics of the Church did not constitute an obstacle rather than a help to the winning of souls for Christ, so today some are presumptive enough to question seriously whether theology and theological methods, such as with the approval of ecclesiastical authority are found in our schools, should not only be perfected, but also completely reformed, in order to promote the more efficacious propagation of the kingdom of Christ everywhere throughout the world among men of every culture and religious opinion. 12. But some through enthusiasm for an imprudent “eirenism” seem to consider as an obstacle to the restoration of fraternal union, things founded on the laws and principles given by Christ 72

and likewise on institutions founded by Him, or which are the defense and support of the integrity of the faith, and the removal of which would bring about the union of all, but only to their destruction. 13. [T]hese new opinions are disseminated not only among members of the clergy and in seminaries and religious institutions, but also among the laity, and especially among those who are engaged in teaching youth. 14. In theology some want to reduce to a minimum the meaning of dogmas; and to free dogma itself from terminology long established in the Church and from philosophical concepts held by Catholic teachers, to bring about a return in the explanation of Catholic doctrine to the way of speaking used in Holy Scripture and by the fathers of the Church. They cherish the hope that when dogma is stripped of the elements which they hold to be extrinsic to divine revelation, it will compare advantageously with the dogmatic opinions of those who are separated from the unity of the Church and that in this way they will gradually arrive at a mutual assimilation of Catholic dogma with the tenets of the dissidents. 15. Moreover, they assert that when Catholic doctrine has been reduced to this condition, a way will be found to satisfy modern needs that will permit of dogma being expressed also by the concepts of modern philosophy, whether of immanentism or idealism or existentialism or any other system. Some more audacious affirm that this can and must be done, because they hold that the mysteries of faith are never expressed by truly adequate concepts but only by approximate and ever changeable notions, in which the truth is to some extent expressed, but is necessarily distorted. 16. It is evident from what We have already said, that such tentatives not only lead to what they call dogmatic relativism, but that they actually contain it [dogmatic relativism]. The contempt of doctrine commonly taught and of the terms in which it is expressed strongly favor it [dogmatic relativism]. 17. Hence to neglect, or to reject, or to devalue so many and such great resources which have been conceived, expressed and perfected so often by the age-old work of men endowed with no common talent and holiness, working under the vigilant supervision of the holy magisterium and with the light and leadership of the Holy Ghost in order to state the truths of the faith ever more accurately, to do this so that these things may be replaced by conjectural notions and by some formless and unstable tenets of a new philosophy, tenets which, like the flowers of the field, are in existence today and die tomorrow; this is supreme imprudence and something that would make dogma itself a reed shaken by the wind. 18. Unfortunately these advocates of novelty easily pass from despising scholastic theology to the neglect of and even contempt for the Teaching Authority of the Church itself, which gives such authoritative approval to scholastic theology. 19. Although these things seem well said, still they are not free from error. It is true that popes generally leave theologians free in those matters which are disputed in various ways by men of very high authority in this field; but history teaches that many matters that formerly were open to discussion, no longer now admit of discussion. 20. [I]f the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians. 21. This deposit of faith our Divine Redeemer has given for authentic interpretation not to each of the faithful, not even to theologians, but only to the Teaching Authority of the Church. . . . 73


Hence Our Predecessor of immortal memory, Pius IX, teaching that the most noble office of theology is to show how a doctrine defined by the Church is contained in the sources of revelation, added these words, and with very good reason: “in that sense in which it has been defined by the Church”. 22. To return, however, to the new opinions mentioned above, a number of things are proposed or suggested by some even against the divine authorship of Sacred Scripture. For some go so far as to pervert the sense of the [First] Vatican Council's definition that God is the author of Holy Scripture, and they put forward again the opinion, already often condemned, which asserts that immunity from error extends only to those parts of the Bible that treat of God or of moral and religious matters. They even wrongly speak of a human sense of the Scriptures, beneath which a divine sense, which they say is the only infallible meaning, lies hidden. In interpreting Scripture, they will take no account of the analogy of faith and the Tradition of the Church. Thus they judge the doctrine of the fathers and of the Teaching Church by the norm of Holy Scripture, interpreted by the purely human reason of exegetes, instead of explaining Holy Scripture according to the mind of the Church which Christ Our Lord has appointed guardian and interpreter of the whole deposit of divinely revealed truth. 23. Further, according to their fictitious opinions, the literal sense of Holy Scripture and its explanation, carefully worked out under the Church's vigilance by so many great exegetes, should yield now to a new exegesis, which they are pleased to call symbolic or spiritual. By means of this new exegesis of the Old Testament, which today in the Church is a sealed book, would finally be thrown open to all the faithful. By this method, they say, all difficulties vanish, difficulties which hinder only those who adhere to the literal meaning of the Scriptures. 24. Everyone sees how foreign all this is to the principles and norms of interpretation rightly fixed by our predecessors of happy memory, Leo XIII in his Encyclical “Providentissimus Deus,” and Benedict XV in the Encyclical “Spiritus Paraclitus,” as also by Ourselves in the Encyclical “Divino Afflante Spiritu.” 25. It is not surprising that novelties of this kind have already borne their deadly fruit in almost all branches of theology. It is now doubted that human reason, without divine revelation and the help of divine grace, can, by arguments drawn from the created universe, prove the existence of a personal God; it is denied that the world had a beginning; it is argued that the creation of the world is necessary, since it proceeds from the necessary liberality of divine love; it is denied that God has eternal and infallible foreknowledge of the free actions of men – all this in contradiction to the decrees of the [first] Vatican Council. 26. Some also question whether angels are personal beings, and whether matter and spirit differ essentially. Others destroy the gratuity of the supernatural order, since God, they say, cannot create intellectual beings without ordering and calling them to the beatific vision. Nor is this all. Disregarding the Council of Trent, some pervert the very concept of original sin, along with the concept of sin in general as an offense against God, as well as the idea of satisfaction performed for us by Christ. Some even say that the doctrine of transubstantiation, based on an antiquated philosophic notion of substance, should be so modified that the real presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist be reduced to a kind of symbolism, whereby the consecrated species would be merely efficacious signs of the 74

spiritual presence of Christ and of His intimate union with the faithful members of His Mystical Body. 27. Some say they are not bound by the doctrine, explained in Our Encyclical Letter of a few years ago, and based on the Sources of Revelation, which teaches that the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing. Some reduce to a meaningless formula the necessity of belonging to the true Church in order to gain eternal salvation. Others finally belittle the reasonable character of the credibility of Christian faith. 28. These and like errors, it is clear, have crept in among certain of Our sons who are deceived by imprudent zeal for souls or by false science. To them We are compelled with grief to repeat once again truths already well-known, and to point out with solicitude clear errors and dangers of error. In sections 29 through 34 Pope Pius XII repeats the warnings of Pope Leo XIII against those who “hate” Scholastic philosophy and try to remove it from the training of priests and lay persons. He condemns such a course of action in 1950, as strongly as Pope Leo XII did in his encyclical Aeterni Patris in 1879. It is not necessary to repeat those arguments here except to say that the pope’s arguments are also just as valid today. The pre-Conciliar popes make it clear that the fact that Thomistic philosophy is generally no longer taught is a major cause of the crisis in the Church today. 35. It remains for Us now to speak about those questions which, although they pertain to the positive sciences, are nevertheless more or less connected with the truths of the Christian faith. . . . caution must be used when there is rather question of hypotheses, having some sort of scientific foundation, in which the doctrine contained in Sacred Scripture or in Tradition is involved. If such conjectural opinions are directly or indirectly opposed to the doctrine revealed by God, then the demand that they be recognized can in no way be admitted. 36. For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter – for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. However, this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faith. Some however, rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as if the origin of the human body from pre-existing and living matter were already completely certain and proved by the facts which have been discovered up to now and by reasoning on those facts, and as if there were nothing in the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in this question. 37. When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is no way apparent 75


how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own. 38. Just as in the biological and anthropological sciences, so also in the historical sciences there are those who boldly transgress the limits and safeguards established by the Church. In a particular way must be deplored a certain too-free interpretation of the historical books of the Old Testament. Those who favor this system, in order to defend their cause, wrongly refer to the Letter which was sent not long ago to the Archbishop of Paris by the Pontifical Commission on Biblical Studies. This letter, in fact, clearly points out that the first eleven chapters of Genesis, although properly speaking not conforming to the historical method used by the best Greek and Latin writers or by competent authors of our time, do nevertheless pertain to history in a true sense[.] 39. Therefore, whatever of the popular narrations that have been inserted into the Sacred Scriptures must in no way be considered on a par with myths or other such things, which are more the product of an extravagant imagination than of that striving for truth. 40. [Such] new opinions can entice the incautious; and therefore we prefer to withstand the very beginnings rather than to administer the medicine after the disease has grown inveterate. 41. For this reason, after mature reflexion and consideration before God, that We may not be wanting in Our sacred duty, We charge the bishops and the Superiors General of Religious Orders, binding them most seriously in conscience, to take most diligent care that such opinions be not advanced in schools, in conferences or in writings of any kind, and that they be not taught in any manner whatsoever to the clergy or the faithful.89 Please answer question 37 in the Survey Questions Booklet. Pope Paul VI, Humanae Vitae, Against Contraception The most serious problem the bishops of the western world face is the precipitous decline in the number of priests and seminarians. Without priests the Church cannot be Catholic. Since the number of children (boys) born into Catholic families has also declined drastically, the lack of priests and seminarians should be no mystery. Here we have an obvious cause and effect relationship. Ignoring the counsel of a majority of modern theologians and lay persons, who wanted a change in Church teaching, Pope Paul VI issued the encyclical Humanae Vitae restating the Church’s constant condemnation of contraception.

Humanae Vitae
ENCYCLICAL LETTER OF HIS HOLINESS POPE PAUL VI To the Venerable Patriarchs, Archbishops, Bishops and other local Ordinaries in Peace and Communion with the Apostolic See, to Priests, the Faithful and all Men of Good Will Venerable Brothers and Beloved Sons:


PAPAL ENCYCLICALS ONLINE, Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis, 1950, accessed January 29, 2011,,.


1. The most serious duty of transmitting human life, for which married persons are the free and responsible collaborators of God the Creator, has always been a source of great joys to them, even if sometimes accompanied by not a few difficulties and by distress. At all times the fulfillment of this duty has posed grave problems to the conscience of married persons, but, with the recent evolution of society, changes have taken place that give rise to new questions which the Church could not ignore, having to do with a matter which so closely touches upon the life and happiness of men. [and, as experience has shown, the future of the Church]. 2. The changes which have taken place are in fact noteworthy and of varied kinds. . . . Fear is shown by many that world population is growing more rapidly than the available resources . . . A change is also seen both in the manner of considering the person of woman and her place in society . . . Finally and above all, man has made stupendous progress in the domination and rational organization of the forces of nature, such that he tends to extend this domination to his own total being: to the body, to psychical life, to social life and even to the laws which regulate the transmission of life. 3. [W]ould not a revision of the ethical norms, in force up to now, seem to be advisable, especially when it is considered that they cannot be observed without sacrifices, sometimes heroic sacrifices? 4. Such questions required from the teaching authority of the Church a new and deeper reflection upon the principles of the moral teaching on marriage: a teaching founded on the natural law, illuminated and enriched by divine revelation. Conformably to this mission of Hers, the Church has always provided – and even more amply in recent times – a coherent teaching concerning both the nature of marriage and the correct use of conjugal rights and the duties of husband and wife. 5. The consciousness of that same mission induced us to confirm and enlarge the study commission which our predecessor Pope John XXIII of happy memory had instituted in March, 1963. That commission which included, besides several experts in the various pertinent disciplines also married couples, had as its scope the gathering of opinions on the new questions regarding conjugal life, and in particular on the regulation of births[.] 6. [W]ithin the commission itself, no full concordance of judgments concerning the moral norms to be proposed had been reached, and above all because certain criteria of solutions had emerged which departed from the moral teaching on marriage proposed with constant firmness by the teaching authority of the Church. Therefore, having attentively sifted the documentation laid before us, after mature reflection and assiduous prayers, we now intend, by virtue of the mandate entrusted to us by Christ, to give our reply to these grave questions. 7. [S]ince, in the attempt to justify artificial methods of birth control, many have appealed to the demands both of conjugal love and of “responsible parenthood,” it is good to state very precisely the true concept of these two great realities of married life, 8. Marriage is not, then, the effect of chance or the product of evolution of unconscious natural forces; it is the wise institution of the Creator to realize in mankind His design of love. By means of the reciprocal personal gift of self, proper and exclusive to them, husband and wife . . . collaborate with God in the generation and education of new lives. 9. Under this light, there clearly appear the characteristic marks and demands of conjugal love, and it is of supreme importance to have an exact idea of these.



This love is first of all fully human, that is to say, of the senses and of the spirit at the same time. It is not, then, a simple transport of instinct and sentiment, but also, and principally, an act of the free will, intended to endure and to grow by means of the joys and sorrows of daily life, in such a way that husband and wife become one only heart and one only soul, and together attain their human perfection. 10. Hence conjugal love requires in husband and wife an awareness of their mission of “responsible parenthood” . . . In relation to the biological processes, responsible parenthood means the knowledge and respect of their functions; human intellect discovers in the power of giving life biological laws which are part of the human person. . . . In relation to the tendencies of instinct or passion, responsible parenthood means that necessary dominion which reason and will must exercise over them. In relation to physical, economic, psychological and social conditions, responsible parenthood is exercised; either by the deliberate and generous decision to raise a numerous family, or by the decision, made for grave motives and with due respect for the moral law, to avoid for the time being, or even for an indeterminate period, a new birth. . . . In the task of transmitting life, therefore, they are not free to proceed completely at will, as if they could determine in a wholly autonomous way the honest path to follow; but they must conform their activity to the creative intention of God, expressed in the very nature of marriage and of its acts, and manifested by the constant teaching of the Church. 11. In fact, as experience bears witness, not every conjugal act is followed by a new life. God has wisely disposed natural laws and rhythms of fecundity which, of themselves, cause a separation in the succession of births. Nonetheless the Church, calling men back to the observance of the norms of the natural law, as interpreted by their constant doctrine, teaches that each and every marriage act (quilibet matrimonii usus) must remain open to the transmission of life. 12. That teaching, often set forth by the magisterium, is founded upon the inseparable connection, willed by God and unable to be broken by man on his own initiative, between the two meanings of the conjugal act: the unitive meaning and the procreative meaning. Indeed, by its intimate structure, the conjugal act, while most closely uniting husband and wife, capacitates them for the generation of new lives, according to laws inscribed in the very being of man and of woman. 13. To use this divine gift destroying, even if only partially, its meaning and its purpose is to contradict the nature both of man and of woman and of their most intimate relationship, and therefore it is to contradict also the plan of God and His will. 14. In conformity with these landmarks in the human and Christian vision of marriage, we must once again declare that the direct interruption of the generative process already begun, and, above all, directly willed and procured abortion, even if for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as licit means of regulating birth. . . . Equally to be excluded, as the teaching authority of the Church has frequently declared, is direct sterilization, whether perpetual or temporary, whether of the man or of the woman. Similarly excluded is every action which, either in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible. 15. The Church, on the contrary, does not at all consider illicit the use of those therapeutic means truly necessary to cure diseases of the organism, even if an impediment to procreation, which may be foreseen, should result therefore, provided such impediment is not, for whatever motive, directly willed. 78

16. To this teaching of the Church on conjugal morals, the objection is made today, as we observed earlier (No. 3), that it is the prerogative of the human intellect to dominate the energies offered by irrational nature and to orientate them towards an end conformable to the good of man. Now, some may ask: in the present case, is it not reasonable in many circumstances to have recourse to artificial birth control if, thereby, we secure the harmony and peace of the family, and better conditions for the education of the children already born? To this question it is necessary to reply with clarity: the Church is the first to praise and recommend the intervention of intelligence in a function which so closely associates the rational creature with his Creator; but She affirms that this must be done with respect for the order established by God. If, then, there are serious motives to space out births, which derive from the physical or psychological conditions of husband and wife, or from external conditions, the Church teaches that it is then licit to take into account the natural rhythms immanent in the generative functions, for the use of marriage in the infecund periods only, and in this way to regulate birth without offending the moral principles which have been recalled earlier. The Church is coherent with Herself when She considers recourse to the infecund periods to be licit, while at the same time condemning, as being always illicit, the use of means directly contrary to fecundation, even if such use is inspired by reasons which may appear honest and serious. In reality, there are essential differences between the two cases; in the former, the married couple make legitimate use of a natural disposition; in the latter, they impede the development of natural processes. It is true that, in the one and the other case, the married couple are concordant in the positive will of avoiding children for plausible reasons, seeking the certainty that offspring will not arrive; but it is also true that only in the former case are they able to renounce the use of marriage in the fecund periods when, for just motives, procreation is not desirable, while making use of it during infecund periods to manifest their affection and to safeguard their mutual fidelity. By so doing, they give proof of a truly and integrally honest love. 17. Upright men can even better convince themselves of the solid grounds on which the teaching of the Church in this field is based, if they care to reflect upon the consequences of methods of artificial birth control. Let them consider, first of all, how wide and easy a road would thus be opened up towards conjugal infidelity and the general lowering of morality. Not much experience is needed in order to know human weakness, and to understand that men – especially the young, who are so vulnerable on this point – have need of encouragement to be faithful to the moral law, so that they must not be offered some easy means of eluding its observance. It is also to be feared that the man, growing used to the employment of anti-conceptive practices, may finally lose respect for the woman and, no longer caring for her physical and psychological equilibrium, may come to the point of considering her as a mere instrument of selfish enjoyment, and no longer as his respected and beloved companion. Let it be considered also that a dangerous weapon would thus be placed in the hands of those public authorities who take no heed of moral exigencies. Who could blame a government for applying to the solution of the problems of the community those means acknowledged to be licit for married couples in the solution of a family problem? Who will stop rulers from favoring, from even imposing upon their peoples, if they were to consider it necessary, the method of contraception which they judge to be most efficacious? In such a way men, wishing to avoid individual, family, or social difficulties encountered in the observance of the divine law, would reach the point of placing at the mercy of the intervention of public authorities the most personal and most reserved sector of conjugal intimacy.



Consequently, if the mission of generating life is not to be exposed to the arbitrary will of men, one must necessarily recognize insurmountable limits to the possibility of man's domination over his own body and its functions; limits which no man, whether a private individual or one invested with authority, may licitly surpass. And such limits cannot be determined otherwise than by the respect due to the integrity of the human organism and its functions, according to the principles recalled earlier, and also according to the correct understanding of the “principle of totality” illustrated by our predecessor Pope Pius XII. 18. It can be foreseen that this teaching will perhaps not be easily received by all: Too numerous are those voices – amplified by the modern means of propaganda – which are contrary to the voice of the Church. To tell the truth, the Church is not surprised to be made, like Her divine Founder, a “sign of contradiction,” yet She does not because of this cease to proclaim with humble firmness the entire moral law, both natural and evangelical. Of such laws the Church was not the author, nor consequently can She be their arbiter; She is only their depositary and their interpreter, without ever being able to declare to be licit that which is not so by reason of its intimate and unchangeable opposition to the true good of man. 19. Our words would not be an adequate expression of the thought and solicitude of the Church, Mother and Teacher of all peoples, if, after having recalled men to the observance and respect of the divine law regarding matrimony, they did not also support mankind in the honest regulation of birth amid the difficult conditions which today afflict families and peoples. 20. The teaching of the Church on the regulation of birth, which promulgates the divine law, will easily appear to many to be difficult or even impossible of actuation. And indeed, like all great beneficent realities, it demands serious engagement and much effort, individual, family and social effort. More than that, it would not be practicable without the help of God, who upholds and strengthens the good will of men. 21. The honest practice of regulation of birth demands first of all that husband and wife acquire and possess solid convictions concerning the true values of life and of the family, and that they tend towards securing perfect self-mastery. To dominate instinct by means of one's reason and free will undoubtedly requires ascetical practices, so that the affective manifestations of conjugal life may observe the correct order, in particular with regard to the observance of periodic continence. Yet this discipline which is proper to the purity of married couples, far from harming conjugal love, rather confers on it a higher human value. It demands continual effort yet, thanks to its beneficent influence, husband and wife fully develop their personalities, being enriched with spiritual values. Such discipline bestows upon family life fruits of serenity and peace, and facilitates the solution of other problems; it favors attention for one's partner, helps both parties to drive out selfishness, the enemy of true love; and deepens their sense of responsibility. By its means, parents acquire the capacity of having a deeper and more efficacious influence in the education of their offspring; little children and youths grow up with a just appraisal of human values, and in the serene and harmonious development of their spiritual and sensitive faculties. [Sections 22, 23 and 24 speak to the media, civil authorities and scientists, respectively.] 25. And now our words are more directly addressed our own children, particularly those whom God calls to serve Him in marriage. We do not at all intend to hide the sometimes serious difficulties inherent in the life of Christian married persons; for them as for everyone else, “the gate is narrow and the way is hard, that leads to life.” But the hope of that life must illuminate their way, as with courage they strive to live with wisdom, justice and piety in this present time, knowing that the figure of this world passes away. 80

26. Among the fruits which ripen forth from a generous effort of fidelity to the divine law, one of the most precious is that married couples themselves not infrequently feel the desire to communicate their experience to others. Thus there comes to be included in the vast pattern of the vocation of the laity a new and most noteworthy form of the apostolate of like to like; it is married couples themselves who become apostles and guides to other married couples. This is assuredly, among so many forms of apostolate, one of those which seem most opportune today. [Section 27 speaks to physicians. Sections 28 and 29 speak to priests, telling them that their role “is to expound the Church's teaching on marriage without ambiguity,” and to preach this doctrine in a way that “illumines internally the hearts of the faithful inviting them to give their assent.” Section 30 speaks to bishops, urging them to “work ardently and incessantly for the safeguarding and the holiness of marriage.” Section 31 urges the bishops, priests and laity to teach this doctrine to “all men of good will, . . . both for the world and for the Church, since man cannot find true happiness ― towards which he aspires with all his being ― other than in respect of the laws written by God in his very nature, laws which he must observe with intelligence and love.” The following articles document the consequences of contraception in the modern world as a result of widespread dissent against Humanae Vitae. Archbishop Chaput on Consequences of Humanae Vitae On Human Life, A pastoral letter to the people of God of northern Colorado on the truth and meaning of married love[.] 1. Thirty years ago this week, Pope Paul VI issued his encyclical letter Humanae Vitae (On Human Life), which reaffirmed the Church's constant teaching on the regulation of births. It is certainly the most misunderstood papal intervention of this century. It was the spark which led to three decades of doubt and dissent among many Catholics, especially in the developed countries. With the passage of time, however, it has also proven prophetic. It teaches the truth. My purpose in this pastoral letter, therefore, is simple. I believe the message of Humanae Vitae is not a burden but a joy. I believe this encyclical offers a key to deeper, richer marriages. And so what I seek from the family of our local Church is not just a respectful nod toward a document which critics dismiss as irrelevant, but an active and sustained effort to study Humanae Vitae; to teach it faithfully in our parishes; and to encourage our married couples to live it. 4. In presenting his encyclical, Paul VI cautioned against four main problems (HV 17) that would arise if Church teaching on the regulation of births was ignored First, he warned that the widespread use of contraception would lead to conjugal infidelity and the general lowering of morality. Exactly this has happened. Few would deny that the rates of abortion, divorce, family breakdown, wife and child abuse, venereal disease and out-ofwedlock births have all massively increased since the mid-1960s. Obviously, the birth control pill has not been the only factor in this unraveling. But it has played a major role. In fact, the cultural revolution since 1968, driven at least in part by transformed attitudes toward sex, would not have been possible or sustainable without easy access to reliable contraception. In this, Paul VI was right. 5. Second, he also warned that man would lose respect for woman and “no longer [care] for her physical and psychological equilibrium,” to the point that he would consider her “as a mere instrument of selfish enjoyment, and no longer as his respected and beloved companion.” In other words, according to the pope, contraception might be marketed as liberating for women, but the real “beneficiaries” of birth control pills and devices would be men. Three decades later, exactly as Paul VI suggested, contraception has released males ― to a historically unprecedented degree ― from responsibility for their sexual 81


aggression. In the process, one of the stranger ironies of the contraception debate of the past generation has been this: Many feminists have attacked the Catholic Church for Her alleged disregard of women, but the Church in Humanae Vitae identified and rejected sexual exploitation of women years before that message entered the cultural mainstream. Again, Paul VI was right. 6. Third, the Holy Father also warned that widespread use of contraception would place a “dangerous weapon . . . in the hands of those public authorities who take no heed of moral exigencies.” As we have since discovered, eugenics didn't disappear with Nazi racial theories in 1945. Population control policies are now an accepted part of nearly every foreign aid discussion. The massive export of contraceptives, abortion, and sterilization by the developed world to developing countries ― frequently as a prerequisite for aid dollars and often in direct contradiction to local moral traditions ― is a thinly disguised form of population warfare and cultural re-engineering. Again, Paul VI was right. 7. Fourth, Pope Paul warned that contraception would mislead human beings into thinking they had unlimited dominion over their own bodies, relentlessly turning the human person into the object of his or her own intrusive power. Herein lies another irony: In fleeing into the false freedom provided by contraception and an exaggerated feminism has actively colluded in women's dehumanization. A man and a woman participate uniquely in the glory of God by their ability to co-create new life with Him. At the heart of contraception, however, is the assumption that fertility is an infection which must be attacked and controlled, exactly as antibiotics attack bacteria. In this attitude, one can also see the organic link between contraception and abortion. If fertility can be misrepresented as an infection to be attacked, so too can new life. In either case, a defining element of woman's identity ― her potential for bearing new life ― is recast as a weakness requiring vigilant distrust and “treatment.” Woman becomes the object of the tools She relies on to ensure her own liberation and defense, while man takes no share of the burden. Once again, Paul VI was right. 8. From the Holy Father's final point, much more has flowed: In vitro fertilization, cloning, genetic manipulation and embryo experimentation are all descendants of contraceptive technology. In fact, we have drastically and naively underestimated the effects of technology not only on external society, but on our own interior human identity. As author Neil Postman has observed, technological change is not additive but ecological. A significant new technology does not “add” something to a society; it changes everything -- just as a drop of red dye does not remain discrete in a glass of water, but colors and changes every single molecule of the liquid. Contraceptive technology, precisely because of its impact on sexual intimacy, has subverted our understanding of the purpose of sexuality, fertility and marriage itself. It has detached them from the natural, organic identity of the human person and disrupted the ecology of human relationships. It has scrambled our vocabulary of love, just as pride scrambled the vocabulary of Babel. 9. Now we deal daily with the consequences. I am writing these thoughts during a July week when, within days of each other, news media have informed us that nearly fourteen percent of Coloradans are or have been involved in drug or alcohol dependency; a governor's commission has praised marriage while simultaneously recommending steps that would subvert it in Colorado by extending parallel rights and responsibilities to persons in “committed relationships,” including same-sex relationships; and a young east coast couple have been sentenced for brutally slaying their newborn baby. According to news reports, one or both of the young unmarried parents “bashed in [the baby's] skull while he was still 82

alive, and then left his battered body in a dumpster to die.” These are the headlines of a culture in serious distress. US society is wracked with sexual identity and behavior dysfunctions, family collapse and a general coarsening of attitudes toward the sanctity of human life. It's obvious to everyone but an addict: We have a problem. It's killing us as a people. So what are we going to do about it? What I want to suggest is that if Paul VI was right about so many of the consequences deriving from contraception, it is because he was right about contraception itself. In seeking to become whole again as persons and as a people of faith, we need to begin by revisiting ― with open hearts. Jesus said the truth would make us free. Humanae Vitae is filled with truth. It is therefore a key to our freedom.90 Please answer questions 38 and 39 in the Survey Questions Booklet. .


Gonzaga University website, “Archbishop Chaput’s Letter on Humanae Vitae,” David K. DeWolf, July 22, 1998, accessed December 1, 2010,


Chapter 5 – The Crisis and the Novus Ordo Mass
The Cardinal Ottaviani Intervention The following critical study became known as the Ottaviani Intervention. It was actually commissioned by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre who gathered together a group of twelve theologians who wrote under his direction.91 The following introductory letter of 25 September 1969 with the attached study report was then sent to Pope Paul VI by Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci in an attempt to convince the Holy Father he should not promulgate the new Mass. Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani was the head of the Holy Office during the reign of Pope Pius XII. When studying the issues involved in the new liturgy, you may come across the assertion that Cardinal Ottaviani signed a document retracting his words. This is untrue. The truth about what happened is recounted at TRADITIO, traditional Roman Catholic website.92
Ottaviani to Pope Paul VI on New Mass Problems

The cover letter by Cardinal Ottaviani and Cardinal Bacci, dated 25 September, 1969, conveying to Pope Paul VI the study of the New Order of Mass, dated 5 June, 1969, are taken from TRADITIO.93 The text of first the letter, followed by the study, begins here. Italicized emphasis is in the original. The abbreviations and the endnotes (marked *1) begin on page 97. Rome 25 September 1969 Most Holy Father: Having carefully examined and presented for the scrutiny of others the New Order of Mass prepared by the experts of the Committee for the Implementation of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, and after lengthy prayer and reflection, we feel obliged before God and Your Holiness to set forth the following considerations: 1. The accompanying Critical Study is the work of a select group of bishops, theologians, liturgists, and pastors of souls. Despite its brevity, the study shows quite clearly that the Novus Ordo Missae – considering the new elements widely susceptible to widely different interpretations which are implied or taken for granted – represents, both as a whole and in its details, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session 22 of the Council of Trent. The “canons” of the rite definitively fixed at that time erected an insurmountable barrier against any heresy which might attack the integrity of the Mystery. 2. The pastoral reasons put forth to justify such a grave break, even if such reasons could still hold good in the face of doctrinal considerations, do not seem sufficient. The innovations in the Novus Ordo and the fact that all that is of perennial value finds only a minor place – if it subsists at all – could well turn into a certainty the suspicion, already prevalent, alas in many circles, that truths which have always been believed by the Christian people can be changed or ignored without infidelity to that sacred deposit of doctrine to which the Catholic faith is bound forever. The recent reforms have amply demonstrated that new changes in the liturgy could not be made without leading

“A Short History of the SSPX,” Angelus Magazine, Spring Issue, 1996, accessed November 11, 2010, 92 “A Forward on the Spurious ‘Retraction,’ ” TRADITIO Traditional Roman Catholic Internet Site, accessed November 11, 2010, 93 Ibid.



to complete bewilderment on the part of the faithful, who already show signs of restiveness and an indubitable lessening of their faith. Among the best of the clergy, the result is an agonizing crisis of conscience, numberless instances of which come to us daily. 3. We are certain that these considerations, prompted by what we hear from the living voice of shepherds and the flock, cannot but find an echo in the heart of Your Holiness, always so profoundly solicitous for the spiritual needs of the children of the Church. The subjects for whose benefit a law is made have always had the right, nay the duty, to ask the legislator to abrogate the law, should it prove to be harmful. At a time, therefore, when the purity of the faith and the unity of the Church suffer cruel lacerations and still greater peril, daily and sorrowfully echoed in the words of You, our common Father, we most earnestly beseech Your Holiness not to deprive us of the possibility of continuing to have recourse to the integral and fruitful Missal of St. Pius V, so highly praised by Your Holiness, and so deeply venerated by the whole Catholic world. A. Card. Ottaviani A. Card. Bacci Short Critical Study of the New Order of Mass 5 June 1969 A Group of Roman Theologians Chapter I. In October 1967, the Synod of Bishops which met in Rome was asked to pass judgment on an experimental celebration of what was then called a “standard” or “normative” Mass. This Mass, composed by the Committee for Implementing the Constitutions on the Sacred Liturgy (Consilium), aroused very serious misgivings among the bishops present. With 187 members voting, the results revealed considerable opposition (43 Negative), many substantial reservations (62 Affirmative with reservations) and four abstentions. The international press spoke of the Synod's “rejection” of the proposed Mass, while the progressive wing of the religious press passed over the event in silence. A well-known periodical, aimed at bishops and expressing their teaching, summed up the new rite in these terms: ”They wanted to make a clean slate of the whole theology of the Mass. It ended up in substance quite close to the Protestant theology which destroyed the sacrifice of the Mass.” Unfortunately, we now find that the same “standard Mass”, identical in substance, has reappeared as the New Order of Mass (Novus Ordo Missae) recently promulgated by the Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum (3 April 1969). In the two years that have passed since the Synod, moreover, it appears that the national bishops' conferences (at least as such) have not been consulted on the matter. The Apostolic Constitution states that the old Missal which St. Pius V promulgated on 19 July 1570 — its greater part, in fact, goes back to St. Gregory the Great and even remoter antiquity (*1) — was the standard for four centuries whenever priests of the Latin Rite celebrated the Holy Sacrifice. The Constitution adds that this Missal, taken to every corner of the earth, “has been an abundant source of spiritual nourishment to so many people in their devotion to God.” Yet this same Constitution, which would definitively end the use of the old Missal, claims that the present reform is necessary because “a deep interest in fostering the liturgy has become widespread and strong among the Christian people.” It seems that the last claim contains a serious equivocation [a serious equivocation is a sin against the 8th commandment]. If the Christian people expressed anything at all, it was the desire (thanks to the great St. Pius X) to discover the true and immortal treasures of the liturgy. They never, 86

absolutely never, asked that the liturgy be changed or mutilated to make it easier to understand. What the faithful did want was a better understanding of a unique and unchangeable liturgy – a liturgy they had no desire to see changed. Catholics everywhere, priests and laymen alike, loved and venerated the Roman Missal of St. Pius V. It is impossible to understand how using this Missal, along with proper religious instruction, could prevent the faithful from participating in the liturgy more fully or understanding it more profoundly. It is likewise impossible to understand why the old Missal, when its many outstanding merits are recognized, should now be deemed unworthy to continue to nourish the liturgical piety of the faithful. Since the “standard Mass” now reintroduced and re-imposed as the New Order of Mass was already rejected in substance at the Synod, since it was never submitted to the collegial judgment of the national bishop's conferences, and since the faithful (least of all in mission lands) never asked for any reform of the Mass whatsoever, it is impossible to understand the reasons for the new legislation — legislation which overthrows a tradition unchanged in the Church since the 4th and 5th centuries. Since there are no reasons, therefore, for undertaking this reform, it appears devoid of any rational grounds to justify it and make it acceptable to the Catholic people. The Second Vatican Council did indeed ask that the Order of Mass “be revised in a way that will bring out more clearly the intrinsic nature and purpose of its several parts, as also the connection between them.” (*2) We shall now see to what extent the recently promulgated Ordo responds to the Council's wishes — wishes now no more than a faint memory. A point-by-point examination of the Novus Ordo reveals changes so great that they confirm the judgment already made on the “standard Mass” — for on many points it has much to gladden the heart of even the most modernist Protestant. Chapter II. Let us begin with the definition of the Mass. In Article 7 of the General Instruction which precedes the New Order of Mass, we discover the following definition: The Lord's Supper or Mass is the sacred assembly or congregation of the people of God gathering together, with a priest presiding, to celebrate the memorial of the Lord. (*3) For this reason Christ's promise applies supremely to a local gathering together of the Church: “Where two or three come together in my name, there am I in their midst.” (Mt. 18:20) (*4) The definition of the Mass is thus reduced to a “supper,” a term which the General Instruction constantly repeats. The Instruction further characterizes this “supper” as an assembly, presided over by a priest and held as a memorial of the Lord to recall what He did on Holy Thursday. None of this in the very least implies: • The Real Presence • The reality of the Sacrifice • The sacramental function of the priest who consecrates • The intrinsic value of the Eucharistic Sacrifice independent of the presence of the “assembly.” (*6) In a word, the Instruction's definition implies none of the dogmatic values which are essential to the Mass and which taken together, provide its true definition. Here, deliberately omitting these dogmatic values by “going beyond them” amounts, at least in practice, to denying them. (*7) [Recall the statistic; 70% of all Catholics in the age group 18 to 29 now believe the Holy Eucharist is a “symbolic reminder” of Jesus, indicating they deny the infallibly defined Catholic dogma regarding the Real Presence in the Holy Eucharist.]



The second part of Article 7 makes this already serious equivocation even worse. It states that Christ's promise, (“Where two or three come together in my name, there am I in their midst”) applies to this assembly supremely. Thus, the Instruction puts Christ's promise (which refers only to His spiritual presence through grace) on the same qualitative level (save for greater intensity) as the substantial and physical reality of the sacramental Eucharistic sacrifice. The next Article of the Instruction divides the Mass into a “Liturgy of the Word” and a “Liturgy of the Eucharist,” and adds that the “table of God's Word” and the “table of Christ's Body” are prepared at Mass so that the faithful may receive “instruction and food.” As we will see later, this statement improperly joins the two parts of the Mass, as though they possessed equal symbolic value. The Instruction uses many different names for the Mass, such as: • Action of Christ and the People of God. • Lord's Supper or Mass • Paschal Banquet • Common Participation in the Table of the Lord • Eucharistic Prayer • Liturgy of the Word and Liturgy of the Eucharistic All these expressions are acceptable when used relatively – but when used separately and absolutely, as they are here, they must be completely rejected. It is obvious that the Novus Ordo obsessively emphasizes “supper” and “memorial,” instead of the unbloody renewal of the Sacrifice of the Cross. Even the phrase in the Instruction describing the Mass as a “memorial of the Passion and Resurrection” is inexact. The Mass is the memorial of the unique Sacrifice, redemptive in itself; whereas the Resurrection is the fruit which follows from that sacrifice. (*8) We shall see later how such equivocations are repeated and reiterated both in the formula for the Consecration and throughout the Novus Ordo as a whole. Chapter III. We now turn to the ends or purposes of the Mass – what it accomplishes in the supernatural order. 1. Ultimate Purpose. The ultimate purpose of the Mass is the sacrifice of praise rendered to the Most Holy Trinity. This end conforms to the primary purpose of the Incarnation, explicitly enunciated by Christ Himself: “Coming into the world he saith: sacrifice and oblation thou wouldst not, but a body thou hast fitted me.” (*9) In the Novus Ordo, this purpose has disappeared: • From the Offertory, where the prayer “Receive, Holy Trinity, this oblation” has been removed. • From the conclusion of Mass, where the prayer honoring the Trinity, “May the Tribute of my Homage, Most Holy Trinity” has been eliminated. • From the Preface, since the Preface of the Most Holy Trinity, formerly used on all ordinary Sundays, will henceforth be used only on the Feast of the most Holy Trinity. 2. Ordinary Purpose. The ordinary purpose of the Mass is propitiatory sacrifice – making satisfaction to God for sin. This end, too, has been compromised. Instead of emphasizing remission for sins for the living and the dead, the new rite stresses the nourishment and sanctification of those present. (*10) 88

At the Last Supper, Christ instituted the Blessed Sacrament and thus placed Himself in It as Victim, in order to unite Himself to us as Victim. But this act of sacrificial immolation occurs before the Blessed Sacrament is consumed and possesses beforehand full redemptive value in relation to the bloody Sacrifice on Calvary. The proof for this is that people who assist are not bound to receive Communion sacramentally. (*11) 3. Immanent Purpose. The immanent purpose of the Mass is fundamentally that of sacrifice. It is essential that the Sacrifice, whatever its nature, be pleasing to God and accepted by Him. Because of original sin, however, no sacrifice other than the Christ's Sacrifice can claim to be acceptable and pleasing to God in its own right. The Novus Ordo alters the nature of the sacrificial offering by turning it into a type of exchange of gifts between God and man. Man brings the bread, and God turns it into “the bread of life”; man brings the wine, and God turns it into “spiritual drink”: Blessed are you, Lord God of all creation, for through your goodness we have this bread (or wine) to offer, fruit of the earth (vine) and work of human hands. It will become for us the bread of life (spiritual drink). (*12) The expressions “bread of life” and “spiritual drink,” of course, are utterly vague and could mean anything. Once again, we come up against the same basic equivocation: According to the new definition of the Mass, Christ is only spiritually present among His own; here, bread and wine are only spiritually – and not substantially – changed. (*13) In the Preparation of the Gifts, a similar equivocal game was played. The old Offertory contained two magnificent prayers, the “Deus qui humanae” and the “Offerimus tibi”: • The first prayer, recited at the preparation of the chalice, begins: “O God, by whom the dignity of human nature was wondrously established and yet more wondrously restored.” It recalled man's innocence before the Fall of Adam and his ransom by the blood of Christ, and it summed up the whole economy of the Sacrifice from Adam to the present day. • The second prayer, which accompanies the offering of the chalice, embodies the idea of propitiation for sin: it implores God for His mercy as it asks that the offering may ascend with a sweet fragrance in the presence of Thy divine majesty. Like the first prayer, it admirably stresses the economy of the Sacrifice. In the Novus Ordo, both these prayers have been eliminated. In the Eucharistic Prayers, moreover, the repeated petitions to God that He accept the Sacrifice have also been suppressed; thus, there is no longer any clear distinction between divine and human sacrifice. Having removed the keystone, the reformers had to put up scaffolding. Having suppressed the real purposes of the Mass, they had to substitute fictitious purposes of their own. This forced them to introduce actions stressing the union between priest and faithful or among the faithful themselves-and led to the ridiculous attempt to superimpose offerings for the poor and for the Church on the offering of the host to be immolated. The fundamental uniqueness of the Victim to be sacrificed will thus be completely obliterated. Participation in the immolation of Christ the Victim will turn into a philanthropists’ meeting or a charity banquet. Chapter IV. We now consider the essence of the Sacrifice. The New Order of Mass no longer explicitly expresses the mystery of the Cross. It is obscured, veiled, and imperceptible to the faithful. (*14) Here are some of the main reasons: 1. The Meaning of the Term “Eucharistic Prayer.” The meaning the Novus Ordo assigns to the so-called “Eucharistic Prayer” is as follows: 89


The entire congregation joins itself to Christ in acknowledging the great things God has done and in offering the sacrifice. (*15) Which sacrifice does this refer to? Who offers the sacrifice? No answer is given to these questions. The definition the Instruction provides for the “Eucharistic Prayer” reduces it to the following: “The center and summit of the entire celebration begins: the Eucharistic Prayer, a prayer of thanksgiving and sanctification.” (*16) The effects of the prayer thus replace the causes. And of the causes, moreover, not a single word is said. The explicit mention of the purpose of the sacrificial offering, made in the old rite with the prayer “Receive, Most Holy Trinity, This Oblation,” has been suppressed – and replaced with nothing. The change in the formula reveals the change in doctrine. 2. Obliteration of the Role of the Real Presence. The reason why the Sacrifice is no longer explicitly mentioned is simple: the central role of the Real Presence has been suppressed. It has been removed from the place it so resplendently occupied in the old liturgy. [It becomes obvious why young Catholics no longer believe in the Real Presence! They know only the Novus Ordo Mass, which has suppressed this dogma.] In the General Instruction, the Real Presence is mentioned just once – and that in a footnote which is the only reference to the Council of Trent. Here again, the context is that of nourishment. (*17) The real and permanent presence of Christ in the transubstantiated Species – Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity – is never alluded to. The very word transubstantiation is completely ignored. The invocation of the Holy Ghost in the Offertory – the prayer Come, Thou Sanctifier – has likewise been suppressed, with its petition that He descend upon the offering to accomplish the miracle of the Divine Presence again, just as he once descended into the Virgin's womb. This suppression is one more in a series of denials and degradations of the Real Presence, both tacit and systematic. Finally, it is impossible to ignore how ritual gestures and usages expressing faith in the Real Presence have been abolished or changed. The Novus Ordo eliminates: • Genuflections. No more than three remain for the priest, and (with certain exceptions) one of the faithful at the moment of the Consecration • Purification of the priest's fingers over the chalice • Preserving the priest's fingers from all profane contact after the Consecration • Purification of sacred vessels, which need not be done immediately nor made on the corporal • Protecting the contents of the chalice with the pall • Gilding for the interior of sacred vessels • Solemn consecration for movable altars • Consecrated stones and relics of the saints in the movable altar or on the “table” when Mass is celebrated outside a sacred place. (The latter leads straight to “Eucharistic dinners” in private houses.) • Three cloths on the altar – reduced to one • Thanksgiving for the Holy Eucharist made kneeling, now replaced by the grotesque practice of the priest and people sitting to make their thanksgiving – a logical enough accompaniment to receiving Communion standing. 90

• All the ancient prescriptions observed in the case of a host which fell, which are now reduced to a single, nearly sarcastic direction: “It is to be picked up reverently.” (*18) All these suppressions only emphasize how outrageously faith in the dogma of the Real Presence is implicitly repudiated. 3. The Role of the Main Altar. The altar is nearly always called the table: (*19) “. . . the altar or the Lord's table, which is the center of the whole Eucharistic liturgy . . .” (*20) The altar must now be detached from the back wall so that the priest can walk around it and celebrate Mass facing the people. (*21) The Instruction states that the altar should be at the center of the assembled faithful, so that their attention is spontaneously drawn to it. Comparing this Article with another, however, seems to exclude outright the reservation of the Blessed Sacrament on the altar where Mass is celebrated. (*22) This will signal an irreparable dichotomy between the presence of Christ the High Priest in the priest celebrating the Mass and Christ's sacramental Presence. Before, they were one and the same Presence. (*23) The Instruction recommends that the Blessed Sacrament now be kept in a place apart for private devotion – as though It were some sort of relic. Thus, on entering a church, one's attention will be drawn not to a tabernacle, but to a table stripped bare. Once again, private piety is set up against liturgical piety, and altar is set up against altar. The Instruction urges that hosts distributed for Communion be ones consecrated at the same Mass. It also recommends consecrating a large wafer, (*24) so that the priest can share a part of it with the faithful. It is always the same disparaging attitude towards both the tabernacle and every form of Eucharistic piety outside of Mass. This constitutes a new and violent blow to faith that the Real Presence continues as long as the consecrated Species remain. (*25) 4. The Formulas for the Consecration. The old formula for the Consecration was a sacramental formula, properly speaking, and not merely a narrative. This was shown above by three things: A. The Text Employed. The Scripture text was not used word-for-word as the formula for the Consecration in the old Missal. St. Paul's expression, the Mystery of Faith, was inserted into the text as an immediate expression of the priest's faith in the mystery which the Church makes real through the hierarchical priesthood. B. Typography and Punctuation. In the old Missal, a period and a new paragraph separated the words Take ye all of this and eat from the words of the sacramental form, This is My Body. The period and the new paragraph marked the passage from a merely narrative mode to a sacramental and affirmative mode which is proper to a true sacramental action. The words of Consecration in the Roman Missal, moreover, were printed in larger type in the center of the page. Often a different color ink was used. All these things clearly detached the words from a merely historical context, and combined to give the formula of Consecration a proper and autonomous value. C. The Anamnesis. The Roman Missal added the words As often as ye shall do these things, ye shall do them in memory of Me after the formula of Consecration. This formula referred not merely to remembering Christ or a past event, but to Christ acting in the here and now. It was an invitation to recall not merely His Person or the Last Supper, but to do what He did in the way that He did it. In the Novus Ordo, the words of St. Paul, Do this in memory of Me, will now replace the old formula and be daily proclaimed in the vernacular everywhere. This will inevitably cause hearers to concentrate on the remembrance of Christ as the end of the Eucharistic action, rather than as its 91


beginning. The idea of commemoration will thus soon replace the idea of the Mass as a sacramental action. (*26) The General Instruction emphasizes the narrative mode further when it describes the Consecration as the Institution Narrative (*27) and when it adds that, “in fulfillment of the command received from Christ . . . . the Church keeps his memorial.” (*28) All this, in short, changes the modus significandi of the words of Consecration – how they show forth the sacramental action taking place. The priest now pronounces the formulas for Consecration as part of an historical narrative, rather than as Christ's representative issuing the affirmative judgment This is My Body. (*29) Furthermore, the people's Memorial Acclamation which immediately follows the Consecration – Your holy death, we proclaim, O Lord. . .until you come – introduces the same ambiguity about the Real Presence under the guise of an allusion to the Last Judgment. Without so much as a pause, the people proclaim their expectation of Christ at the end of time, just at the moment when He is substantially present on the altar – as if Christ's real coming will occur only at the end of time, rather than there on the altar itself. The second optional Memorial Acclamation brings this out even more strongly: When we eat this bread and drink this cup, we proclaim your death, Lord Jesus, until you come in glory. The juxtaposition of entirely different realities – immolation and eating, the Real Presence and Christ's Second Coming – brings ambiguity to a new height. (*30) [The elimination of the phrase “the mystery of faith” from the words of consecration, and the insertion after the consecration of “Let us proclaim the mystery of faith – Christ has died, Christ is risen , Christ will come again,” obviously eliminates the proclamation of the mystery of the Eucharistic presence resulting from the consecration, and replaces this central affirmation of the Canon of the Mass with a statement that proclaims that the central mystery of the Mass is the mystery of Christ’s death, resurrection and second coming. It therefore does not seem unreasonable that 70% of young Catholics would no longer believe in the Real Presence. This cause and effect relationship is a very real and understandable, if not obvious, connection between the loss of faith in the Eucharistic Real Presence and the Novus Ordo Mass.] Chapter V. We now consider the question of who performs the Sacrifice. In the old rite, these were, in order: Christ, the priest, the Church and the faithful. 1. The Role of the Faithful in the New Rite. In the New Mass, the role attributed to the faithful is autonomous, absolute – and hence completely false. This is obvious not only from the new definition of the Mass (“. . . the sacred assembly or congregation of the people gathering together. . .”), but also from the General Instruction's observation that the priest's opening Greeting is meant to convey to the assembled community the presence of the Lord: Then through his greeting the priest declares to the assembled community that the Lord is present. This greeting and response express the mystery of the gathered Church. (*31) Is this the true presence of Christ? Yes, but only a spiritual presence. A mystery of the Church? Certainly – but only insofar as the assembly manifests and asks for Christ's presence. This new notion is stressed over and over again by: 92

• Obsessive references to the communal character of the Mass. (*32) • The unheard of distinction between Mass with a Congregation and Mass without a Congregation. (*33) • The description of the Prayer of the Faithful as a part of the Mass where “the people exercising their priestly office, intercede for all humanity.” (*34) The faithful's “priestly office” is presented equivocally, as if it were autonomous, by omitting to mention that it is subordinated to the priest, who, as consecrated mediator, presents the people's petitions to God during the Canon of the Mass. The Novus Ordo’s Eucharistic Prayer III addresses the following prayers to the Lord: From age to age you gather a people to yourself, so that from east to west a perfect offering may be made to the glory of your name. The so that in the passage makes it appear that the people, rather than the priest, are the indispensable element in the celebration. Since it is never made clear, even here, who offers the Sacrifice; the people themselves appear as possessing autonomous priestly powers. (*35) From this step, it would not be surprising if, before long, the people were permitted to join with the priest in pronouncing the words of Consecration. Indeed, in some places this has already happened. 2. The Role of the Priest in the New Rite. The role of the priest is minimized, changed, and falsified: • In relation to the people, he is now a mere president or brother, rather than the consecrated minister who celebrates Mass “in the person of Christ.” • In relation to the Church, the priest is now merely one member among others, someone taken from the people. In its treatment of the invocation to the Holy Ghost in the Eucharistic Prayer (the epiclesis), the General Instruction attributes the petitions anonymously to the Church. (*36) The priest's part has vanished. • In the new Penitential Rite which begins the mass, the Confiteor has now become collective; hence the priest is no longer judge, witness and intercessor before God. It is logical therefore that he no longer recites the prayer of absolution which followed it and has now been suppressed. The priest is now “integrated” with his brothers; even the altar boy who serves at a “Mass without a Congregation” calls the priest “brother.” • Formerly, the priest's Communion was ritually distinct from the people's Communion. The Novus Ordo suppresses this important distinction. This was the moment when Christ the Eternal High Priest and the priest who acts in the person of Christ came together in closest union and completed the Sacrifice. • Not a word is said, moreover, about the priest's power as “sacrificer,” his consecratory action or how as intermediary he brings about the Eucharistic presence. He now appears to be nothing more than a Protestant minister. • By abolishing or rendering optional many of the priestly vestments – in some cases only an alb and stole are now required (*37) – the new rite obliterates the priest's conformity to Christ even more. The priest is no longer clothed with Christ's virtues. He is now a mere “graduate” with one or two tokens that barely separate him from the crowd (*38) – “a little more a man than the rest,” to quote from a modern Dominican's unintentionally humorous definition. (*39) Here, as when they set up altar against altar, the reformers separated that which was united: the one Priesthood of Christ from the Word of God. 93


3. The Role of the Church in the New Rite. Finally, there is the Church's position in relation to Christ. In only one instance – in its treatment of the form of the Mass without a Congregation – does the General Instruction admit that the Mass is “the action of Christ and the Church.” (*40) In the case of Mass with a Congregation, however, the only object the Instruction hints at is “remembering Christ” and sanctifying those present. “The priest celebrant,” it says, “. . . . joins the people to himself in offering the sacrifice through Christ in the Spirit to the Father” (*41 ) – instead of saying that the people join themselves to Christ who offers Himself through the Holy Ghost to the Father. In this context, the following points should likewise be noted: • The many grave omissions of the phrase through Christ Our Lord, a formula which guarantees that God will hear the Church’s prayers in every age. (*42) • An all-pervading “paschalism” – an obsessive emphasis on Easter and the Resurrection – almost as if there were no other aspects of the communication of grace, which, while quite different, are nevertheless equally important. • The strange and dubious “eschatologism” – a stress upon Christ's Second Coming and the end of time – whereby the permanent and eternal reality of the communication of grace is reduced to something within the bounds of time. We hear of a people of God on the march, a pilgrim Church – a Church no longer Militant against the powers of darkness, but one which, having lost its link with eternity, marches to a future envisioned in purely temporal terms. In Eucharistic Prayer IV the Church – as One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic – is abased by eliminating the Roman Canon's petition for all orthodox believers who keep the Catholic and Apostolic faith. These are now merely all who seek you with a sincere heart. The Memento of the Dead in the Canon, moreover, is offered not as before for those who are gone before us with the sign of faith, but merely for those who have died in the peace of Christ. To this group – with further detriment to the notion of the Church's unity and visibility – Eucharistic Prayer IV adds the great crowd of all the dead whose faith is known to You alone. None of the three new Eucharistic Prayers, moreover, alludes to a suffering state for those who have died; none allows the priest to make special Mementos for the dead. All this necessarily undermines faith in the propitiatory and redemptive nature of the sacrifice. (*43) Everywhere desacralizing omissions debase the mystery of the Church. Above all, the Church's nature as a sacred hierarchy is disregarded. The second part of the new collective Confiteor reduces the angels and the saints to anonymity in the first part, in the person of St. Michael the Archangel; they have disappeared as witnesses and judges. (*44) In the Preface for Eucharistic Prayer II – and this is unprecedented – the various angelic hierarchies have disappeared. Also suppressed, in the third prayer of the old Canon, is the memory of the holy Pontiffs and Martyrs on whom the Church in Rome was founded; without a doubt, these were the saints who handed down the apostolic tradition finally completed under Pope St. Gregory as the Roman Mass. The prayer after the Our Father, the Libera Nos, now suppresses the mention of the Blessed Virgin, the holy apostles and all the saints; their intercession is thus no longer sought, even in times of danger. Everywhere except in the Roman Canon, the Novus Ordo eliminates not only the names of the Apostles Peter and Paul, founders of the Church in Rome, but also the names of the other Apostles, the foundation and mark of the one and universal Church. This intolerable omission, extending even to the three new Eucharistic Prayers, compromises the unity of the Church. The New Order of Mass further attacks the dogma of the Communion of Saints by suppressing the blessing and the salutation The Lord Be with You when the priest says Mass without a server. It also eliminates the Ite Missa Est, even in Masses celebrated with a server. (*45) 94

The double Confiteor at the beginning of the Mass showed how the priest, vested as Christ's minister and bowing profoundly, acknowledged himself unworthy of both his sublime mission and the “tremendous mystery” he was to enact. Then, in the prayer Take Away Our Sins, he acknowledged his unworthiness to enter the Holy of Holies, recommending himself with the prayer We Beseech Thee, O Lord to the merits and intercession of the martyrs whose relics were enclosed in the altar. Both prayers have been suppressed. What was said previously about elimination of the two-fold Confiteor and Communion rite is equally relevant here. The outward setting of the Sacrifice, a sign of its sacred character, has been profaned. See, for example, the new provisions for celebrating Mass outside a church: a simple table, containing neither a consecrated altar-stone nor relics and covered with a single cloth, is allowed to suffice for an altar. (*46) Here too, all we have said previously in regard to the Real Presence applies – disassociation of the “banquet” and the Sacrifice of the supper from the Real Presence itself. The process of desacralization is made complete, thanks to the new and grotesque procedure for the Offertory Procession, the reference to ordinary (rather than unleavened) bread, and allowing servers (and even lay people, when receiving Communion under both Species) to handle sacred vessels. (*47) Then there is the distracting atmosphere created in the church: the ceaseless comings and goings of priest, deacon, subdeacon, cantor, commentator – the priest himself becomes a commentator, constantly encouraged to “explain” what he is about to do – of lectors (men and women), of servers or laymen welcoming people at the door and escorting them to their places, while others carry and sort offerings. And in an era of frenzy for a “return to Scripture,” we now find, in contradiction of both the Old Testament and St. Paul, the presence of a “suitable woman” who for the first time in the Church's history is authorized to proclaim the Scripture readings and “perform other ministries outside the sanctuary.” (*48) Finally, there is the mania for concelebration, which will ultimately destroy the priest's Eucharistic piety by overshadowing the central figure of Christ, sole priest and Victim, and by dissolving Him into the collective presence of concelebrants. (*49) Chapter VI. We have limited ourselves above to a short study of the Novus Ordo where it deviates most seriously from the theology of the Catholic Mass. Our observations touch upon deviations which are typical. To prepare a complete study of all the pitfalls, dangers, and psychologically and spiritually destructive elements the new rite contains, whether in texts, rubrics, or instructions, would be a vast undertaking. We have taken no more than a passing glance at the three new Eucharistic Prayers, since they have already come in for repeated and authoritative criticism. The second gave immediate scandal to the faithful due to its brevity. (*50) Of Eucharistic Prayer II it has well been said that a priest who no longer believed in either Transubstantiation or the sacrificial character of the Mass could recite it with perfect tranquility of conscience, and that a Protestant minister, moreover, could use it in his own celebrations just as well. The new Missal was introduced in Rome as an “abundant resource for pastoral work,” as “a text more pastoral than juridical,” which national bishops' conferences could adapt, according to circumstances, to the “spirit” of different peoples. Section One of the new Congregation for Divine Worship, moreover, will now be responsible “for the publication and constant revision of liturgical books.” This idea was echoed recently in the official newsletter of the Liturgical Institutes of Germany, Switzerland and Austria



The Latin texts must now be translated into the languages of different nations. The “Roman style” must be adapted to the individuality of each local Church. That which was conceived in a timeless state must now be transposed into the changing context of concrete situations, and into the constant flux of the universal Church and its myriad congregations. (*51) The Apostolic Constitution itself, in promulgating the Novus Ordo Missae, deals a deathblow to the Church's universal language when – contrary to the express wish of the Second Vatican Council – it unequivocally states that “in great diversity of languages, one [?] and the same prayer will ascend, more fragrant than incense.” The demise of Latin may therefore be taken for granted. Gregorian chant – which Vatican II recognized as a distinctive characteristic of the Roman liturgy, decreeing that it “be given pride of place in liturgical services” (*52) – will logically follow, given, among other things, the freedom of choice permitted in choosing texts for the Introit and the Gradual. [This prophetic prediction has obviously and undeniably come true in our day.] From the outset, therefore, the new rite was pluralistic and experimental, bound to time and place. Since unity of worship has been shattered once and for all, what basis will exist for the unity of the faith which accompanied it and which, we were told, was always to be defended without compromise? It is obvious that the New Order of Mass has no intention of presenting the faith taught by the Council of Trent. But it is to this faith that the Catholic conscience is bound forever. Thus, with the promulgation of the New Order of Mass, the true Catholic is faced with a tragic need to choose. [To choose what? The old Mass? Obviously!] Chapter VII. The Apostolic Constitution explicitly mentions the riches of piety and doctrine the Novus Ordo supposedly borrows from the Eastern Churches. But the result is so removed from, and indeed opposed to the spirit of the Eastern liturgies that it can only leave the faithful in those rites revolted and horrified. What do these ecumenical borrowings amount to? Basically, to introducing multiple texts for the Eucharistic Prayer (the anaphora) – none of which approaches their Eastern counterparts' complexity or beauty – and to permitting Communion Under Both Species and the use of deacons. Against this, the New Order of Mass appears to have been deliberately shorn of every element where the Roman liturgy came closest to the Eastern Rites. (*53) At the same time, by abandoning its unmistakable and immemorial Roman character, the Novus Ordo cast off what was spiritually precious of its own. In place of this are elements, which bring the new rite closer to certain Protestant liturgies, not even those closest to Catholicism. At the same time, these new elements degrade the Roman liturgy and further alienate it from the East, as did the reforms which preceded the Novus Ordo. In compensation, the new liturgy will delight all those groups hovering on the verge of apostasy who, during a spiritual crisis without precedent, now wreak havoc in the Church by poisoning her organism and by undermining her unity in doctrine, worship, morals and discipline. Chapter VIII St. Pius V had the Roman Missal drawn up (as the present Apostolic Constitution now recalls) as an instrument of unity among Catholics. In conformity with the injunctions of the Council of Trent, the Missal was to exclude all dangers, either to liturgical worship or to the faith itself, then 96

threatened by the Protestant Revolt. The grave situation fully justified – and even rendered prophetic – the saintly Pontiff's solemn warning given in 1570 at the end of the Bull promulgating his Missal: Should anyone presume to tamper with this, let him know that he shall incur the wrath of God Almighty and His holy Apostles Peter and Paul. (*54) When the Novus Ordo was presented at the Vatican Press Office, it was impudently asserted that conditions which prompted the decrees of the Council of Trent no longer exist. Not only do these decrees still apply today, but conditions now are infinitely worse. It was precisely to repel those snares which in every age threaten the pure Deposit of Faith, (*55) that the Church, under divine inspiration, set up dogmatic definitions and doctrinal pronouncements as her defenses. These in turn immediately influenced her worship, which became the most complete monument to her faith. Trying to return this worship to the practices of Christian antiquity and recreating artificially the original spontaneity of ancient times is to engage in that “unhealthy archaeologism” Pius XII so roundly condemned. (*56) It is, moreover, to dismantle all the theological ramparts erected for the protection of the rite and to take away all the beauty which enriched it for centuries. (*57) And all this at one of the most critical moments – if not the most critical moment – in the Church's history! Today, division and schism are officially acknowledged to exist not only outside the Church, but within her as well. (*58) The Church's unity is not only threatened, but has already been tragically compromised. (*59) Errors against the faith are not merely insinuated, but are – as has been likewise acknowledged – now forcibly imposed through liturgical abuses and aberrations. To abandon a liturgical tradition which for four centuries stood as a sign and pledge of unity in worship, (*60) and to replace it with another liturgy which, due to the countless liberties it implicitly authorizes, cannot but be a sign of division – a liturgy which teems with insinuations or manifest errors against the integrity of the Catholic faith – is, we feel bound in conscience to proclaim, an incalculable error. Corpus Domini 5 June 1969 Abbreviations DB: Denziger-Bannwart. Enchrindion Symbolorum. 32nd edition. Barcelona, Frieburg and Rome: Herder, 1957.
DOL: Documents on the Liturgy, 1963-1979: Conciliar, Papal, and Curial Texts. Translated,

compiled, and arranged by the International Committee on English in the Liturgy. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1982.
GI: General Instruction on the Roman Missal. Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani. 1st edition, 6

April 1969. In Paul VI, Missale Romanum. . .Pauli VI Promulgatum: Ordo Missae, 12-76. 2nd edition. March 1970. Translated in DOL 1391-1731, with variants between 1975 editio typica altera and 1st edition provided in footnotes.
PTL: Papal Teachings: The Liturgy, selected and arranged by the Benedictine Monks of Solesmes,

translated by the Daughters of St. Paul. Boston: St. Paul Editions, 1962.
SC: Vatican Council II. Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy Sacrosanctum Consilium, 4 December 1963. Translated in DOL 1-131.

Notes By the Authors of the Short Critical Study
1. “The prayers of Our Canon are found in the treatise De Sacramentis (4th-5th centuries). . .Our Mass goes back without essential changes to the epoch in which it developed for the first time from the most ancient common liturgy. It still preserves the fragrance of that primitive liturgy, in times when Caesar governed the world and hoped to extinguish the Christian faith; times when our forefathers would gather together before dawn to sing a hymn to Christ as their God. .


CHAPTER 5– THE CRISIS IN THE NOVUS ORDO MASS .There is not in all Christendom a rite so venerable as that of the Roman Missal.” (Rev. Adrian Fortescue). “The Roman Canon, such as it is today, goes back to St. Gregory the Great. Neither in East nor West is there any Eucharistic prayer remaining in use today that can boast such antiquity. For the Roman Church to throw it overboard would be tantamount, in the eyes not only of the Orthodox, but also of the Anglicans and even Protestants having still to some extent a sense of tradition, to a denial of all claim any more to be the true Catholic Church” (Rev. Louis Bouyer). 2. SC 50, DOL 50. 3. A footnote in the Instruction refers us to two texts of Vatican II. But nothing in the texts justifies the new definition, as it is evident from the following: “Through the ministry of the bishop, God consecrates priests . . .In exercising sacred functions they therefore act as the ministers of him who in the liturgy continually fulfill his priestly office on our behalf.. . .By the celebration of Mass people sacramentally offer the sacrifice of Christ.” Decree on the Ministry and Life of Priests Presbyterum Ordinis, 7 December 1965, Section 5, DOL 260. “For in the liturgy God is speaking to his people and Christ is still proclaiming his Gospel. And the people are responding to God both by song and prayer. Moreover, the prayers addressed to God by the priest, who presides over the assembly in the person of Christ, are said in the name of the entire holy people and of all present.” SC 33, DOL 33. One is at a loss to explain how the Instruction's definition could have been drawn from these texts. We note too how the new definition of the Mass alters what Vatican II laid down in Presbyterum Ordinis Section 5: “The Eucharistic assembly is the center of the congregation of the faithful.” Since the center in the New Order of the Mass has been fraudulently spirited away, the congregation has now usurped its place. 4. GI 7, DOL 1937 fn. 5. GI 8, DOL 1398; GI 48, DOL 1438 fn; GI 55.d, DOL 1445 fin; GI 56, DOL 1446. 6. The Council of Trent reaffirms the Real Presence in the following words: “To begin with, the holy council teaches and openly and straightforwardly professes that in the blessed Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist, after the consecration of the bread and wine, our Lord Jesus Christ, true God and man, is truly, really and substantially contained under the perceptible species of bread and wine.” DB 874. Session 2 2 which interests us directly in nine canons (DB 937a-956): 1) The Mass is not a mere symbolic representation, but rather a true, visible sacrifice, instituted “to re -present the bloody sacrifice which [Christ] accomplished on the cross once and for all. It was to perpetuate his memory until the end of the world. Its salutary strength was to be applied for the remission of the sins that we daily commit.” DB 938. 2) “Declaring himself constituted a priest forever according to the order of Melchisedech, [Our Lord] offered his body and blood under the species of bread and wine to God the Father and he gave his body and blood under the same species to the apostles to receive, making them priests of the New Testament at that time. . .He ordered the apostles and their successors in the priesthood to offer this sacrifice when he said, 'Do this in remembrance of me,' as the Catholic Church has always understood and taught.” DB 938. The celebrant, offerer and sacrificer is the ordained priest, and not the people of God or the assembly: “If anyone says that by the words, 'Do this in remembrance of me,' Christ did not make the apostles priests, or that he did not decree that they and other priests should offer his body and blood: let him be anathema.” Canon 2, DB 949. The Sacrifice of the Mass is a true propitiatory sacrifice, and not a simple memorial of the sacrifice offered on the cross: “If anyone says that the Sacrifice of the Mass is merely an offering of praise and of thanks giving, or that it is a simple memorial of the sacrifice offered on the cross, and not propitiatory, or that it benefits only those who communicate; and that it should not be offered for the living and the dead, for sins, punishments, satisfaction, and other necessities: let him be anathema.” Canon 3, DB 950. Canon 6 should likewise be kept in mind: “If anyone says that there are errors in the Canon of the Mass and that it should therefore be done away with: let him be anathema.” DB 953. Likewise Canon 8: “If anyone says that Masses in which the priest alone communicates sacramentally are illicit and should be done away with: let him be anathema.” DB 955. 7. It is perhaps superfluous to recall that, if a single defined dogma were denied, all dogma would fall ipso facto, insofar as the principle of the infallibility of the supreme hierarchical magisterium, whether conciliar or papal, would thereby be destroyed. 8. In light of the first prayer after the Consecration in the Roman Canon ( Unde et memores), the Ascension could also be added. The Unde et memores, however, does not lump different realities together. It makes a clear and fine distinction: “calling to mind. . .the blessed passion, and also His rising from the dead and His glorious Ascension into Heaven. ” 9. Ps. 50:7-9, in Heb. 10:5. 10. GI 54, DOL 1444. 11. This shift of emphasis occurs in the three new Eucharistic Prayers, which eliminate the Memento of the Dead and any mention of souls suffering in Purgatory, to whom the propitiatory Sacrifice is applied. 12. See Mysterium Fidei, in which Paul VI condemns the errors of symbolism together with the new theories of “transignification” and “transfinalization”: “. . it is not allowable. . .to stress the sign value of the sacrament as if the symbolism, which to be sure all acknowledge in the Eucharist, expresses fully and exhaustively the meaning of Christ's presence; or to discuss the mystery of transubstantiation without mentioning the marvelous changing of the whole substance of the bread into the body and of the whole substance of the wine into the blood of Christ, as stated by the


Council of Trent, so that only what is called ‘transignification’ or ‘transfinalization’ is involved.” Encyclical Mysterium Fidei on the doctrine and worship of the Eucharist, 3 September 1965, Section 11, DOL 1155. 13. Mysterium Fidei amply denounces and condemns introducing new formulas or expressions which, though occurring in texts of the fathers, the Councils, and the Church's magisterium, are used in a univocal sense that is not subordinated to the substance of doctrine with which they form an inseparable whole (e.g., “spiritual nourishment,” “spiritual food,” “spiritual drink,” etc.): “Not only the integrity of the faith, but also its proper mode of expression must be safegu arded, lest, God forbid, by the careless use of words we introduce false notions about the most sublime realities.” He quotes St. Augustine: “‘We, however, have the obligation to speak according to a definite norm, lest the carelessness of our words give rise to impious ideas about the very realities signified by these words.’ ” He continues: “We must religiously respect the rule of terminology; after centuries of effort and under the protection of the Holy Spirit the Church has established it and confirmed it by the authority of councils; that norm often became the watchword and the banner of orthodox belief. Let no one arbitrarily or under the pretext of new science presume to change it. . .In like manner we must not put up with anyone's personal wish to modify the formulas in which the Council of Trent set forth the mystery of the Eucharist for belief.” Sections 23, 24; DOL 1167-8. 14. Contradicting what Vatican II prescribed. (Cf. SC 48, DOL 48). 15. GI 54, DOL 1444. 16. GI 54, DOL 1444. 17. GI 241 fn 69, DOL 1630. 18. GI 129, DOL 1629. 19. The Instruction recognizes the altar's primary function only once: “At the altar, the sacrifice of the cross is made present under sacramental signs.” GI 259, DOL 1649. This single reference seems insufficient to remove the equivocation resulting from the other, more frequently used term. 20. GI 49, DOL 1489. Cf. GI 262, DOL 1652. 21. GI 262, DOL 1652. 22. GI 262, DOL 1652, and GI 276, DOL 1666. 23. “To separate tabernacle from altar is to separate two things which by their origin and nature should remain united.” Pius XII, “Allocution to the International Congress on Pastoral Liturgy.” 22 September 1956, PTL 817. See also Pius XII, Encyclical Mediator Dei, 20 November 1947, PTL 550, quoted below. 24. Rarely does the Novus Ordo use the word hostia. In liturgical books this traditional term has a precise meaning: “victim.” Again we encounter a systematic attempt to emphasize only “supper” and “food.” 25. Following their customary practice of substituting one thing for another, the reformers made Christ's presence in the proclaimed word equal to the Real Presence. (See GI 7, 54; DOL 1397, 1444). But Christ's presence when Scripture is proclaimed is of a different nature and has no reality except when it is taking place (in usu). Christ's Real Presence in the consecrated Host, on the other hand, is objective, permanent and independent of the reception of the Sacrament. The formulae “God is speaking to his people,” and “Christ is present to the faithful through his own word” (GI 33, DOL 1423) are typically Protestant. Strictly speaking, they have no meaning, since God's presence in the word is mediated, bound to an individual's spiritual act or condition, and only temporary. This formula leads to a tragic error: the conclusion, expressed or implied, that the Real Presence continues only as long as the Sacrament is in the process of being used – received at Communion time, for instance – and that the Real Presence ends when the use ends. 26. As the General Instruction describes it, the sacramental action originated at the moment Our Lord gave the Apostles His Body and Blood “to eat” under the appearances of bread and wine. The sacramental action thus no longer consists in the consecratory action and the mystical separation of the Body from the Blood – the very essence of Eucharistic Sacrifice. See Mediator Dei, esp. Part II, Chapter I, PTL 551, ff. 27. GI 55.d, DOL 1445 fn. 28. GI 55.d, DOL 1445. 29. As they appear in the context of the Novus Ordo, the words of Consecration could be valid in virtue of the priest's intention. But since their validity no longer comes from the force of the sacramental words themselves ( ex vi verborum) – or more precisely, from the meaning (modus significandi) the old rite of the Mass gave to the formula – the words of Consecration in the New Order of Mass could also not be valid. Will priests in the near future, who receive no traditional formation and who rely on the Novus Ordo for the intention of “doing what the Church does,” vali dly consecrate at Mass? One may be allowed to doubt it. 30. Let it not be said, following the methods of Protestant biblical scholarship, that these phrases being in the same Scriptural context. The Church always avoided superimposing and juxtaposing the texts, precisely in order to avoid confusing the different realities they express. 31. GI 28, DOL 1418 32. GI 74-152, DOL 1464-1542. 33. GI 209-231, DOL 1599-1621. 34. GI 45, DOL 1435.


CHAPTER 5– THE CRISIS IN THE NOVUS ORDO MASS 35. Against the Lutherans and Calvinists who teach that all Christians are priests and offerers of the Lord's Supper, see A. Tanquerey, Synopsis Theologiae Dogmaticae, (Paris, Tournai, Rome: Desclee, 1930), v. III: “Each and every priest is, strictly speaking, a secondary minister of the Sacrifice of the Mass. Christ Himself is the principal minister. The faithful offer through the intermediary of the priest, but not in a strict sense .” Cf. Council of Trent, Session 22, Canon 2, DB 949. 36. GI 55, DOL 1445. 37. GI 298, DOL 1688 fn. 38. We note in passing an unthinkable innovation which will have disastrous psychological effects; employing red vestments on Good Friday instead of black (GI 308.b, DOL 1698) – as if Good Friday were the commemoration of just another martyr, instead of the day on which the whole Church mourns for her Founder. (Cf. Mediator Dei, PTL 550, quoted below.) 39. Rev. A. M. Rouget, OP, speaking to the Dominican Sisters of Bethany at Plessit-Chenet. 40. GI 4, DOL 1394. Cf. Presbyterum Ordinis, Section 13, DOL 265. 41. GI 60, DOL 1450 fn. 42. See Jn. 14:13-16, 23-24. 43. In some translations of the Roman Canon, the phrase a place of refreshment, light and peace was rendered as a simple state: “blessedness, light, peace.” What can be said then of the disappearance of every explicit reference to the Church Suffering? 44. Amidst this flurry of omissions, only one element has been added: the mention in the Confiteor of “what I have failed to do.” 45. At the press conference introducing the Novus Ordo, Rev. Joseph Lecuyer, CSSp, professing a purely rationalist faith, discussed changing the priest's salutations in Mass without a Congregation from plural to singular (“Pray, brother,” for example, replaces “Pray, brethren.”) His reason was “so that there would be nothing [in the Mass] which does not correspond with the truth.” 46. GI Section 260, 265; DOL 1650, 1655. 47. GI 244.C, DOL 1634. 48. GI 70, DOL 1460, fn. 49. It now seems lawful for priests to receive Communion under both species at a concelebration, even when they are obliged to celebrate Mass alone before or after concelebrating. 50. It has been presented as “The Canon of Hippolytus,” but only a few traces of that original text remain in the new rite. 51. Gottesdienst no. 9 (14 May 1969). 52. SC 116, DOL 116. 53. Consider the following elements found in the Byzantine rite: lengthy and repeated penitential prayers; solemn vesting rites for the celebrant and deacon; the preparation of the offerings at the proscomidia, a complete rite in itself; repeated invocations, even in the prayers of offering, to the Blessed Virgin and the Saints; invocations of the choirs of Angels at the Gospel as “invisible concelebrants,” while the choir identifies itself with the angelic choirs in the Cherubicon; the sanctuary screen (iconostasis) separating the sanctuary from the rest of the church and the clergy from the people; the hidden Consecration, symbolizing the divine mystery to which the entire liturgy alludes; the position of the priest who celebrates facing God, and never facing the people; Communion given always and only by the celebrant; the continual marks of adoration toward the Sacred Species; the essentially contemplative attitude of the people. The fact that these liturgies, even in their less solemn forms, last for over an hour and are constantly defined as “awe -inspiring, unutterable . . . heavenly, life-giving mysteries” speaks for itself. Finally, we note how in both the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom and the Liturgy of St. Basil, the concept of “supper” or “banquet” appears clearly subordinate to the concept of sacrifice – just as it was in the Roman Mass. 54. Bull “Quo Primum,” 13 July 1570. In Session 23 (Decree on the Most Holy Eucharist), the Council of Trent announced its intention to “uproot completely the cockle of the damnable errors and schism which i n these fateful times of ours an enemy has sown (see Matt. 13:25) in the teaching of the faith about the Holy Eucharist and about the use and worship of the Eucharist. In addition to his other purpose, our Saviour left the Eucharist in his Church as a symbol of unity and love which he desired to unify and unite all Christians.” DB 873. 55. “Keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding the profane novelties of words.” (1 Tim. 6:20) 56. “Assuredly it is a wise and most laudable thing to return in spiri t and affection to the sources of the Sacred Liturgy. For research in this field of study, by tracing it back to its origins, contributes valuable assistance towards a more thorough and careful investigation of the texts and sacred ceremonies employed on their occasion. But it is neither wise nor laudable to reduce everything to antiquity by every possible device. Thus, to cite some instances, one would be straying from the right path were he to wish the altar restored to its primitive table form; were he to want black excluded as a color for liturgical vestments; were he to forbid the use of sacred images and statues in Churches; were he to order the crucifix so designed that the Divine Redeemer's Body shows no trace of His cruel sufferings. . .This way of acting bids fair to revive the exaggerated and senseless antiquarianism to which the illegal Synod of Pistoia gave rise. It


likewise attempts to reinstate a series of errors which were responsible for the calling of that meeting as well as for those resulting from it, with grievous harm to souls, and which the Church, the ever watchful guardian of the depositum fidei committed to her charge by her Divine Founder, had every right and reason to condemn.” Mediator Dei, I.5, PTL 548, 549. 57. “Let us not deceive ourselves with the suggestion that the Church, which has become great and majestic for the glory of God as a magnificent temple of His, must be brought to its original and smallest proportions, as though they were the only true ones, the only good ones.” Paul VI, Encyclical Ecclesiam Suam, 6 August 1964. 58. “A practically schismatic ferment divides, subdivides, and splits the Church.” Paul VI, Homily In Coena Domini, 3 April 1969. 59. “There are also among us those “schisms” and “separations” which St. Paul sadly denounces in I Corinthians.” Paul VI, ibid. 60. It is well-known how Vatican II is now being repudiated by the very men who once gloried in being its leaders. While the pope declared at the Council's end that it had changed nothing, these men came away determined to “explode” the Council's teachings in the process of actually applying it. Unfortunately the Holy See, with inexplicable haste, approved and even seemingly encouraged through Consilium an every-increasing infidelity to the Council. This infidelity went from changes in mere form (Latin, Gregorian Chant, suppression of the ancient rites, etc.) all the way to changes in substance which the Novus Ordo sanctions. To the disastrous consequences we have attempted to point out here, we must add those which, with an even greater effect psychologically, will affect the Church's discipline and teaching authority by undermining the respect and docility owed the Holy See.

Please answer question 40 in the Survey Questions Booklet. . The Reform of the Roman Liturgy, Monsignor Klaus Gamber The Preface to the 1993 book, The Reform of the Roman Liturgy,94 was written by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger. He described the author, Monsignor Klaus Gamber, as “the one scholar who, among the army of pseudo-liturgists, truly represents the liturgical thinking of the center of the Church.” To know the mind of Pope Benedict XVI on the liturgy, read this book. Quotations from the book begin here. “Our zealous reformers fail to recognize the obvious connection between Catholic teaching and piety. For many among the faithful, changes in the traditional liturgy also mean a change of faith itself. “Nobody objects to the Church leadership adapting liturgical forms to the realities of our time, if this is really necessary. But it has to be done with discretion and great care; and in any case, without a break with Tradition .” 95 “What we can say categorically is that the hopes that had been tied to liturgical reform have not been realized.” 96 “As we have already observed, the liturgical reform welcomed with so much idealism and hope by many priests and lay people alike has turned out to be a liturgical destruction of startling proportions – a debacle worsening with each passing year. Instead of the hoped-for renewal of the Church and of Catholic life, we are now witnessing a dismantling of the traditional values and piety on which our faith rests. Instead of a fruitful renewal of the liturgy, what we see is a destruction of the forms of the Mass which had developed organically during the course of many centuries. ” 97 “Unlike the appalling changes we are currently witnessing, the changes made in the Roman Missal over a period of almost 1,400 years did not involve the rite itself. Rather, they were changes


Gamber, Monsignor Klaus, The Reform of the Roman Liturgy- It’s Problems and Background (San Juan Capistrano, CA: Una Voce Press, and Fort Collins, CO: The Foundation for Catholic Reform, 1993). 95 Ibid., p. 6. 96 Ibid., p. 7. 97 Ibid., p. 9.



concerned only with the addition and enrichment of new feast days, Mass formulas and certain prayers.” 98 “But what possible advantage can be gained for the pastoral care of the faithful by changing the feast days of the saints in the Church calendar, changing the way of counting Sundays during the liturgical year, or even changing the words of Consecration? What possible advantage can be gained by introducing a new Order of Readings and abolishing the old one, or by making minor and unimportant adjustments to the traditional rite, and then finally, by publishing a new Missal? “Was all this really done because of pastoral concern about the souls of the faithful, or did it not rather represent a radical breach with the traditional rite, to prevent the further use of traditional liturgical texts and thus to make the celebration of the ‘Tridentine Mass’ impossible – because it no longer reflected the new spirit moving through the Church?”99 “The Roman Rite, in important parts, goes back at least to the fourth century, more exactly to the time of Pope Damascus (366-384). By the time of Gelasius (492-496) the Canon of the Mass had attained the form it has kept until now, apart from some modifications made under Pope St. Gregory (590-604). Since the fifth century, the only thing on which the popes have unceasingly insisted is that the Roman Canon must be adopted; their argument being that it originated with the Apostle Peter.” 100 “[And] we now contemplate at our feet the ruins, not of the Tridentine Mass, but of the ancient Roman Rite which had developed and grown to maturity during that long period.” 101 “The following point is worth pondering: As already discussed, according to canon law, a person's affiliation with a particular liturgical rite is determined by that person's rite of baptism. Given that the liturgical forms of Pope Paul VI created a de facto new rite, one could assert that those among the faithful who were baptized according to the traditional Roman rite have the right to continue following that rite; just as priests who were ordained according to the traditional Ordo have the right to exercise the very rite that they were ordained to celebrate.” 102 “Since the conclusion of the Council, has our liturgical worship become more attractive to the faithful? Did the new liturgy contribute to strengthening faith and piety among our people? Hardly! Even during the short time that has elapsed since the introduction of the Novus Ordo in 1969, our churches have become emptier, the number of our priests and religious continues to decline steadily, and decline at an alarming rate. The reasons for these developments are many and varied, but we must admit that the liturgical reforms failed to arrest the negative trends they were to remedy, and that, more likely than not, they helped make them significantly worse.” 103 “At this point we should know that the celebration of the Mass with the priest facing the people was not made mandatory in the new liturgical rite, although the Institutio Generalis Missalis recommends it.” 104 “Truly problematic, in fact truly scandalous, is the translation of the phrase pro multis as ‘for all,’ a translation inspired by modern theological thinking but not to be found in any historical liturgical text.” 105 “In the exegesis of Heb. 9:28, St. John Chrysostom explains quite succinctly: ‘He was offered but once to bear the sins of many.’ Why does he [St. Paul] say, ‘of many,’ and not ‘for all’? Because not all had faith. Although He died for all, as far as He is concerned, to save all, His death voiding
98 99

Ibid., p. 11. Ibid., pp. 99-100. 100 Ibid., p. 24. 101 Ibid., p. 26. 102 Ibid., footnote on p. 39. 103 Ibid., p. 46. 104 Ibid., p. 53. 105 Ibid., pp. 55-56.


the downfall of all mankind, yet He did not take away the sins of all, because they themselves did not want Him to do this.”106 “[We] can say and convincingly demonstrate that neither in the Eastern nor the Western Church was there ever a celebration versus populum [priest facing the people] – rather, there was only the practice of turning towards the East while praying.” 107 “What in the early Church and during the Middle Ages determined the position of the altar was that it faced East. To quote St. Augustine: ‘When we rise to pray, we turn East, where heaven begins. And we do this not because God is there, as if He had moved away from other directions on earth. . ., but rather to help us remember to turn our mind towards a higher order, that is, to God.’”

“Since there is no basis for it in liturgical history, nor theology, nor sociologically, the celebration of the Mass versus populum should be gradually phased out.” 109 “Today, we are standing before the ruins of almost 2,000 years of Church tradition. We cannot help being apprehensive: the numerous reforms made have damaged Church tradition to such an extent that it will be difficult to bring it back again. Today, dare we even ask whether after such a deconstruction, a reconstruction of the traditional Order would be possible? But one must not give up hope.” 110 “Today, those who out of a sense of personal belief hold firm to what until recently had been strictly prescribed by the Roman Church are treated with condescension by many of their own brothers. They face problems if they continue to nurture the very rite in which they were brought up and to which they have been consecrated. That theirs were decisions made as a matter of conscience and that their conscience is being sorely tested is of little consequence to those who oppose them.”

“Liturgy and faith are interdependent. This is why a new rite was created, a rite that in many ways reflects the bias of the new (modernists’) theology. The traditional liturgy simply could not be allowed to exist in its established form because it was permeated with the truths of the traditional faith and the ancient forms of piety. For this reason alone, much was abolished and new rites, prayers and hymns were introduced, as were the new readings from Scripture, which conveniently left out those passages that did not square with the teachings of modern theology – for example, references to a God who judges and punishes.” 112 “The pastoral benefits that so many idealists had hoped the new liturgy would bring did not materialize. Our churches emptied in spite of the new liturgy (or because of it?), and the faithful continue to fall away from the Church in droves.” 113 “In the end, we will all have to recognize that the new liturgical forms, well-intentioned as they may have been at the beginning, did not provide the people with bread, but with stones.” 114 “Particularly pernicious in this respect is the incessant nature of the changes to which we are subjected. This is diametrically opposed to the concept of liturgy as our home. To constantly change a ritual and to abolish almost completely time-honored customs and traditions is synonymous with robbing a person of his religious home and thus shaking the foundations of his faith.” 115

106 107

Ibid., footnote on p. 56 Ibid., p. 77. 108 Ibid., p. 80. 109 Ibid., p. 92. 110 Ibid., p. 95. 111 Ibid., pp.98-99. 112 Ibid., p. 100. 113 Ibid., p. 101. 114 Ibid., p. 109. 115 Ibid., p. 110.



“How can anybody be against the altar facing the people, since its use has been prescribed by the Council and it has been established everywhere? “One would look in vain for a statement in the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy of the Second Vatican Council that said that Holy Mass is to be celebrated facing the people. Back in 1947, Pope Pius XII, in his encyclical Mediator Dei, pointed out that the person ‘who wants to change the altar into the old form of the Mensa (the table) is going down the wrong road.’ The celebration of the Mass versus populum was not allowed until the Second Vatican Council, but many bishops quietly tolerated the practice, particularly during Masses celebrated specifically for young people.” 116 “But we want to quote from Fr. Josef A. Jungmann, the author of the well-known book, Missarum Sollemnia, published shortly after the conclusion of the Second Vatican Council, in the magazine, The Pastor. The author writes, ‘The claim that the altar of the early Church was always designed to celebrate facing the people, a claim made often and repeatedly, turns out to be nothing but a fairy tale.’ ”117 “Real change in the contemporary perception of the purpose of the Mass and the Eucharist will occur only when the table altars are removed and Mass is again celebrated at the high altar ; when the purpose of the Mass is again seen as an act of adoration and glorification of God and of offering thanks for His blessings, for our salvation and for the promise of the heavenly life to come, and as the mystical reenactment of the Lord’s sacrifice on the cross.” 118 “The focus must forever be on God, not man. This has always meant that everyone turn towards Him in prayer, rather than that the priest face the people. From this insight, we must draw the necessary conclusion and admit that the celebration versus populum is, in fact, an error . In the final analysis, celebration versus populum is a turning towards man, and away from God.”119 Please answer question 41 in the Survey Questions Booklet. . The Problem of the Liturgical Reform, Book Review This is an excerpt from a review by John Vennari of the book, The Problem of the Liturgical Reform.120 The excerpt begins here, with endnotes beginning on page 109. The book is arguably one of the most important critiques of the Novus Ordo Missae since The Ottaviani Intervention. Yet the new book differs from the famous text of Cardinal Ottaviani in this way. The Ottaviani Intervention studied the New Mass and found that it “teems with dangerous errors.” The Problem of the Liturgical Reform, however, explains how and why those errors got there in the first place. The Ottaviani Intervention studied the effect. The Problem of the Liturgical Reform studies the cause. As such, it is a work unlike anything done before. Perhaps the best way to begin a review of the book is to quote from the book’s concluding paragraphs: “The [new] doctrine of the Paschal mystery, with its serious doctrinal deficiencies, is, then, at the origin of the liturgical reform. Certainly, the reformed missal does not deny Catholic dogma outright, but its authors have so oriented the gestures and the words, they have made such significant
116 117

Ibid., pp. 142-143. Ibid., p. 151. 118 Ibid., p. 175. 119 Ibid., p. 179. 120 Vennari, John, Unmasking the New Mass, reprinted from the September 2001 Issue of Catholic Family News, review of the book The Problem of the Liturgical Reform, by Society of St. Pius X, Angelus Press, June 1, 2001 . The review can be read in its entirety on the Internet, accessed November 11, 2010,


omissions and introduced numerous ambiguous expressions, and all in order to make the rite conform to the [new] theology of the Paschal mystery and to give expression to it.” The book is composed of three parts: Part One: The New Mass constitutes a liturgical rupture with Tradition. Part Two: The New Mass is based on a new theology of sin and redemption, which is called the “Theology of the Paschal Mystery.” Part Three: The new theology on which the New Mass is based stands condemned by traditional Catholic doctrine, especially by the Council of Trent[.] Part One: The Reform of 1969: A Liturgical Rupture The authors analyze the Novus Ordo Missal along with the Institutio Generalis Misallis Romani, which was the General Instruction on the New Mass published in 1969. [It should be noted, though the authors mention it in passing, that the first edition of the General Instruction was so Protestant in orientation that Pope Paul VI had to re-issue a “Catholicized” new edition. Sadly, the revised “General Instruction” was not much better than the first]. (5) The analysis of the New Mass brings three basic conclusions to light. 1) That the new rite is no longer based on sacrifice, but on a memorial meal, a concept harmonious with Protestant practice. 2) Rather than emphasizing Our Lord's presence in the Priest and in the Eucharist, which is the Catholic focus, the new rite emphasizes Our Lord's presence “in His Word and in His people.” This too favors Protestant doctrine. 3) In the new rite, there is a downplay of emphasis on the Mass as propitiation, that the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass makes satisfaction to God for sin. Rather, the Novus Ordo emphasizes the Mass as an act of Thanksgiving. Again, this is a shift from a Catholic orientation to one that is Protestant. The book provides many examples of this new focus. Here we will mention only one, the New Offertory Prayers. In the Tridentine Missal, the Offertory Prayers express clearly the sacrificial and propitiatory nature of the Mass. It properly conveys Catholic doctrine: “Accept O Holy Father, Almighty and Eternal God, this unspotted Host, which I, Thine unworthy servant, offer unto Thee, my living and true God, for my innumerable sins, and negligences, and for all faithful Christians, both living and dead, that it may avail both me and them unto life everlasting.” By contrast, the fabricators of the New Liturgy stripped the Offertory prayers of a sacrificial, propitiatory emphasis. This was done, they claim, in order to place “the words of institution of the Eucharist back into their own context which is that of the ritual berakoth of the Jewish meal.” (6) This explains why parts of the new “Presentation of the Gifts” were “borrowed word, for word from the Jewish grace-before-meals;” “Blessed are you, Lord God of all creation. Through your goodness we have this bread to offer, which earth has given and human hands have made. It will become for us the bread of life.” This pivots away from the sacrificial character of the Mass and the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Instead, we see the emphasis on a memorial meal and on thanksgiving. Further, the term, “It will become for us the bread of life,” is deliberately ambiguous. “Bread of life” means different 105


things to different people (likewise with the term, “it will become for us our spiritual drink”). Also, the words “for us” stress a subjective emphasis rather than the objective reality of transubstantiation. It is not surprising that M. G. Siegvalt, a Professor of Dogmatic Theology in the Protestant faculty at Strasbourg wrote, “[N]othing in the renewed Mass need really trouble the Evangelical Protestant.” (7) Part Two: The Principle Behind the Liturgical Reform Here we come to the most difficult section of the book. The authors lead us into the world of modern theologians, which is not a pleasant place to be. A study of the new theology of the “Paschal Mystery” however, reveals the basis for the three-point shift of emphasis mentioned in Part One. I) The new theology explains the diminution, not to say suppression, of the notion of propitiation in the new missal. II) The new theology of “mysteries” accounts for the innovation regarding the notion of Christ's presence in the Mass. That is, the emphasis of Christ's presence in “His Word and in His people” rather than His unique Sacramental presence in the Holy Eucharist. III) An understanding of the ‘sense’ which this new theology gives to the word ‘memorial,’ which explains the abandoning of the sacrificial rite in favor of the memorial meal. The authors look at writings from the theologians responsible for the liturgical reform, (8) the official post-conciliar texts, along with pertinent sections from Vatican II. I) The New Notion of Redemption The section titled “The Passover of the Lord” explains that the “Paschal Mystery” embodies a new way of looking at sin and redemption. This novel approach holds that man's sin is not something that offends God to the point where He requires satisfaction for these sins. Rather, sin injures man and requires man's restoration. According to this mind-set, “man's sin seems to harm only himself and society, without being prejudicial to God.” What then is redemption if not satisfying God's justice for man's sin? Answer, redemption is the Paschal Mystery revealing God's unbreakable love for us, especially as shown in the Resurrection. One of the many expressions of this new teaching is found in a 1994 statement from the International Theological Commission. Here the Commission does not hesitate to flirt with blasphemy, as it caricatures God as “merciless:” The death of Jesus is not the act of a merciless God glorifying supreme sacrifice; it is not the “price of redemption” paid to some repressive alien power. It is the time and place where God “who is love and who loves us, is made visible. Jesus crucified declares how God loves us and proclaims through this gesture of love that one man has conditionally consented to the ways of God.” (9) In short, it means that there is no debt to be paid to God in order to satisfy Divine justice offended by sin. This false doctrine, applied to the new liturgy, results in the propitiatory aspect of the Mass being downplayed or effaced. It also results in the elimination or reduction of prayers asking for satisfaction for sin. Also, since “Redemption is seen as a full revelation of the Father’s free and superabundant love for us,” the response which the celebration of the liturgy embodies can only be of thanksgiving and petition. The vicarious satisfaction of Christ and His mediation in prayer no longer prove to be absolutely necessary. Such notions have “therefore, been largely removed from the new missal, and notably from the Eucharistic Prayers[.]” 106

II) Sacrament as Mystery Next, the book discusses “Sacrament as Mystery,” a complex concept from the muddled minds of modern malcontents. In reading this section, especially the quotations from Progressivist writers, I was reminded of Flannery O'Connor's comment about how incomprehensible modern theologians can be: It was the Theology of Death [by Karl Rahner] I was reading. I finished it but I could read it once a year and still not know exactly what he has said. (10) Briefly, the authors point out that modern theologians promote a new concept of “mystery.” The new use of the word “mystery” is a disturbing trend since the Council. In 1963, the brilliant theologian Father David Greenstock, writing in The Thomist, warned that modern theologians exerting influence on Vatican II, were deliberately suppressing the precision of scholastic language in order to employ new vague theological expressions. This was done to make way for the creation of a new “situational theology” to fit the needs of modern ecumenism. (11) Father Greenstock’s warnings were well founded. For example, in 1966, the Progressivist Father Joseph Ratzinger rejoiced that in the Council's document Lumen Gentium, “the title of the text no longer referred in scholastic fashion to the ‘nature of the Church,’ but rather spoke of its mystery.” (12) Here’s what’s happening. Before the Council, we spoke precisely of the “nature of the Church,” which had a strict definition. Now, instead, we speak of the “mystery of the Church.” Before the Council, we spoke of the unchangeableness of Sacred Tradition. Today, however, we talk about the “mystery of living tradition.” This is a semantic tactic to introduce confusion. The Progressivists take our defined certitudes and refer to them as “mysteries.” Once they do this, they can do anything they want with the terminology, and open the door to their novel theological concepts. This seems to be the game being played here. Within this new concept of mystery, the word “sacrament” receives a broader meaning than that of applying strictly to one of the Seven Sacraments of the Church. According to this vague, Protestantized view, a sacrament is something that “makes divine realities present and gives them to man to nourish his faith.” (13) The authors note that this new concept surfaces in Vatican II’s Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy which seems to apply the vague notion of “sacramental mystery” to Scripture: “He is present in His Word since it is He Himself who speaks when the holy scriptures are read in the Church.” (14) Again, this new emphasis was not lost on the young Progressivist Father Joseph Ratzinger. In his 1966 book, Theological Highlights of Vatican II, Ratzinger wrote the following in praise of the Council’s Liturgy Constitution: There is and will be a stronger emphasis on the Word as an element of equal value with sacrament. (15) The new concept of “sacrament as mystery” was one of the main lines of the liturgical reform. As such it explains the following orientation of the Novus Ordo: The constant parallel between the “Liturgy of the Word” and the “Eucharistic Liturgy” both of which are the “table of the Lord” where Christ gives Himself as spiritual food. The lessening of worship of the Real Presence during Mass. The Eucharistic presence is no longer firstly recognized in Itself, but principally insofar as it nourishes faith[.]



The greater emphasis laid on the common priesthood of the faithful. The authors explain, “The sacrificial oblation is considered almost exclusively from the point of view of the oblation taken in its restricted sense which constitutes the only response of faith.” The new way of expressing the Mysterium Fidei [The Mystery of Faith]. (16) Regarding this last point [Mysterium Fidei] the authors spotlight the shift as to where this term is placed in the Tridentine Mass vs. the Novus Ordo. The traditional missal places the expression Mysterium Fidei amid the very words of consecration. This is done to emphasize the truth of the Real Presence of Christ brought about through transubstantiation, and also to mark the culminating point of the Mass: “Here is the sacrifice of Christ presented in an immolated state wherein the species of bread and wine signify the separation of His Body and Blood during the Passion.” (17) By contrast, the new missal's Mystery of Faith no longer expresses transubstantiation and the sacrificial consecration. Rather, the words are placed outside of the consecration formula [that is, immediately after it], and express primarily the Mysteries of Christ's life remembered together. “Let us proclaim the mystery of faith. Dying You destroyed our death, rising You restored our life. Lord Jesus, come in glory.” This part of the New Liturgy is also “pro-choice” in that it offers the celebrant a selection of four new Mystery of Faith formulas from which he may choose, none of which emphasize Transubstantiation. These prayers are now called the “Memorial Acclamation.” For example, Acclamation “A” also centers on Our Lord's life: “Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again.” Memorial Acclamation “C,” however, does not focus on the Mysteries of Our Lord's life, nor on the Consecration, but on a type of Communion: “When we eat this bread and drink this cup, we proclaim Your death, Lord Jesus, until You come in glory.” All four of the new Mystery of Faith acclamations could be recited at a Protestant communion service. (18) As the authors note, these changes taken as a whole shift the center of gravity and lay bare the difference in emphasis between the two rites. In the Tridentine Missal, “the Mass is a sacrificial offering of the transubstantiated presence of Christ,” while in the Novus Ordo, “the Mass is understood as a memorial of Christ's Passover.” (19) III) The Mass as Memorial With the sacrificial nature of the Mass undermined, we move to the next major section of the book which explains that the liturgical reform has brought the memorial aspect of the Mass to the foreground. Following the latest notion of “sacrament,” the new understanding of the Mass is “the memorial [which] makes present the reality it communicates.” Here, in part, is the new emphasis. Christ instituted the Eucharist at the Last Supper which was a Passover meal. Since the Old Testament Passover was a communal action of memorial in the form of a meal, so now, New Testament worship must be a new kind of Passover ritual, a communal action of memorial in the form of a meal. And in the new rite, this memorial is not primarily Calvary represented, but rather a memorial of the entire paschal mysteries from the Last Supper to the Resurrection. This error is not new. Pope Pius XII took great pains combating it when he insisted that the sacrifice of the Mass is only a memorial insofar as it represents Christ's death on the Cross. (20) Part Three: A Dogmatic Rupture with Tradition? The authors answer, yes! 108

“By affirming that Christ did not die on the Cross in order to satisfy the debt of punishment demanded by Divine justice offended by sin, the theology of the Paschal mystery openly contradicts a truth of the Catholic faith as taught by the Council of Trent.” In fact, “the infallible teaching of the Church, chiefly expressed in the text of the Council of Trent, obliges us to consider the vicarious satisfaction of Christ as one of the principal truths of our faith.” That is, Christ's sacrifice satisfies the justice of God, offended by sin. “By making the sacrificial aspect of the Mass flow from the memorial dimension of the Mass, the theology of the Paschal mystery calls into question the teaching of the Council of Trent in this area.” The Council of Trent's infallible teaching in this area is that “the Mass is vere et proprie [truly and properly], a visible sacrifice.” [This teaching is defined dogma and can never be subject to change or updating in the name of a “deeper understanding.”] (21) This makes “the emphasis placed by the theology of the Paschal mystery on the memorial aspect of the Mass unacceptable.” “By relying upon a new concept of sacrament, the theology of the Paschal mystery shows itself to be very dangerous to the Catholic faith. By favoring heterodox theses on more than one point, this theology shows itself to belong to the modernist theology condemned by Pope St. Pius X.” (22) For these and many other reasons, the authors conclude with the statement with which this review opened: “The doctrine of the Paschal mystery, with its serious doctrinal deficiencies is, then, at the origin of the liturgical reform. That is why one cannot say that the reformed rite of Mass of 1969 is 'orthodox' in the etymological sense of the word: it does not offer ‘right praise’ to God.”
Endnotes: 5) See Iota Unum, Romano Amerio (Sarto House, 1996), pp. 600-604. 6) Louis Boyer, Eucharistie (Desclee, 1990), p. 109. Quoted in The Problem of the Liturgical Reform (Hereafter referred to as PLR), p. 7. 7) Le Monde, Nov, 22, 1967. Quoted from Pope Paul's New Mass, Michael Davies (Angelus Press, 1980), p. 264. 8) i.e., Louis Bouyer, Annibale Bugnini, Odo Casal, Edouard Schillebeeckx, Karl Rahner, Joseph Ratzinger, AimeGoerges Martimort, Yves de Montcheuil, etc. 9) International Theological Commission, (ITC), Questiones selectae de Deo Redemptore, Dec. 8, 1994, Part IV, Nos. 40 and 42. DC 2143, Aug. 1 1996. (Quoted from PLR, p. 48). The International Theological Commission is a world-wide group of theologians under the auspices of the Vatican's Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine the Faith. The president of the ITC since 1981 is Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger. 10) The Habit of Being, The Letters of Flannery O'Connor (Farrar-Straus-Giroux, New York, 1979) p. 527. 11) See “Unity: Special Problems, Dogmatic, Moral” by Father David Greenstock, The Thomist, 1963. For fuller discussion of the contrast between the Thomist Father David Greenstock and the progressivist Father Joseph Ratzinger's Theological Highlights of Vatican II, see “Vatican vs. The Unity Willed by Christ,” Vennari, Catholic Family News, Dec. 2000. (Reprint #537, available for $1.75). 12) Theological Highlights of Vatican II, Father Joseph Ratzinger, (Paulist Press, 1966) p. 64., emphasis added 13) PLR, p. 67. 14) Sacrosanctum Concilium 7. 15) Theological Highlights of Vatican II, p.15 (emphasis added). 16) Quoted and paraphrased from PLR, pp. 67-68. 17) Ibid., p.12. 18) The Fourth Memorial Acclamation (“D”) is “Lord by Your Cross and resurrection You have set us free. You are the Savior of the world.” 19) PLR, p. 12. 20) “Thus the commemorative representation of His death, which actually took place on Calvary, is repeated in every Sacrifice of the altar seeing that Jesus Christ is symbolically shown ( per distinctos indices) to be in a state a victimhood.” Encyclical Mediator Dei On the Sacred Liturgy by Pope Pius XII. 21) Vatican I taught that a Catholic may not disregard defined dogma in the name of the deeper understanding “The meaning of Sacred Dogmas which must always be preserved is . . . that which our Holy Mother the Church has


CHAPTER 5– THE CRISIS IN THE NOVUS ORDO MASS determined. Never is it permissible to depart from this in the name of a deeper understanding.” (Vatican I, Session III Chap. IV, Faith and Reason). 22) Quoted and paraphrased from PLR, p. 84.

Please answer questions 42 and 43 in the Survey Questions Booklet. . Vatican II on Sacred Music The Catholic Mass is often called the Sacred Liturgy. The Mass must most certainly be a sacred act and music at the Mass must always contribute to that sacredness. Vatican II recommended the Latin language and Gregorian chant as the preferred way of assuring sacred music at the Mass. The following are excerpts from the Vatican II Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium.121

28. In liturgical celebrations each person, minister or layman, who has an office to perform, should do all of, but only, those parts which pertain to his office by the nature of the rite and the principles of liturgy. 30. To promote active participation, the people should be encouraged to take part by means of acclamations, responses, psalmody, antiphons, and songs, as well as by actions, gestures, and bodily attitudes. And at the proper times all should observe a reverent silence. 36. 1. Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites. [Here, we insert the decree of Pope John XXIII, immediately prior to Vatican Council II, that Latin be retained in the liturgy.] Pope John XXIII Apostolic Constitution

Veterum Sapientia
On the Promotion of the Study of Latin February 22, 1962 A resolve to uphold Latin The employment of Latin has recently been contested in many quarters, and many are asking what the mind of the Apostolic See is in this matter. We have therefore decided to issue the timely directives contained in this document, so as to ensure that the ancient and uninterrupted use of Latin be maintained and, where necessary, restored. Responsibility for enforcement 1. Bishops and superiors-general of religious orders shall take pains to ensure that in their seminaries and in their schools where adolescents are trained for the priesthood, all shall


Vatican website, Sacrosanctum Concilium, December, 1963, accessed 2010/11/22, . .vatican. . ./vat-ii_const_19631204_sacrosanctum-concilium _en.html,.


studiously observe the Apostolic See's decision in this matter and obey these Our prescriptions most carefully. 2. In the exercise of their paternal care they shall be on their guard lest anyone under their jurisdiction, eager for revolutionary changes, writes against the use of Latin in the teaching of the higher sacred studies or in the Liturgy, or through prejudice makes light of the Holy See's will in this regard or interprets it falsely.122

112. The musical tradition of the universal Church is a treasure of inestimable value, greater even than that of any other art. The main reason for this pre-eminence is that, as sacred song united to the words, it forms a necessary or integral part of the solemn liturgy. 114. The treasure of sacred music is to be preserved and fostered with great care. Choirs must be diligently promoted, especially in cathedral churches; but bishops and other pastors of souls must be at pains to ensure that, whenever the sacred action is to be celebrated with song, the whole body of the faithful may be able to contribute that active participation which is rightly theirs, as laid down in Art. 28 and 30. 115. Great importance is to be attached to the teaching and practice of music in seminaries, in the novitiates and houses of study of religious of both sexes, and also in other Catholic institutions and schools. To impart this instruction, teachers are to be carefully trained and put in charge of the teaching of sacred music. 116. The Church acknowledges Gregorian chant as especially suited to the Roman liturgy: therefore, other things being equal, it should be given pride of place in liturgical services. But other kinds of sacred music, especially polyphony, are by no means excluded from liturgical celebrations, so long as they accord with the spirit of the liturgical action, as laid down in Art. 30. 117. The typical edition of the books of Gregorian chant is to be completed; and a more critical edition is to be prepared of those books already published since the restoration by St. Pius X. Please answer questions 44 and 45 in the Survey Questions Booklet. . Liturgical Music in the Post–Vatican II Church This is an interview with Father Robert Pasley123 who relates how he restored traditional liturgical music in his parish. Fr. Pasley is a priest of the Diocese of Camden, New Jersey, and rector of Mater Ecclesiae Mission, the equivalent of a non-territorial parish, where he celebrates daily Mass and the other Sacraments according to the Traditional Latin Rite. He has been a member of the Latin Liturgy Association for over twenty-five years and is on the board of directors of the Church Music Association of America. In September 2004 he was installed as a Knight of the Holy Sepulchre. Q: Since the mid-1960s, Catholics in North America have witnessed “folk Masses” with acoustical guitars, “polka Masses” with accordion, and “Teen Life Masses” accompanied by amateur rock bands. Did the Second Vatican Council call for this sort of experimentation? What do the conciliar documents actually say about liturgical music? Fr. Robert Pasley: No, they did not call for this type of music. The documents talk about allowing new compositions in the vernacular. Even before they say that, however, they declare that

Adoremus website, Veterum Sapientia (February 22, 1962), Adoremus Bulletin – Vol. VIII, No. 2 - April 2002, accessed April 27, 2012, 123 Pasley, Fr. Robert, Liturgical Music in the Post-Vatican-II Church, September, 2004, Mater Ecclesiae Traditional Roman Rite Church, 261 Cross Keys Road. Berlin, NJ 08009, accessed 2010/11/22,



Gregorian chant has pride of place in the liturgy. They also approve of other works of our heritage, polyphonic choral music especially, which is closest to chant. Even compositions for choir and orchestra are permitted, as long as they don’t detract from the Mass and become a performance in themselves. The most recent official Vatican document on church music was in 1967, Musicam sacram, and that never mentions anything about rock bands or guitar Masses. It actually sets down priorities as to what parts of the Mass are to be sung. First of all, if anything is sung at the Mass, it should be the opening sign of the cross, the priest’s orations, the responses between the priest and the people, the Gospel acclamation, the preface dialogue, the preface and the Holy, Holy, the Lord’s Prayer, and the dismissal. The second degree of singing is then added, which is the Kyrie, the Gloria, the Agnus Dei, then the Creed, and the prayer of the faithful. Finally, the third degree of singing is added, and this includes the song at the entrance and communion processions (by song it means the Introit and Communion of the Roman Gradual, or the Psalms in the Graduale Simplex, or the entrance and communion antiphon found in the Roman Missal), the songs after the readings (the Responsorial Psalm, or the Gradual or Tract from the Graduale Romanum), the Offertory verse from the Graduale Romanum, and the readings, including the Gospel. The document says that if all these things have been accomplished, then hymns may be admitted. Almost everything mentioned in Musicam Sacram was ignored and the thing that was the exception and [supposed to be] admitted last, the hymn, is the first and only thing that is ever sung. It has brought in all types of secular music and tonality that were never even envisioned. Q: Isn’t it a contradiction to expect Gregorian chant and polyphonic choral music at Mass and at the same time to demand active participation on the part of the congregation? Fr. Pasley: Well, it depends on what you mean by active participation. The words of the Council have come into English as “active participation,” but the [Latin] words are participatio actuosa or “actual participation.” When they talk about that, they really are reflecting the mentality of Pius XII as expressed in his encyclical on the liturgy, Mediator Dei [1947]. Mediator Dei says that during the Mass there must be participation of the people, that they’re not just passive spectators. That participation, though, is primarily internal and secondarily external. Even in the traditional Mass there are parts that the people could sing: for instance, the Kyrie. It’s Greek, it’s very simple: “Lord have mercy, Christ have mercy.” There would be nothing for them to learn. Then the Sanctus: after a few times they would know what the Latin words mean. The same with the Agnus Dei. Perhaps the Gloria and the Creed would be a little difficult for them to understand at first, but there are two aspects to this: First of all, even in the most recent General Instruction on the Roman Missal, the “GIRM” of 2000, it states that the choir alone may sing the Gloria and the Creed. (I might add, it says that the Creed should be “sung or said” – note the priority.) The choir can sing the long Latin text, while the people can have a refrain. That’s an instance of external participation. But mo re importantly, if the people in the pews have a translation next to the Latin, they can sit there and meditate on those words while the choir – the experts – are singing them. Most people don’t have good singing voices and feel funny singing. Oh, they might sing a hymn that they’re familiar with, with the support of the organ. But true active participation occurs when they’re meditating, using their sense of hearing to listen, their sense of sight in reading, when they’re conjoining themselves with the cantors who are trained to sing, when they’re lifting their hearts up to God, so that the result is not constant activity, but actual participation. The Second Vatican Council did call for more participation, but I think that they meant more singing of the chant and the introduction of some newer sacred music that would be similar to chant, in the same spirit. 112

Q: A lot of the Church’s most beautiful traditional music was shelved when it became possible to celebrate Mass in the vernacular. How would you explain the hostility to music with Latin texts among some of the clergy even today? Fr. Pasley: I think that there was a rejection of Latin as a foreign language that people didn’t understand, as something too difficult and too challenging. It was also a symbol of the past. His Holiness, Pope Benedict XVI, when he was Cardinal Ratzinger, wrote a book entitled A New Song for the Lord. In it he asks, what is this opposition that has been set up between post– and pre–Vatican II? It’s as though a chasm existed between the two. Really there is supposed to be continuity, and yet many people look at it as a break. The archtraditionalists look at it as a break from tradition; the arch-liberals or modern-thinking priests look at it as a break with the past, but it’s not supposed to be. Sometimes an ideological mentality was behind this complete rejection of Latin. It was too “formal.” We live in an age when everything is supposed to be very communitarian, very informal, with no sense of anyone having separate places; it’s all supposed to be common. And so the formality of Latin was viewed as a barrier. In practice, if you get rid of the Latin text and the people are not used to hearing the Latin any more, then you don’t do the Latin music anymore, because that is even more formal. It is part of the heritage of Western civilization, and many people through the ages have honed this down with great precision. It just doesn’t go along with the “Hey, guys, I’m your buddy” mentality of the modern era. [Laughter.] Q: Again this year on the Feast of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, you celebrated a Solemn High Mass in the cathedral church of your diocese, with a trained schola cantorum [group of cantors] intoning the proper prayers in Gregorian chant and a choir of professional musicians singing Palestrina. What is the reason for this custom? How do you justify the considerable expense for this magnificent choral Mass? Fr. Pasley: One day I was talking with the music director at Mater Ecclesiae Mission, and I said, “It’s a shame that our chapel is so small; I would love to do a Mass by Haydn or Mozart. I guess we’ll never be able to do that.” He said, “Why don’t we try to have a big choir Mass at the cathedral on a feast day when nothing else is scheduled?” Now the Assumption is a feast when everyone is down at the New Jersey shore to bless the ocean. I also thought that this would be a good way for the parish to show its connection to the diocese, and also for the diocese to recognize that we are a canonical part of it. It would be a Mass of thanksgiving for the establishment of Mater Ecclesiae Mission, and it would be an opportunity to highlight sacred music. So I went to Bishop DiMarzio, the ordinary of Camden Diocese at the time, and he just loved the idea. That was in 2001, and this year we celebrated our fifth annual Solemn Mass of Thanksgiving. When Mater Ecclesiae Mission was founded, one of our reasons for existing, one of our apostolates, was to foster good liturgical music according to what the Vatican wants. And really, what Vatican II says is not very different from what Pius XII said. Except for a little more emphasis on the vernacular, it’s pretty much the mainstream of teaching coming from Pius X. Now I have always loved chant and been involved in church music. And so when I was appointed as rector of Mater Ecclesiae Mission, which formerly was a Latin Mass chapel, I thought that this would be a good vehicle, because Latin is used intensively and therefore we can use the traditional music. We already had people attending who were interested in the chant, so we have our own schola and people in the community who like to join in the singing. But for the choral music, we do put out an expense to hire professional singers. We feel that our people do give to charity. They give to the Knights of Columbus, who collect food and goods for the poor and the mentally handicapped. We make sure that one of our goals every year is to give generously to the Bishop’s Charity Fund, and we have even exceeded our goal every year that we have participated. We also make sure that we provide money for needs around the parish, janitorial maintenance, material aid to the poor, and so forth. We believe that we have 113


taken care of those duties (we can always do more; everybody can). Yet we feel that in this age, because of the poverty of liturgical music, we need to serve God and serve the Church by making an investment in good liturgical music. The Church spends money on social programs, administration, vestments, architecture and art; I think that it should also put its money into the greatest art, the one that has an integral part in the liturgy, and that is sacred music. All the other arts are auxiliary and help us to worship, but only one art is called an ars integra, something that is part of the liturgy itself, and that is music. Q: In what other ways does Mater Ecclesiae Mission help to preserve traditional liturgical music? Fr. Pasley: We have Gregorian chant every Sunday at Mass. We also have a system of getting donations for special feast days throughout the year. We celebrate from twenty to twenty-five feast days, for example, in the fall: St. Michael the Archangel, the Feast of the Holy Rosary, Christ the King, All Saints and All Souls Day, Christmas. We make sure that we have special choir Masses for those days. We ask people to give a donation, which we stipulate in the bulletin, to have a choir Mass offered for their intention, and we have musicians come in to sing the Mass. We have also started a children’s Gregorian chant choir, directed by Nicholas Beck, our music director and a recent graduate of Westminster Choir College. About ten young people sing in that choir. We also are about to begin our own adult choir. They have been doing a magnificent job singing hymns at the Low Mass at 9:00 on Sundays, and now they’re going to start learning chant and other choral Masses, so that we can use their voices more. We’re also building up a liturgical music library. I also hope to make a connection with the great library of sacred music that Msgr. Schuler, at St. Agnes Church in St. Paul, Minnesota, has formed. I’d like to see what we can do to utilize that. Q: A Tridentine Mass association in Europe called Juventutem sent a delegation to the 2005 World Youth Day and celebrated a Traditional Latin Mass in nearby Düsseldorf every day that week. Do you expect the Latin liturgy to flourish during the pontificate of Pope Benedict XVI? Fr. Pasley: I hope so. So far there have been many good signs. The Holy Father’s first speech to the cardinals after he was elected pope was in Latin. The Mass of his installation and the earlier funeral Mass of Pope John Paul II were beautiful; very dignified and very moving. The translation of the body from the Sala Clementina to St. Peter’s Basilica was just stunning, with the Miserere and all the chant being sung, so I was really very pleased with that. I know that Benedict XVI has already said that people should know basic prayers in Latin. So I do think that some wonderful things will happen. Again, he has to work against the tide. And yet, just as St. Benedict, the founder of monasticism, started little communities that began to change Europe, I think that there are little communities starting up all over the world that are going to do the same thing. Q: While he was serving as the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger wrote a book entitled The Spirit of the Liturgy. It is less well-known that he has written extensively about liturgical music also. Could you tell us something about his teaching on this subject? Fr. Pasley: I have read The Spirit of the Liturgy, The Ratzinger Report, The Feast of Faith and A New Song for the Lord [other collections of Cardinal Ratzinger’s writings], and I guess you could say, in a nutshell, that he is adamantly opposed to the idea that the people have to do everything in order to be participating in the liturgy. He demonstrates that this notion is absolutely wrong and is not part of what the Council wanted. He explains that the choir can have a ministerial function, representing the people through the talent that they have, through the training that they have received. They can be almost a surrogate that stands in for the people praising God, so that the people can join in with them internally and thus sing praise to God in a way that they would never have been capable of on their own. 114

That is the thing that struck me the most. The choir is not performing up there, with the people somehow separated from the liturgical action. If the people are entering into the Mass, and the choir is doing their job, then it comes together and it becomes a beautiful combination of all these wonderful things. The people don’t say the Eucharistic Prayer of the Roman Canon with the priest. Well, why can’t they listen to the choir? Not that the choir would be the only ones to sing; At the solemn Mass of the Assumption at the cathedral, the people sang all the responses, they sang the hymns to raise the roof, but they also have periods to rest and listen. Another thing that the pope talks about extensively is the need for silence. In the new liturgy it sometimes seems that you have to add moments of silence by force in order for people to have a chance to think. On the other hand, if the choir is singing traditional sacred music, and the people are listening and joining with them in that way, then they have a time of personal silence, with the choir as a background for their meditation. So choir singing really helps the sense of reverence in the liturgy. The Holy Father also mentions several practical expedients that he observed at the cathedral in Regensburg, Germany, where his brother Georg was choirmaster for many years. Ratzinger sees no problem, for example, with having the choir sing an elaborate polyphonic setting of the Agnus Dei in its entirety. As a general rule, it is forbidden to keep the priest waiting at the altar until the conclusion of a musical work. His solution is that you sing the first “Lamb of God” at the proper time; then there is a pause, and the priest says, “Behold the Lamb of God. . . .” After that the choir continues the second and third repetitions while the people are coming up for communion. Pope Benedict also states that sacred music is ‘”Logocentric.” In other words, it is a servant of the Word. It is a servant and a vehicle that should convey the words of Sacred Scripture and the prayers of the Liturgy, in essence Christ. Its primary purpose is not to provide emotional highs and entertainment, it is not there for us, but it is meant to praise God, then lift our minds and hearts to Him, then inspire us to let the Word become more incarnate in our souls. That is why Gregorian Chant is liturgical music of the highest caliber. Its purpose is to convey the words of Scripture and thus the Word Himself. So much contemporary music has hardly any content. If it does, what little doctrine is expressed can often be highly questionable, and it is often used to emotionally whip up the troops like a liturgical pep rally. Liturgical music must be “Logocentric.” Q: What is the purpose of the Latin Liturgy Association? Who may become a member, and how? Fr. Pasley: The LLA was founded way back in 1975; purpose was to foster the use of Latin in the liturgy in light of what the Second Vatican Council said, and to give people who love the Latin liturgy the opportunity to come together and discuss the problems and the difficulties and to propose solutions and to support each other. I remember finding out about it when I was a seminarian at St. Charles Seminary in Philadelphia; I joined then and I’ve been a member ever since. Anyone can become a member. They have a website on the Internet. They send out a beautiful newsletter two or three times a year. There’s a general convention that takes place every other year; next year the LLA will meet in St. Louis. There are local chapters of the LLA; the Philadelphia chapter covers our area, Southern New Jersey. Dr. Rudy Masciantonio, the president, is also a member of Mater Ecclesiae. Q: Traditional-minded Catholics from all over the Tri-State area – New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Delaware – come to Mater Ecclesiae Mission to experience the solemnity and beauty of the liturgy as celebrated there. What do you recommend to those who would like to take some of that music back with them to their own parishes? How does a congregation begin to re-learn to sing in Latin? Fr. Pasley: A few things. On a practical level, the Catholic Music Association of America has a website It is becoming a great resource. We have many people throughout the country now who can give conferences at parishes to provide parishioners with some background on this. We have a very large contingent in the Northeast – in Connecticut, Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania – so there are plenty of speakers available. The CMAA blog 115


spot is magnificent. A lot of people write in to it with different ideas. Members Jeffrey Tucker and Arlene Oost-Zinner write wonderful articles, and they have a very practical application of all this to their parish in Alabama. That’s one thing. The second thing is: go home and read the Second Vatican Council document on the liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium. Everybody talks about it, and they talk about the spirit of the Council, but you have to read it. When you read it you’ll be a little shocked at what’s not being done. Number three, get yourself a copy of Musicam sacram (1967), which is on the Internet. You can find it at several websites that archive pontifical documents [e.g.]. Read Musicam sacram. It is extremely important, because it is quoted often in the General Instruction on the Roman Missal. Finally, try to find someone, not just an amateur but someone who has some knowledge of music, to help you out. And start slowly. People are uncomfortable with change, even when it is good change. They get used to certain things. They are also fearful of things that they don’t know about. A lot of people have this idea in their head that Latin is so hard that they will never learn it. I even tell people at Mater Ecclesiae, look when you come here, if this is unfamiliar to you, it’s going to take you a month or two to finally begin to feel comfortable and recognize it; then things are going to click and start to fall together. So, I say, take your time and start small. Perhaps learn some beautiful Kyries and start singing those at Mass. Perhaps learn a few Alleluias that you can sing after communion, if they’re too long to sing before the Gospel. Perhaps learn some simple hymns that people haven’t heard in years, like Adoro te devote, or Jesu dulcis memoria – beautiful little hymns. And when you do that, make sure that you have a little program that you can pass out to the parishioners with the Latin text on the one side and the translation on the other. People say, “Well how are people supposed to understand when everything’s in Latin?” Well, at Mater Ecclesiae there is a missal, and it’s in Latin on one side and in English on the other, so they can follow along and pick things up. But if you just sing Latin out of the blue, without any preparation, people are going to turn it off, because they don’t understand it, they don’t know what’s going on. But if you start gently, with simple things, and give them translations so that they can follow along, then they’re going to love it. Please answer questions 46 through 48 in the Survey Questions Booklet. . The Wave of the Future – Michael Davies The following is an excerpt from a 1977 article by Michael Davies,124 explaining the revolution in the Mass since Vatican II and the effects of this revolution. The excerpt begins here, with endnotes beginning on page 119. The reality of what has taken place since the Second Vatican Council has been expressed perfectly by Msgr. Klaus Gamber in his book The Reform of the Roman Liturgy. It is the one book on the post–Vatican II liturgical reform which every Catholic who loves the Church should own. Monsignor Gamber is undoubtedly one of the greatest liturgists of this century, perhaps the greatest, and his book was endorsed by three cardinals including Cardinal Ratzinger, who described him as “the one scholar who, among the army of pseudo-liturgists, truly represents the liturgical thinking of the center of the Church.” (1) Monsignor Gamber insists correctly that what we have experienced is not a renewal but a debacle that worsens with each passing year. He writes: The liturgical reform, welcomed with so much idealism and hope by so many priests and lay people alike, has turned out to be a liturgical destruction of startling proportions, a debacle worsening with each passing year. (2)

Michael Davies, “The Wave of the Future: A Reply to Archbishop Weakland, ” Latin Mass Magazine, September 1997, accessed November 11, 2010,


All the available empirical evidence endorses the judgment of Msgr. Gamber. The Council fathers stated clearly in the Liturgy Constitution that the implementation of its proposed reforms was intended to “impart an ever-increasing vigor to the Christian life of the faithful; to adapt more suitably to the needs of our own times those institutions which are subject to change; to foster whatever can promote union among those who believe in Christ; to strengthen whatever can help to call the whole of humanity to the household of the Church.” From the very first changes the opposite was true. We have witnessed, as Msgr. Gamber expressed it, “a debacle worsening with each passing year.” Throughout the whole of what is now referred to as the “First World,” Mass attendance has collapsed. Far from calling the whole of humanity into the household of the Church, the Catholic faithful have abandoned her on a scale unprecedented since the Reformation. I do not wish to argue that this hemorrhage was due entirely to the liturgical changes, but what is beyond any dispute is that the aims of the Liturgy Constitution were not achieved. There has been no renewal. From France to New Zealand, from England to the United States the picture is identical. It is one of plunging Mass attendance, empty seminaries, empty convents and an exodus from the priesthood. What must be described as the collapse of American Catholicism was fully documented in the statistical analysis provided in the Summer 1996 issue of The Latin Mass. These statistics also prove that the collapse began soon after the closure of the Council, prior to which almost every aspect of Catholic life subject to empirical verification showed an annual increase. In my capacity as President of the International Una Voce Federation I have, in the past three years, visited Scotland, Ireland, France, Italy, Germany, Belgium, Holland, the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. In every instance the overall picture conforms to the assessment of the post–Vatican II “renewal” given by Fr. Louis Bouyer in 1970: “Unless we are blind, we must even state bluntly that what we see looks less like the hoped-for regeneration of Catholicism than its accelerated decomposition.” In not one of these countries is there the least indication that this decomposition is coming to an end. It is also incontrovertible that the vast majority of the faithful throughout the West no longer assist at Mass at all. Those who were not assisting at Mass before the Council, have not been brought back, and in country after country many, sometimes most, of those who were assisting before the Council no longer do so. In countries such as France and Holland the percentage of Catholics at Mass each Sunday has declined to a single digit. In the US, weekly Mass attendance has declined from 71% in 1963 to 25% in 1993, a decrease of 65%. [Today, it is down to 23%]. During the period after the Council there has been an increase in the [nominally] Catholic population [due to Hispanic immigration], and so the picture is worse than these bare statistics suggest. The March, 1994, issue of the excellent Australian Catholic journal AD2000 examines the manner in which a detailed survey of Mass attendance in the Diocese of Townsville reflects the overall picture of a collapse of Catholic practice on that continent. The official survey examined in the article was entitled “Where Have All the People Gone?” It reveals a figure of only 12% in 1993, which was predicted to decline to about 6% at the turn of the century. [In May, 2006, statistics provided by the Australian Catholic bishops showed that weekly Mass attendance in all of Australia had declined from 74% in 1954 to 13.8% in 2006.125] Commenting on the survey, the AD2000 columnist remarked:


Peter J. Wilkinson, “Catholic Parish Ministry in Australia: Facing a Disaster? ” (PDF), Catholics for Ministry, 2011, accessed, August 20, 2011



Nowhere in the document is there any hint that the “reforming” policies pursued over the past twenty years in liturgy, religious education, seminary and religious life, biblical studies and moral teaching might be contributors to the disaster represented by the Mass attendance statistics. . . . Just how much further attendance must decline in Townsville and elsewhere before botched reforms are halted and admissions of failure forthcoming is not yet clear, but we should not hold our breath. Cardinal Newman, while still an Anglican, observed with his customary perception that nothing but harm could come from interfering with established forms of worship: Granting that the forms are not immediately from God, still long use has made them divine to us; for the spirit of religion has so penetrated and quickened them, that to destroy them is, in respect of the multitude of men, to unsettle and dislodge the religious principle itself. In most minds usage has so identified them with the notion of religion, that the one cannot be extirpated without the other. Their faith will not bear transplanting.” (4) Cardinal Gasquet rightly remarked that: A Catholic, who sees in the living liturgy of the Roman Church the essential forms which remain still what they were 1,200, perhaps nearly 1,400, years ago, cannot but feel a personal love for those sacred rites which come to him with all the authority of centuries. Any rude handling of such forms must cause deep pain to those who know and use them. For they come to them from God, through Christ and through the Church. But they would not have such attraction if they were not also sanctified by the piety of so many generations who have prayed in the same words and found in them steadiness in joy and consolation in sorrow. (5) Professor Johannes Wagner, Director of the Liturgical Institute of Trier, reached the same conclusion when he stated: History has proved a thousand times that there is nothing more dangerous for a religion, nothing more likely to result in discontent, incertitude, division and apostasy, than interference with the liturgy and consequently with religious sensibility. (6) Cardinal Ratzinger has echoed these authorities in his new autobiographical book From My Life, Remembrances 1927-1997, [published] in English in the fall of 1997. The Cardinal expressed his belief that the suppression of the old Mass marked a “break in the history of the liturgy, the consequences of which could only be tragic.” He accepted that “the ecclesial crisis in which we find ourselves today depends in great part on the collapse of the liturgy.” “I was dismayed at the ban on the old Missal,” he went on, “since such a development had never been seen in the history of liturgy. The impression was given that this was completely normal. [The Cardinal continued], “Even a cursory examination of the liturgy Constitution makes it clear that Msgr. Gamber is correct in claiming that: “One statement we can make with certainty is that the new Ordo of the Mass that has now emerged would not have been endorsed by the majority of the Council fathers.” (7) This statement is endorsed by Fr. Joseph Gelineau, a priest whose liturgical credentials would certainly be considered impeccable, a priest who was described by Archbishop Bugnini as one of the “great masters of the international liturgical world.” (8) In his book Demain la liturgie, Fr. Gelineau states: It would be false to identify this liturgical renewal with the reform of rites decided on by Vatican II. This reform goes back much further and goes forward far beyond the conciliar 118

prescriptions (elle va bien au-delà). The liturgy is a permanent workshop (la liturgie est un chantier permanent). (9) So there we have it. In place of the moderate reform sanctioned by the Liturgy Constitution, the Mass of the Roman Rite, surely the Church's greatest treasure apart from the Scriptures themselves, has been reduced on a practical level to a permanent workshop, something done by the people rather than an action of Christ. In his book Feast of Faith, Cardinal Ratzinger accepts Fr. Gelineau's assessment: “Today we might ask: Is there a Latin rite anymore? Certainly there is no awareness of it. To most people the liturgy appears to be rather something for the individual congregation to arrange.” (10) The Cardinal wrote these words in 1986, and his question as to whether there is still a Latin Rite can now be answered in the affirmative. Yes, there is still a Latin rite recognizable as such, the rite found in the Missal of 1962 which is flourishing once more. In city after city in the US it is attracting large and predominantly young congregations. Furthermore, there are now at least fifteen flourishing priestly societies and monastic communities, Benedictines in particular, which use the 1962 Missal exclusively, and which are swamped with vocations. They are attracting young men; and, in the convents of traditional religious sisters, young women, who were not even born when the Missal of Pope Paul VI was promulgated in 1970. Monsignor Gamber assessed the reality as opposed to the myth of the renewal perfectly when he wrote: “In the end, we will all have to recognize that the new liturgical forms, well intentioned as they may have been at the beginning, did not provide the people with bread, but with stones.” (11) The only possible solution to the liturgical debacle has been stated clearly by Msgr. Gamber: “In the final analysis, this means that in the future the traditional rite of Mass must be retained in the Roman Catholic Church . . . as the primary liturgical form for the celebration of Mass. It must become once more the norm of our faith and the symbol of Catholic unity throughout the world, a rock of stability in a period of upheaval and neverending change. (12) Is this an impossible dream? No one who was present in the Chartres on Pentecost Monday this year, as I was, would have thought so. The world's most beautiful cathedral was packed to the doors with young Catholics for a Solemn High Tridentine Mass, which they sang with one voice, una voce, and with tremendous enthusiasm, after marching almost seventy miles in three days, and camping out at night. There were at least 15,000 pilgrims present, with an average age of 20-25. Thousands of them could not find a place inside the cathedral and sang the Mass outside. Until about ten years ago these fervent young Catholics were denied access to the cathedral; the doors were actually locked to exclude them. This year the Tridentine Mass was sung by Cardinal Angelo Felici, President of the Ecclesia Dei Commission, in the presence of the papal nuncio to France a very significant mark of Vatican approval, as was the message of encouragement from the Holy Father himself. At least 150 young priests who are pledged to celebrate the Tridentine Mass exclusively took part in the procession and distributed Holy Communion. A few days later in London I was present at a meeting of a rapidly expanding society of young diocesan priests who celebrate the Tridentine Mass at every possible opportunity, and whose ambition is to celebrate it exclusively. As the subscription list of The Latin Mass [magazine] makes clear, there are seminarians with the same ambition throughout the United States. The Tridentine Mass is indeed the Mass that will not die, the “most beautiful thing this side of Heaven,” as Fr. Faber expressed it. It can be truly described as the once and future Mass, and the young priests and seminarians dedicated to its celebration, and the young people who flock to their Masses, are indeed the wave of the future.


CHAPTER 5– THE CRISIS IN THE NOVUS ORDO MASS 2. K. Gamber, The Reform of the Roman Liturgy (Roman Catholic Books, P.O. Box 255, Harrison, New York, 10528, 1993), p. 9. Referred to as RRL in subsequent notes. 4. J.H. Newman, Sermon “Ceremonies of the Church,” included in Newman Against the Liberals: 25 Classic Sermons by John Henry Newman, selected from Parochial and Plain Sermons, with a Preface by Michael Davies, (Roman Catholic Books, P.O. Box 2286, Ft. Collins, CO 80522), p. 147. 5. F. Gasquet & H. Bishop, Edward VI and the Book of Common Prayer (London, 1890), p. 183. 6. Reformation aus Rom (Munich, 1967), p. 42. 7. RRL, p. 61. 8. A. Bugnini, The Reform of the Liturgy: 1948-1975 (Collegeville, Minnesota, 1990), p. 221. 9. J. Gelineau, Demain la liturgie (Paris, 1976), p. 10. 10. J. Ratzinger, Feast of Faith (San Francisco, 1986), p. 84. 11. RRL, p. 109. 12. RRL, p. 109.

The Catholic Sanctuary and Vatican II – Michael Davies This is an excerpt from a booklet entitled The Catholic Sanctuary and the Second Vatican Council , by Michael Davies. 126 He documents the deliberately deceptive program of the Progressivists who revolutionized the Mass after Vatican II. The excerpt begins here and ends on page 127.

The most important consideration in the building of churches and the construction of sanctuaries was the fact that, in the East and in the West, Mass was always celebrated facing eastward. The rising of the sun in the East each day was seen as a symbol of the Resurrection of the Saviour and of His Second Coming. St. John Damascene (c. 675-749) wrote: At His ascent into Heaven He went to the East, and so do the Apostles pray to Him; He will come again as the Apostles saw Him going, and so the Lord Himself says: “As the lightning comes forth from the East and shines even to the West, so shall the coming of the Son of Man be. ” Since we wait for Him, we pray toward the East. This is the unwritten tradition of the Apostles. An erroneous argument put forward by proponents of Mass facing the people is that “Christ, whom the priest represents at Mass, did not sit with His back to the Apostles at the Last Supper. ” Quite true, but neither did He face them across a table. They all reclined on the same side of the table, facing Jerusalem, just as for nearly 2000 years of Christian history priest and people have offered or assisted at Mass on the same side of the altar, facing the East. Nor, incidentally, was the Last Supper a vernacular celebration. The liturgical language of Hebrew was used, which was as different from the everyday Aramaic used by the Jews at that time as Latin is from contemporary French. 127

Before examining what Vatican II mandated concerning the sanctuary, reference must be made to a widespread abandonment of the eastward celebration of the Eucharist which took place 400 years before this Council was convoked. This was a step taken by the Protestant Reformers in the sixteenth century. The use of the word “Reformers” for these people is certainly a misnomer. In reality, they were not reformers, but revolutionaries of the first order – men out to overthrow the existing religion and replace it with one which they had fabricated themselves on the grounds that it conformed to the teaching and practice of primitive Christianity.
126 127

Michael Davies, The Catholic Sanctuary and the Second Vatican Council (Charlotte, NC: TAN Books, 1997). Ibid., pp. 3-5.


The Protestant Reformers were united in abolishing the eastward celebration of the Eucharist because they understood, quite correctly, that the eastward direction signified sacrifice, and the denial of the sacrificial nature of the Mass was an axiom upon which the entire Protestant heresy was based. Martin Luther regarded the concept of any true sacrifice in the Mass as an abomination, and he expressed his viewpoint in the forceful manner for which he was noted: It is indeed upon the Mass as on a rock that the whole papal system is built, with its monasteries, its bishoprics, its collegiate churches, its altars, its ministries, its doctrine, i.e., with all its guts. All these cannot fail to crumble once their sacrilegious and abominable Mass falls. This viewpoint is put even more forcefully by John Hooper, the Anglican Bishop of Gloucester in the reign of Edward VI (1547-1553): I believe and confess that the popish Mass is an invention and ordinance of man, a sacrifice of anti-Christ, and a forsaking of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, that is to say, of his death and passion; and that it is a stinking and infected sepulchre, which hideth and covereth the merit of the blood of Christ; and therefore ought the Mass to be abolished and the holy supper of the Lord to be restored and set in its perfection again. Because Protestants believed the Mass to be a sacrifice of anti-Christ, they did indeed abolish it, replacing it with a communion service, a mere meal, a Lord's Supper in which Our Lord is present only in the minds of the congregation. The Real Presence was replaced by a Real Absence. In order to eradicate any memory of the hated Mass from the minds of the faithful, the Reformers resolved to obliterate every vestige of it from their communion services and from the sanctuaries in which the Sacrifice had been offered for centuries. The program of Thomas Cranmer, the apostate Archbishop of Canterbury, in the reign of the puppet boy-king Edward VI (1547-1553), has been summarized perfectly by Dr. Eamon Duffy in his recent and remarkable book, The Stripping of the Altars. This book has been universally acclaimed as a classic of historical research, and all who read it have been struck by the fact that it could be describing what has happened throughout the Catholic world since the Second Vatican Council. Dr. Duffy writes: At the heart of the Edwardine reform was the necessity of destroying, of cutting, hammering, scraping, or melting into a deserved oblivion the monuments of popery, so that the doctrines they embodied might be forgotten. Iconoclasm was the central sacrament of the reform, and, as the programme of the leaders became more radical in the years between 1547 and 1553, they sought with greater urgency the celebration of that sacrament of forgetfulness in every parish in the land. The churchwardens' accounts of the period witness a wholesale removal of the images, vestments, and vessels which had been the wonder of foreign visitors to the country, and in which the collective memory of the parishes were, quite literally, enshrined.

The replacement of altars by tables was the first objective of the English Protestants, and this was fully in line with what had taken place in continental Europe. Calvin taught that since Christ has accomplished His sacrifice once and for all, God “hath given us a table at which we are to feast, not an altar upon which any victim is to be offered: he hath not consecrated priests to offer sacrifices, but ministers to distribute the sacred banquet.” This was of course a direct contradiction of the traditional Christian teaching, handed down from the Apostles, that the Eucharist is a sacrifice – the renewal of the one Sacrifice of Calvary – as well as a sacred banquet. In the New Testament St. Paul uses the term “altar” (Heb. 13:10) as well as the term “table of the Lord” (1 Cor. 1:21) when referring to the Holy Eucharist. 121


On November 24, 1550, the King's Council ordered the destruction of all the altars throughout the kingdom. In the future the “Lord's Supper” was to be celebrated on a table covered with a cloth of linen. The most notorious altars masher in England and Wales was Nicholas Ridley, the Anglican Bishop of London. A letter sent to Ridley by the Council in the name of the King included certain “Reasons why the Lord's Board should rather be after the form of a Table than an Altar. ” Among the reasons given were the following: First, the form of a table shall more move the simple from the superstitious opinions of the Popish mass unto the right use of the Lord's Supper. For the use of an altar is to make sacrifice upon it: the use of a table is to serve for men to eat upon. A descendant of Bishop Ridley states, in a biography of his reforming ancestor, that the destruction of the altars was considered as sacrilege by the ordinary people and shocked them into a realization of the full extent of the revolution which had taken place. J. G. Ridley writes: The removal of altars brought home to every subject in the kingdom that the central object which had stood in the churches for over a thousand years, and which they had watched with awe every Sunday since their early childhood, was condemned as idolatrous and thrown contemptuously away by adherents of the new religion which had been forced upon them. How sad it is that countless Catholic bishops in our time have emulated Nicholas Ridley and thrown away contemptuously the altar which the faithful of their dioceses have watched with awe every Sunday since their early childhood.

The rite of Mass which had once been celebrated in the devastated sanctuaries was destroyed by the Protestant Reformers as ruthlessly and totally as the altars upon which it was celebrated. The sublime Latin prayers of the traditional Mass, which dated back to the sixth century and beyond, into the mists of antiquity, were replaced by an English service from which every specifically sacrificial prayer had been removed. Because the Mass is a solemn sacrifice offered to God by the priest in the person of Christ, many of the prayers addressed directly to God had been spoken inaudibly. The Protestant Lord's Supper was not a mystical sacrifice, a mystery, but a meal and a service of prayers and instruction, so it was mandated that every word spoken was to be heard by all the people. Communion on the tongue was replaced by Communion in the hand to make it clear that the bread received was ordinary bread and that the minister who distributed it was an ordinary man, not a priest. Communion under one kind was replaced by Communion under both kinds, because in every meal there should be both food and drink. Above all, the never-to-be-sufficiently-execrated eastward position of the celebrant at Mass was to be abandoned forever. One of the most appalling consequences of the change from a Latin to a vernacular liturgy was that it cut the Catholic people off completely from the entire liturgical and musical heritage of Western Christendom. Dr. Eamon Duffy comments: The switch from Latin to English immediately rendered obsolete the entire musical repertoire of cathedral, chapel, and parish church. Not least of the shocks brought on by the Prayer Book at Whitsun 1549 must have been the silencing of all but a handful of choirs and the reduction of the liturgy on one of the greatest festivals of the year to a monotone dialogue between curate and clerk. Has not this also happened today? At a time when young people in the West are flocking to record shops to buy compact discs by the millions of our Gregorian musical heritage, that heritage 122

has been banished from almost all the Catholic churches in the English-speaking world despite the fact that Vatican II mandated it as the norm for sung Masses. ( “Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy,” Art. 116). One wonders why so many bishops claiming to be loyal to the Council do not obey it in this important matter.128 Please answer questions 49 and 50 in the Survey Questions Booklet. NOT MANDATED BY VATICAN II This brings us at last to the Second Vatican Council, which was held in Rome in four sessions between the years 1962 and 1965. The teaching of the Council on liturgical reform is contained in its “Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy” – Sacrosanctum Concilium – which is dated December 4, 1963. What precisely does the Liturgy Constitution mandate regarding changes in our sanctuaries? The answer is brief and simple: Nothing! There is not a single word in the entire Liturgy Constitution of Vatican Council II requiring a single change to be made in a single sanctuary anywhere in the entire Catholic world. As very few Catholics have read the Liturgy Constitution, it will be useful to examine precisely what it actually mandated. By no possible stretch of the imagination can it be interpreted as mandating, sanctioning or even envisaging the virtual destruction of the traditional Roman Rite of the Mass or of the sanctuaries in which it was celebrated. The Liturgy Constitution contained stipulations which appeared to rule out the least possibility of any drastic remodeling of the traditional Mass or the sanctuaries in which it was celebrated. The Latin language was to be preserved in the Latin rites (Article 36), and steps were to be taken to ensure that the faithful could sing or say together in Latin those parts of the Mass that pertain to them (Article 54). All lawfully acknowledged rites were held to be of equal authority and dignity and were to be preserved in the future and fostered in every way (Article 4). The treasury of sacred music was to be preserved and fostered with great care (Article 114), and Gregorian chant was to be given pride of place in liturgical services (Article 116). There were to be no innovations unless the good of the Church genuinely and certainly required them (Article 23). The Council fathers thus had no fears that the immemorial rite of Mass, “The most beautiful thing this side of Heaven, ” according to Fr. Frederick Faber, would be subjected to revolutionary changes that would leave it virtually unrecognizable. They would never have voted for the reform that has been inflicted upon us. 129 Please answer question 51 in the Survey Questions Booklet. .

Those who exercised the greatest influence during Vatican II were not the Council fathers, the three thousand bishops and heads of religious orders who had come to Rome from all over the world, but the expert advisers they brought with them, referred to in Latin as the periti. Bishop Lucey of Cork and Ross stated explicitly that “the periti were the people with power. ” Cardinal Heenan warned that when the Council was over the periti were planning to use the Council documents in a manner which the Council fathers had not envisaged. The documents were to be interpreted and implemented by commissions to be established after the Council. Cardinal Heenan warned against the danger of the periti taking control of these commissions, thus gaining the power to interpret the Council to the world. “God forbid that this should happen! ” he cried – “but happen it did.”

128 129

Ibid., pp.6 -14 Ibid., pp. 16-18.



The commission established to implement the Liturgy Constitution was known as the Consilium, and it took the extraordinary step of asking six Protestants – six heretics – to advise them in drawing up their plans to reform the liturgy of the Mass, which has been the principal object of Protestant hatred since the time of Martin Luther. These Protestants played a very active part in all the discussions on the reform of the liturgy, as one of them confirmed in a letter to me. The fact that the Liturgy Constitution did not mandate any changes in the sanctuary did not in the least daunt the pseudo-liturgists once the Council was over and the bishops had returned to their dioceses. A seemingly endless series of documents was generated, and is still being generated, by the vast liturgical bureaucracy that has proliferated since the Council. 130

Where changes in the sanctuary are concerned, the first mention is found in the “Instruction on the Proper Implementation of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy” (Inter Oecumenici) published by the Sacred Congregation of Rites on September 26, 1964. This document is now generally referred to as the “First Instruction,” as others were to follow. Paragraph 90 of this document reads: In building new churches and in repairing or adapting old ones, care must be taken to ensure that they lend themselves to the celebration of the divine services as these are meant to be celebrated, and to achieve the active participation of the faithful. The Instruction claims that this is a quotation from Article 124 of the Liturgy Constitution but it is not. The Liturgy Constitution refers only to the building of new churches and makes no reference whatsoever to repairing or adapting existing buildings. It is this one word, “adapting”, inserted into the First Instruction, thus misquoting the Liturgy Constitution, which forms the basis of the altar-smashers' mandate. Having stated incorrectly that the Council authorized the adaptation of existing churches, the Instruction goes on in the very next paragraph, No. 91, to state: It is better for the high altar to be constructed away from the wall so that one can move round it without difficulty, and so that it can be used for a celebration facing the people. This is the first reference to Mass facing the people, and note well that it is only a suggestion that altars should be constructed away from the wall to make such a celebration possible. It does not actually recommend that Mass should ever be offered facing the people. In countries such as Holland, however, a veritable orgy of altar smashing was already underway, causing such scandal that in 1965 Cardinal Lercaro, President of the Consilium, found it necessary to write to the presidents of episcopal conferences stressing the fact that there was no pastoral necessity for Mass to be celebrated facing the people and expressing regret at the hasty and irreparable destruction of existing altars, violating values which should be respected. On May 25, 1967, in the Instruction Eucharisticum Mysterium published by the Sacred Congregation of Rites, it was stated specifically that “In adapting churches, care will be taken not to destroy treasures of sacred art” (par. 24).131

The next significant document is the “General Instruction on the Roman Missal,” published in April of 1969. Article 262 of this Instruction, while purporting to quote Article 91 of the First Instruction, actually misquotes it. Article 262 reads:
130 131

Ibid., pp. 19-21 Ibid., pp. 22-24


The high altar should be constructed away from the wall so that one can move round it without difficulty, and so that it can be used for a celebration facing the people. We thus have the suggestion found in the First Instruction, “It is better for the high altar to be constructed away from the wall” (“Praestat ut altare maius exstruatur a pariete seiuncturn.”) misquoted by omitting “Praestat ut” (“It is better that”) so that it becomes an implied command: “Altare maius exstruatur a pariete seiunctum.” (“The high altar should be constructed away from the wall.”). The Liturgy Constitution was thus misquoted in the First Instruction, and the First Instruction is misquoted in the General Instruction. However, despite this misquotation, by no possible stretch of the imagination can Article 262 of the General Instruction be interpreted as mandating the destruction of existing altars to make possible a celebration facing the people.132

There is, in fact, irrefutable proof that, whatever the intentions of the pseudo-liturgists the mind of the pope was that the New Mass should not be celebrated facing the people.133

Cardinal Ratzinger – who as head of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is second only to the pope in his authority in the Church – stated recently that the change to Mass facing the people was a mistake. Asked to comment, Paolo Portoghesi, one of the greatest architects in the world, with a specialized knowledge of ecclesiastical architecture, said he was in full agreement with the Cardinal and admired his courageous stand. It may well be that we are on the verge of a return to liturgical sanity, what Cardinal Ratzinger has termed “a reform of the reform.”134

Modern liturgists may claim that these changes bring us closer to the way the first Christians worshipped. This may be true, but as I have pointed out, the early Christians worshipped in the way they did – using a table, for example – because they were a persecuted minority, forbidden to build places of worship. Once the persecution ended, they built churches which were a fitting setting for the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, which was offered in an increasingly elaborate rite inspired by the desire to render the greatest possible glory to God, to whom all honor is due. The way one worships in a time of persecution cannot be considered the norm for a time of freedom. The theory that the older a liturgical practice is, the better it is, was condemned unequivocally by Pope Pius XII, the greatest and most erudite Pontiff of this century, who possessed an unrivaled knowledge of the principles of sound liturgy. In his encyclical Mediator Dei, published in 1947, he wrote: The liturgy of the early ages is worthy of veneration; but an ancient custom is not to be considered better, either in itself or in relation to later times and circumstances, just because it has the flavor of antiquity . . . The desire to restore everything indiscriminately to its ancient condition is neither wise nor praiseworthy . . . It would be wrong, for example, to want the altar restored to its ancient form of table; to want black eliminated from the liturgical colors, and pictures and statues excluded from our churches; to require crucifixes that do not represent the bitter sufferings of the divine Redeemer . . . This attitude is an attempt to revive the “archaeologism” to which the pseudo synod of Pistoia (1794) gave rise; it seeks also to re-introduce the many pernicious errors which led to that synod and resulted from it and which the Church, in Her capacity of watchful guardian of “the Deposit
132 133

Ibid., pp. 24-25. Ibid., p. 26. 134 Ibid., p. 27.



of Faith” entrusted to Her by Her divine Founder, has rightly condemned. It is a wicked movement that tends to paralyze the sanctifying and salutary action by which the liturgy leads the children of adoption on the path to their heavenly Father (pars. 65-68). Please answer question 52 in the Survey Questions Booklet. .

This condemnation of Pope Pius XII was aimed at an influential faction within the hitherto papally approved liturgical movement. Pope Pius did not hesitate to denounce in the strongest possible terms certain theories and practices promoted by this faction: “false, dangerous, pernicious, a wicked movement, a false doctrine that distorts the Catholic notion of faith itself.” One of the pernicious theses it promoted was that the impact of the Sacrifice of the Mass was lessened if Our Lord were already present in a tabernacle upon the altar. But in an address to a liturgical congress in Assisi in 1956, this great Pope warned that their true motivation was to lessen esteem “for the presence and action of Christ in the tabernacle.” He insisted, correctly, that “To separate tabernacle from altar is to separate two things which by their origin and nature should remain united. ” If this was true in 1956, it is still true today. There is not one word requiring the demoting of the tabernacle in any document of the Second Vatican Council.135 The first reference to the tabernacle in a document subsequent to the Liturgy Constitution occurs in the 1964 First Instruction on the Liturgy (Inter Oecumenici). As this document was published less than a year after the Liturgy Constitution and while the Council was still in session, it must certainly represent the thinking of the Council fathers. Article 95 of the document reads: The Blessed Sacrament is to be reserved in a solid, burglar-proof tabernacle in the center of the high altar or of another altar if this is really outstanding and distinguished. Where there is a lawful custom, and in particular cases, to be approved by the local ordinary, the Blessed Sacrament may be reserved in some other place in the church; but it must be a very special place, having nobility about it, and it must be suitably decorated. The next relevant document appears exactly a year later, on September 3, 1965, the encyclical Mysterium Fidei of Pope Paul VI. In this encyclical, which is a papal act and of greater authority than all the documents of Roman Congregations issued subsequently, Pope Paul VI, basing himself upon Canons 1268-1269 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law, stated: “Liturgical laws prescribe that the Blessed Sacrament be kept in churches with the greatest honor and in the most distinguished position.” Mysterium Fidei was published while the Council was still in session. It is thus beyond dispute that neither the teaching of the Liturgy Constitution nor the first two authoritative documents that deal with the sanctuary – both published while the Council was still in session – envisage the tabernacle being anywhere but in the center of the high altar or of another very distinguished altar, as the norm, except where it is already situated elsewhere by legitimate local custom.136

How tragic it is that the objectives of what Pope Pius XII condemned as a “wicked movement” are now [Ed: originally published in 1997] being imposed upon us as the norm for Catholic worship. See that your flocks are not deceived, he warned, “by a mania for restoring primitive usages in the liturgy.” It was under the guise of a return to the primitive that the Protestant Reformers were able to
135 136

Ibid., pp. 29-32. Ibid., pp. 33-34.


destroy the Mass. Today, in the service of false ecumenism, the Catholic ethos of our churches is being replaced by a Protestant ethos, precisely under the guise of a return to earlier practices. No good fruits have come from this ecumenical surrender. In no country in the western world have the changes been followed by an increase in fervor and piety among the faithful – only by a massive falling away from the faith. Msgr. Klaus Gamber certainly agrees with Cardinal Ratzinger that the change to Mass facing the people was a mistake. He has even stated that a return to traditional belief in the Eucharist will only come about with a return to the traditional altar: A real change in the contemporary perception of the purpose of the Mass and the Eucharist will occur only when the table altars are removed and Mass is again celebrated at the high altar; when the purpose of the Mass is again seen as an act of adoration and glorification of God and of offering thanks for His blessings, for our salvation and for the promise of the heavenly life to come, and as the mystical reenactment of the Lord's sacrifice on the cross. St. Richard Gwyn, a Welsh teacher and father of six children who was executed in 1584 for recusancy (refusal to attend Protestant services), looked upon the desecrated sanctuaries of Wales and remarked with sadness: Yn lle allor, trestyl trist – In place of an altar, there is a miserable table. God grant that the “miserable tables” that have replaced the traditional altars of sacrifice throughout the Catholic world will one day themselves be removed and replaced by traditional altars of sacrifice. God grant too that the traditional liturgy of the Mass will be restored together with the traditional altars, so that our priests can once again begin the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass with the timeless words, “Introibo ad altare Dei,” [“I will go in unto the altar of God”] and so that a manifestly sacrificial rite of Mass will be offered once more upon a manifestly sacrificial altar.137 [Thus ends the excerpt from The Catholic Sanctuary.] Bishop Athanasius Schneider – Five Wounds of the New Liturgy138 I –Turning our gaze towards Christ In order to speak of new evangelization correctly, it is necessary first to turn our gaze towards Him Who is the true evangelizer, namely Our Lord and Saviour Jesus-Christ, the Word of God made Man. The Son of God came upon this earth to expiate and redeem the greatest sin, sin par excellence. And this sin, humanity's sin par excellence, consists in refusing to adore God, in refusing to keep the first place, the place of honor, for Him. This sin on the part of man consists in not paying attention to God, in no longer having a sense of the fittingness of things, or even a sense of the details pertaining to God and to the Adoration that is His due, in not wanting to see God, in not wanting to kneel before God.
137 138

Ibid., pp. 41-42. Bishop Athanasius Schneider, “Bishop Schneider and the Liturgy: Milestones for the Third Millennium,” Paix Liturgique Newsletter No.26, (March 12, 2012). On 15 January 2012, the Parisian association Réunicatho, which came into being shortly after the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum, held its fourth meeting for Catholic unity. We here present an unabridged translation of the keynote address given by the conference's guest of honor, Bishop Athanasius Schneider, on the theme of "The Extraordinary Form and the New Evangelization." Bishop Schneider, who is auxiliary bishop of the archdiocese of Saint Mary of Astana and Secretary of the Kazakhstan Conference of Catholic Bishops, is the author of Dominus Est - It is the Lord!, Reflections of a Bishop of Central Asia on Holy Communion, published by Newman House Press. (Headings added by the editors)



For such an attitude, the incarnation of God is an embarrassment; as a result the real presence of God in the Eucharistic mystery is likewise an embarrassment; the centrality of the Eucharistic presence of God in our churches is an embarrassment. Indeed sinful man wants the center stage for himself, whether within the Church or during the Eucharistic celebration; he wants to be seen, to be noticed For this reason Jesus the Eucharist, God incarnate, present in the tabernacle under the Eucharistic form, is set aside. Even the representation of the Crucified One on the cross in the middle of the altar during the celebration facing the people is an embarrassment, for it might eclipse the priest's face. Therefore the image of the Crucified One in the center of the altar, as well as Jesus the Eucharist in the tabernacle, also in the center of the altar, are an embarrassment. Consequently, the cross and the tabernacle are moved to the side. During Mass, the congregation must be able to see the priest’s face at all times, and he delights in placing himself literally at the center of the house of God. And if perchance Jesus the Eucharist is still left in His tabernacle in the middle of the altar because the Ministry of Historical Monuments—even in an atheist regime—has forbidden moving it for the conservation of artistic heritage, the priest, often throughout the entire Eucharistic celebration, does not scruple to turn his back to Him. How often have good and faithful adorers of Christ cried out in their simplicity and humility: “God bless you, Ministry of Historical Monuments! At least you have left us Jesus in the center of our church.” II – The Mass is intended to give glory to God, not to men Only on the basis of adoring and glorifying God can the Church adequately proclaim the word of the truth, i.e., evangelize. Before the world ever heard Jesus, the eternal Word made flesh, preach and proclaim the Kingdom, He quietly adored for thirty years. This remains forever the law for the Church’s life and action as well as for all evangelizers. “The way the liturgy is treated decides the fate of the Faith and of the Church,” said Cardinal Ratzinger, our current Holy Father Benedict XVI. The Second Vatican Council intended to remind the Church what reality and what action were to take the first place in her life. This is the reason for which the first of the Council’s documents was dedicated to the liturgy. The Council gives us the following principles: in the Church, and therefore in the liturgy, the human must be oriented towards the divine and be subordinate to it; likewise the visible in relation to the invisible, action in relation to contemplation, the present in relation to the future city to which we aspire (see Sacrosanctum Concilium, 2). According to the teaching of Vatican II our earthly liturgy participates in a foretaste of the heavenly liturgy of the holy city of Jerusalem (ibid., 2). Everything about the liturgy of the Holy Mass must therefore serve to express clearly the reality of Christ’s sacrifice, namely the prayers of adoration, of thanks, of expiation, and of impetration that the eternal High Priest presented to His Father. The rite and every detail of the Holy Sacrifice of the mass must center on glorifying and adoring God by insisting on the centrality of Christ’s presence, whether in the sign and representation of the Crucified or in His Eucharistic presence in the tabernacle, and especially at the moment of the Consecration and of Holy Communion. The more this is respected, the less man takes center stage in the celebration, the less the celebration looks like a circle closed in on itself. Rather, it is opened out on to Christ as in a procession advancing towards Him with the priest at its head; such a liturgical procession will more truly reflect the sacrifice of adoration of Christ crucified; the fruits deriving from God’s glorification received into the souls of those in attendance will be richer; God will honor them more. The more the priest and the faithful truthfully seek the glory of God rather than that of men in Eucharistic celebrations and do not seek to receive glory from each other, the more God will honor 128

them by granting that their soul may participate more intensely and fruitfully in the Glory and Honor of His divine life. At present and in various places on earth there are many celebrations of the Holy Mass regarding which one might say, as an inversion of Psalm113:9: “To us, O Lord, and to our name give glory.” To such celebrations apply Jesus’ words: “How can you believe, who receive glory one from another: and the glory which is from God alone, you do not seek?” (Jn 5:44) III –The Six Principles of the Liturgical Reform The Second Vatican Council put forward the following principles regarding a liturgical reform: 1. During the liturgical celebration, the human, the temporal, and action must be directed towards the divine, the eternal, and contemplation; the role of the former must be subordinated to the latter (Sacrosanctum Concilium, 2). 2. During the liturgical celebration, the realization that the earthly liturgy participates in the heavenly liturgy will have to be encouraged (Sacrosanctum Concilium, 8). 3. There must be absolutely no innovation, therefore no new creation of liturgical rites, especially in the rite of Mass, unless it is for a true and certain gain for the Church, and provided that all is done prudently and, if it is warranted, that new forms replace the existing ones organically (Sacrosanctum Concilium, 23). 4. The rites of Mass must be such that the sacred is more explicitly addressed (Sacrosanctum Concilium, 21). 5. Latin must be preserved in the liturgy, especially in Holy Mass (Sacrosanctum Concilium, 36 and 54). 6. Gregorian chant has pride of place in the liturgy (Sacrosanctum Concilium, 116). The Council Fathers saw their reform proposals as the continuation of the reform of Saint Pius X (Sacrosanctum Concilium 112 and 117) and of the servant of God Pius XII; indeed, in the liturgical constitution, Pius XII’s Encyclical Mediator Dei is what is most often cited. Among other things, Pope Pius XII left the Church an important principle of doctrine regarding the Holy Liturgy, namely the condemnation of what is called liturgical archeologism. Its proposals largely overlapped with those of the Jansenistic and Protestant-leaning synod of Pistoia (see “Mediator Dei,” 63-64). As a matter of fact they bring to mind Martin Luther’s theological thinking. For this reason, already the Council of Trent condemned Protestant liturgical ideas, in particular the exaggerated emphasis on the notion of banquet in the Eucharistic celebration to the detriment of its sacrificial character and the suppression of univocal signs of sacrality as an expression of the mystery of the liturgy (see Council of Trent, session 22). The magisterium’s doctrinal declarations on the liturgy, as in this case those of the Co uncil of Trent and of the encyclical Mediator Dei and which are reflected in a centuries-old, or even milleniaold, liturgical praxis, these declarations I say, form part of that element of Holy Tradition that one cannot abandon without incurring grave spiritual damage. Vatican II took up these doctrinal declarations on the liturgy, as one can see by reading the general principals of divine worship in the liturgical constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium. As an example of a concrete error in the thought and action of liturgical action, Pope Pius XII cites the proposal to give to the altar the shape of table (Mediator Dei 62). If already Pope Pius XII refused the table-shaped altar, one imagines how much more he would have refused the proposal for a celebration around a table “versus populum!” When Sacrosanctum Concilium 2 teaches that, in the liturgy, contemplation has the priority and that the entire celebration must be oriented to the heavenly mysteries (ibid. 2 and 8), it is faithfully 129


echoing the following declaration of the Council of Trent: “And whereas such is the nature of man, that, without external helps, he cannot easily be raised to the meditation of divine things; therefore has holy Mother Church instituted certain rites, to wit that certain things be pronounced in the mass in a low, and others in a louder, tone. She has likewise employed ceremonies, such as mystic benedictions, lights, incense, vestments, and many other things of this kind, derived from an apostolic discipline and tradition, whereby both the majesty of so great a sacrifice might be recommended, and the minds of the faithful be excited, by those visible signs of religion and piety, to the contemplation of those most sublime things which are hidden in this sacrifice” (Session 24, chap. 5). The Church’s magisterial teachings quoted above, especially Mediator Dei, were certainly recognized as fully valid by the Fathers of the Council. Therefore they must continue to be fully valid for all of the Church’s children even today. IV –The five wounds of the liturgical mystical body of Christ In the letter to all the bishops of the Catholic Church that Benedict XVI sent with the 7 July 2007 Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum, the Pope made the following important declaration: “In the history of the liturgy there is growth and progress, but no rupture. What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too.” In saying this the Pope expressed the fundamental principle of the liturgy that the Council of Trent, Pope Pius XII, and the Second Vatican Council had taught Taking an unprejudiced and objective look at the liturgical practice of the overwhelming majority of churches throughout the Catholic world where the Ordinary Form of the Roman rite is used, no one can honestly deny that the six aforementioned liturgical principles of Vatican II are never, or hardly ever, respected, despite the erroneous claim that such is the liturgical practice that Vatican II desired. There is a certain number of concrete aspects of the currently prevailing liturgical practice in the ordinary rite that represent a veritable rupture with a constant and millennium-old liturgical practice. By this I mean the five liturgical practices I shall mention shortly; they may be termed the five wounds of the liturgical mystical body of Christ. These are wounds, for they amount to a violent break with the past since they deemphasize the sacrificial character (which is actually the central and essential character of the Mass) and put forward the notion of banquet. All of this diminishes the exterior signs of divine adoration, for it brings out the heavenly and eternal dimension of the mystery to a far lesser degree. Now the five wounds (except for the new Offertory prayers) are those that are not envisaged in the ordinary form of the rite of Mass but were brought into it through the practice of a deplorable fashion. (A) The first and most obvious wound is the celebration of the sacrifice of the Mass in which the priest celebrates with his face turned towards the faithful, especially during the Eucharistic prayer and the consecration, the highest and most sacred moment of the worship that is God’s due. This exterior form corresponds, by its very nature, more to the way in which one teaches a class or shares a meal. We are in a closed circle. And this form absolutely does not conform to the moment of the prayer, less yet to that of adoration. And yet Vatican II did not want this form by any means; nor has it ever been recommended by the Magisterium of the Popes since the Council. Pope Benedict wrote in the preface to the first volume of his collected works: “[t]he idea that the priest and the people in prayer must look at one another reciprocally was born only in the modern age and is completely foreign to ancient Christianity. In fact, the priest and the people do not address their prayer to one another, but together they address it to the one Lord. For this reason they look in the same direction in prayer: either towards the East as the cosmic symbol of the Lord’s return, or where this in not possible, towards an image of Christ in the apse, towards a cross, or simply upwards.” 130

The form of celebration in which all turn their gaze in the same direction (conversi ad orientem, ad Crucem, ad Dominum) is even mentioned in the rubrics of the new rite of the Mass (see Ordo Missae, 25, 133, 134). The so-called “versus populum” celebration certainly does not correspond to the idea of the Holy Liturgy as mentioned in the declaration of Sacrosanctum Concilium, 2 and 8. B) The second wound is communion in the hand, which is now spread nearly throughout the entire world. Not only was this manner of receiving communion in no way mentioned by the Vatican II Council Fathers, but it was in fact introduced by a certain number of bishops in disobedience to the Holy See and in spite of the negative majority vote by bishops in 1968. Pope Paul VI legitimized it only later, reluctantly, and under specific conditions. Pope Benedict XVI, since Corpus Christi 2008, distributes Communion to the faithful kneeling and on their tongue only, both in Rome and also in all the local churches he visits. He thus is showing the entire Church a clear example of practical Magisterium in a liturgical matter. Since the qualified majority of the bishops refused Communion in the hand as something harmful three years after the Council, how much more the Council Fathers would have done so! C) The third wound is the new Offertory prayers. They are an entirely new creation and had never been used in the Church. They do less to express the mystery of the sacrifice of the Cross than that of a banquet; thus they recall the prayers of the Jewish Sabbath meal. In the more than thousand-year tradition of the Church in both East and West, the Offertory prayers have always been expressly oriented to the mystery of the sacrifice of the Cross (see e.g. Paul Tirot, Histoire des prières d’offertoire dans la liturgie romaine du VIIème au XVIème siècle [Rome, 1985]). There is no doubt that such an absolutely new creation contradicts the clear formulation of Vatican II that states: “Innovationes ne fiant . . . novae formae ex formis iam exstantibus organice crescant” (Sacrosanctum Concilium, 23). D) The fourth wound is the total disappearance of Latin in the huge majority of Eucharistic celebrations in the Ordinary Form in all Catholic countries. This is a direct infraction against the decisions of Vatican II. E) The fifth wound is the exercise of the liturgical services of lector and acolyte by women as well as the exercise of these same services in lay clothing while entering into the choir during Holy Mass directly from the space reserved to the faithful. This custom has never existed in the Church, or at least has never been welcome. It confers to the celebration of the Catholic Mass the exterior character of informality, the character and style of a rather profane assembly. The second council of Nicaea, already in 787, forbad such practices when it lay down the following canon: “If someone is not ordained, it is not permitted for him to do the reading from the ambo during the holy liturgy” (can. 14). This norm has been constantly followed in the Church. Only subdeacons and lectors were allowed to give the reading during the liturgy of the Mass. If lectors and acolytes are missing, men or boys in liturgical vestments may do so, not women, since the male sex symbolically represents the last link to minor orders from the point of view of the non-sacramental ordination of lectors and acolytes. The texts of Vatican II never mention the suppression of the minor orders and of the subdiaconate or the introduction of new ministries. In Sacrosanctum Concilium no. 28, the Council distinguishes “minister” from “fidelis” during the liturgical celebration, and it stipulates that each may do only what pertains to him by the nature of the liturgy. Number 29 mentions the “ministrantes”, that is the altar servers who have not been ordained. In contrast to them, there are, in keeping with the juridical terms in use at that time, the “ministri,” that is to say those who have received an order, be it major or minor. V –The Motu Proprio: putting an end to rupture in the liturgy



In the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum, Pope Benedict XVI stipulates that the two forms of the Roman rite are to be regarded and treated with the same respect, because the Church remains the same before and after the Council. In the letter accompanying the Motu Proprio, the pope wishes the two forms to enrich each other mutually. Furthermore he wishes that the new form “be able to demonstrate, more powerfully than has been the case hitherto, the sacrality which attracts many people to the former usage.” Four of the liturgical wounds, or unfortunate practices (celebration versus populum, communion in the hand, total abandonment of Latin and of Gregorian chant, and intervention of women for the service of lectorship and of acolyte), have in and of themselves nothing to do with the Ordinary Form of the Mass and moreover are in contradiction with the liturgical principles of Vatican II. If an end were put to these practices, we would get back to the true teaching of Vatican II. And then, the two forms of the Roman rite would come considerably closer so that, at least outwardly, there would be no rupture to speak of between them and, therefore, no rupture between the Church before and after the Council either. As concerns the new Offertory prayers, it would be desirable for the Holy See to replace them with the corresponding prayers of the extraordinary form, or at least to allow for the use of the latter ad libitum. In this way the rupture between the two forms would be avoided not only externally but also internally. Rupture in the liturgy is precisely what the Council Fathers did not what. The Council’s minutes attest to this, because throughout the two thousand years of the liturgy’s history, there has never been a liturgical rupture and, therefore, there never can be. On the other hand there must be continuity, just as it is fitting for the Magisterium to be in continuity. The five wounds of the Church’s liturgical body I have mentioned are crying out for healing. They represent a rupture that one may compare to the exile in Avignon. The situation of so sharp a break in an expression of the Church’s life is far from unimportant — back then the absence of the popes from Rome, today the visible break between the liturgy before and after the Council. This situation indeed cries out for healing. For this reason we need new saints today, one or several Saint Catherine of Sienna. We need the “vox populi fidelis” demanding the suppression of this liturgical rupture. The tragedy in all of this is that, today as back in the time of the Avignon exile, a great majority of the clergy, especially in its higher ranks, is content with this rupture. Before we can expect efficacious and lasting fruits from the new evangelization, a process of conversion must get under way within the Church. How can we call others to convert while, among those doing the calling, no convincing conversion towards God has yet occurred, internally or externally? The sacrifice of the Mass, the sacrifice of adoration of Christ, the greatest mystery of the Faith, the most sublime act of adoration is celebrated in a closed circle where people are looking at each other. What is missing is “conversio ad Dominum.” It is necessary, even externally and physically. Since in the liturgy Christ is treated as though he were not God, and he is not given clear exterior signs of the adoration that is due to God alone because the faithful receive Holy Communion standing and, to boot, take it into their hands like any other food, grasping it with their fingers and placing it into their mouths themselves. There is here a sort of Eucharistic Arianism or SemiArianism. One of the necessary conditions for a fruitful new evangelization would be the witness of the entire Church in the public liturgical worship. It would have to observe at least these two aspects of Divine Worship: 1) Let the Holy Mass be celebrated the world over, even in the ordinary form, in an internal and therefore necessarily also external “conversio ad Dominum.” 132

2) Let the faithful bend the knee before Christ at the time of Holy Communion, as Saint Paul demands when he mentions the name and person of Christ (see Phil 2:10), and let them receive Him with the greatest love and the greatest respect possible, as befits Him as true God. Thank God, Benedict XVI has taken two concrete measures to begin the process of a return from the liturgical Avignon exile, to wit the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum and the reintroduction of the traditional Communion rite. There still is need for many prayers and perhaps for a new Saint Catherine of Sienna for the other steps to be taken to heal the five wounds on the Church’s liturgical and mystical body and for God to be venerated in the liturgy with that love, that respect, that sense of the sublime that have always been the hallmark of the Church and of her teaching, especially in the Council of Trent, Pope Pius XII in his encyclical Mediator Dei, Vatican II in its Constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium and Pope Benedict XVI in his theology of the liturgy, in his liturgical magisterium, and in the Motu Proprio mentioned above. No one can evangelize unless he has first adored, or better yet unless he adores constantly and gives God, Christ the Eucharist, true priority in his way of celebrating and in all of his life. Indeed, to quote Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger: “It is in the treatment of the liturgy that the fate of the Faith and of the Church is decided.” Bishop Athanasius Schneider, Réunicatho, 15 January 2012 The Popes Bring Back the Old Latin Mass Lex orandi, lex credendi: the way we pray determines the way we believe. This ancient axiom of the Church, which applies primarily to the Mass, cannot be forgotten today. It must be applied to the way the Church prays in the new vernacular Mass after Vatican II. And since the statistics clearly show that a loss of faith occurred in Catholics after the new Mass was initiated, then the new Mass must be suspect as a cause for that loss. It is probable that this cause–and–effect relationship has been recognized by recent popes as a significant factor in the decline of the Church, and prompted those popes to bring back the pre–Vatican II Mass. Pope John Paul II, in October, 1984, granted permission for the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass to be offered in Latin as it was celebrated in Catholic churches around the world for centuries until after Vatican II. In a later Apostolic Letter, Ecclesia Dei (July 2, 1988), his Holiness expanded these earlier directives, calling for their “wide and generous application.” Pertinent excerpts include the following: To all those Catholic faithful who feel attached to some previous liturgical and disciplinary forms of the Latin tradition, I wish to manifest my will to facilitate their ecclesial communion by means of the necessary measures to guarantee respect for their rightful aspirations. In this matter I ask support of the bishops and of all those engaged in the pastoral ministry in the Church. By virtue of my Apostolic Authority I Decree . . . respect must everywhere be shown for the feelings of those who are attached to the Latin liturgical tradition, by a wide and generous application of the directives already issued some time ago by the Apostolic See, for the use of the Roman Missal . . . of 1962. Pope John Paul’s plea to the bishops of the world for “wide and generous application” of his request for the return of the old Latin Mass was only a request, not Church law. It was therefore essentially ignored or given a token response by most Catholic bishops. In July, 2007, Pope Benedict XVI issued his Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum, which now is Church law, making 133


it licit for any priest to say the old Latin Mass at any time without the approval of the local Ordinary. Here are some significant passages from the pope’s instruction. Since time immemorial it has been necessary – as it is also for the future – to maintain the principle according to which “each particular Church must concur with the universal Church, not only as regards the doctrine of the faith and the sacramental signs, but also as regards the usages universally accepted by uninterrupted apostolic tradition, which must be observed not only to avoid errors but also to transmit the integrity of the faith, because the Church's law of prayer corresponds to Her law of faith.” (1) Art. 2. In Masses celebrated without the people, each Catholic priest of the Latin rite, whether secular or regular, may use the Roman Missal published by Bl. Pope John XXIII in 1962, or the Roman Missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI in 1970, and may do so on any day with the exception of the Easter Triduum. For such celebrations, with either one Missal or the other, the priest has no need for permission from the Apostolic See or from his Ordinary. Art. 4. Celebrations of Mass as mentioned above in Art. 2 may – observing all the norms of law – also be attended by faithful who, of their own free will, ask to be admitted. Art. 5.
Õ 1 In parishes, where there is a stable group of faithful who adhere to the earlier liturgical tradition, the pastor should willingly accept their requests to celebrate the Mass according to the rite of the Roman Missal published in 1962, and ensure that the welfare of these faithful harmonises with the ordinary pastoral care of the parish, under the guidance of the bishop in accordance with canon 392, avoiding discord and favouring the unity of the whole Church. Õ 2 Celebration in accordance with the Missal of Bl. John XXIII may take place on working days; while on Sundays and feast days one such celebration may also be held. Õ 3 For faithful and priests who request it, the pastor should also allow celebrations in this extraordinary form for special circumstances such as marriages, funerals or occasional celebrations, e.g. pilgrimages.

Art. 7. If a group of lay faithful, as mentioned in art. 5 Õ 1, has not obtained satisfaction to their requests from the pastor, they should inform the diocesan bishop. The bishop is strongly requested to satisfy their wishes. If he cannot arrange for such celebration to take place, the matter should be referred to the Pontifical Commission “Ecclesia Dei.” Please answer questions 53 and 54 in the Survey Questions Booklet. . Pope Benedict XVI stipulated that after three years all the bishops must report to him the progress made in implementing the legislation contained in Summorum Pontificum. A survey was conducted on-line in Britain, June 21-28, 2010, by Harris Interactive.139 There were eight-hundred British Catholic participants, from a sampling of 6,153 persons over the age of eighteen. Here are some of the results of the poll. In Great Britain as everywhere else, a strong proportion of Catholics would gladly attend the extraordinary form of the Roman rite if it took place right in their own parish. . . . In Great Britain, 43% of those who go to Mass every week would attend the traditional Mass if it were celebrated in their parish (Great Britain outstrips Italy, which until now held the record of 40% of weekly Mass goers answering that they would go to the traditional Mass every week if it were offered). The

British survey on Summorum Pontificaum, 21-28 June 2010, by Harris Interactive, reported on the Paix Liturgique website, accessed 2010/09/06,


result even reaches 66.4% (i.e. 2 out of 3) if one lumps together all those who attend Mass at least once a month, which is even more than in Italy (63% according to the 2009 Doxa survey). When one notes . . . that 60% of Catholics are not aware of the Motu Proprio’s existence, one can easily imagine that the aforementioned 66.4% of Mass goers would increase if awareness of the Motu Proprio were spread more broadly. In Great Britain as elsewhere, the wish of the faithful to see the Motu Proprio being applied seems in direct proportion to the opposition that the pope’s texts elicit among most bishops. Please answer questions 55 and 56 in the Survey Questions Booklet. .


Chapter 6 – Is the Church Necessary for Salvation?
Chapter 4 reviewed the warnings, causes and remedies of the current crisis based upon Church approved visions of the Mother of God and also on the encyclicals of several popes. Chapter 5 reviewed the role of the Novus Ordo Mass in the crisis. This chapter140 examines another major cause of the crisis: the modern teaching that the Church is not necessary for salvation, not necessary in the sense that there is salvation outside Her. This is an entirely new assertion that cannot be justified by recourse to either Sacred Scripture or infallibly defined dogma. How did this contradiction come about and why does it continue to exist in the minds of Catholics today? How Can the Truth about Our Salvation Be Known? Unity among Catholics in matters of faith cannot be restored without agreement that objective truth exists and can be known, and unless agreement is reached on how to know the truth, especially the truth about what we must do to be saved. This chapter first reviews what early twentieth century popes have said about the immutability of truth, what the Bible141 says about discerning truth, and the Church’s role in that discernment. Then, from the writings of the saints and doctors of the Church, and the infallible definitions of the popes and their encyclicals, it is shown that the literal meaning of the phrase, extra Ecclesiam nulla salus (outside the Church there is no salvation), is obvious, reasonable, defendable and infallibly defined by three popes. Unity on this fundamental dogma of the Church is therefore necessary for the restoration of unity and vitality in the Church. Necessarily, the foundation of Christian faith is truth. Faith based on untruths would be a false faith or no faith at all. It should be apparent that absolute moral truth exists and can be known because it is impossible that God, in His perfect justice, would establish requirements for the salvation of men and then fail to provide a way for those requirements to be known infallibly. Yet today it’s obvious that agreement on these requirements is not universal. This cannot be God’s will for His Church. The first and most fundamental reason for this disagreement is that the concept of objective, immutable truth has all but vanished in modern society. Highly regarded atheistic and agnostic philosophers (for example, Immanuel Kant, Georg Hegel, Alfred North Whitehead, John Dewey, Bertrand Russell and a host of others) have convinced people, Catholic priests as well as laity, that truth is whatever each person perceives it to be. Their philosophies have replaced Thomistic philosophy in the minds of Catholics. These philosophers teach that you can have your truth in a particular serious matter and I can have mine in that matter and the two understandings need not be the same. They teach that the truth depends on circumstances; that people's understanding of a truth can and will be contradictory, which is absurdity. Something cannot be both true and false in the same sense at the same time. They essentially teach that either truth does not exist or it cannot be known infallibly. In this they contradict the Church. But they have been believed, and this error has produced chaos in the world. Kant's agnostic philosophy asserts that whatever is universal and necessary in our knowledge must originate in the mind itself, and not from observation of the world of reality outside us. To him the idea, the phantasm in the mind, is the reality. This is a false philosophy that contradicts the Aristotelian philosophy extended by St. Thomas Aquinas to encompass divine revelation, which is taught perennially by the Church (see Philosophia Perennis, by Br. Francis Maluf, M.I.C.M., PhD).

140 141

This chapter was researched and written by the editor. Quotations in this chapter are from the Catholic Douay-Rheims Bible unless otherwise noted.



Hegel taught basically that history is a series of constant philosophical conflicts and that the highest state of mankind can only be attained through constant ideological conflict and resolution. These concepts resulted in the plagues of Marxist-Leninist Communism and, today, God-less one world government. Russell totally denied and hated Christianity and his errors fueled the current global horrors of free sex, contraception, abortion, homosexuality, and AIDS. Dewey’s Hegelian ideas produced the modern education trends that reject discipline in the classroom and dismiss homework, drill, repetition, recitation and memory-work as useless drudgery. Whitehead’s “Process Theology” rejects the existence of objective truth in favor of a continual process of human enlightenment, denying that God’s truths are “the same yesterday, today, and forever.” Thus, modern men, including most in the Church, seem to be mysteriously oblivious of the logical principle of non-contradiction and therefore live as though objective truth does not exist. Their own personal belief systems have been unknowingly corrupted by the fundamental thesis of the false philosophies of these atheists, namely, either there is no objective truth or it essentially cannot be known at any given point in time. But Christ and His Church teach differently. The popes have taught continuously that the philosophy of Saint Thomas is the perennial philosophy of the Church, that his metaphysics are without error, that his method, doctrine and principles must have the primacy of place. But many if not most modern Catholics, both lay and clerics, either know Saint Thomas by name only or believe that Thomism is narrow and rigid, and must be abandoned or modified to incorporate modern philosophical systems to make Catholicism relevant to modern man. This is Hegelian error, the heresy of Modernism, the belief that some portion of Catholic dogma must change over time; the belief that what the Church taught one-hundred years ago has to be given a new explanation, be retooled or repackaged into new “Catholic” teachings that can be accepted in the modern world. Against this world view, for the past one-hundred years the great popes – particularly Popes Saint Pius X, Pius XI and Pius XII – have warned against the failure to recognize the immutability of objective truth. Pope Saint Pius X, in his 1907 encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis against the Modernists said, “They pervert the eternal concept of truth.” And he issued his Syllabus of Errors in which he condemned sixty-five false doctrines of the Modernists. Three years later he issued his Oath Against Modernism which had to be taken by all clergy, preachers, religious superiors and professors in philosophical-theological seminaries. In this oath they had to publicly swear, I firmly hold, then, and shall hold to my dying breath the belief of the fathers in the charism of truth, which certainly is, was, and always will be in the succession of the episcopacy from the apostles. The purpose of this is, then, not that dogma may be tailored according to what seems better and more suited to the culture of each age; rather, that the absolute and immutable truth preached by the apostles from the beginning may never be believed to be different, may never be understood in any other way. Fourteen years later, in 1924, Pope Pius XI had to instruct the Holy Office (now the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) to condemn twelve false propositions of philosophy, then gaining sway among theologians and the clergy in general. One of these was that truth is simply the conformity of our intellect with life and its ever changing circumstances; truth is always in the state of “becoming.” In 1946, Pope Pius XII warned against the “New Theology” of the Jesuit Father Henri Boulliard who maintained that a theology that is not current and does not keep changing with the times will be a false theology. The Pope warned that the unity of the Faith, the unchangeable dogmas of the Catholic Faith, will be destroyed under this new theology, the main proponents of which were Fathers Dominique Chenu, Karl Rahner, Yves Conger and Henri De Lubac. 138

Absolute Moral Truth Exists

The warnings of modern popes against abandoning absolute truth have been noted. We are also assured by God in Sacred Scripture that truth exists. Jesus said to the Jews who followed him: John 8:32 You shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free. Jesus also said to Pilate: John 18:37-38 For this was I born, and for this came I into the world; that I should give testimony to the truth. Pilate saith to him: What is truth? Jesus gave no answer to Pilate, but He said to Thomas: John 14:6 I am the way, and the truth, and the life.
God Demands Truthfulness

Proverbs 12:22 Lying lips are an abomination to the Lord [an abomination is an object of great hatred]. Romans 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and injustice of those men that detain [suppress, in KJV] the truth of God. Psalms 5:7 Thou wilt destroy all that speak a lie. Sacred Scripture is full of these admonitions for truthfulness and against lies. See also Psalms 15:1-3 and 145:18, Zach. 8:16, Eph. 5:8-10 and 6:12-14, 1 Cor. 5:8, 1 Tim. 2:1-4, 2 John 1-6, 3 John 3-4, James 3:13-15, and many others.
God Hides the Truth from Those Who Do Not Love It

God hides the truth from those who do not love the truth given by the leaders of His Church and allows them to believe what is false. Rom. 11:7-8 That which Israel sought, he hath not obtained: the election [elect, RSV] hath obtained it, and the rest have been blinded: As it is written: God hath given them the spirit of insensibility: eyes, that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear, until this present day. See Isaiah 6:9 for the Old Testament verse Saint Paul is quoting. See also Is. 6:10, which says, “Blind the heart of this people, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes: lest they see with their eyes and hear with their ears and understand with their heart and be converted, and I heal them.” Rom. 11:9-10 And David saith: Let their eyes be darkened, that they may not see. See Psalm 68:24 for the Old Testament verse Saint Paul is quoting. Psalm 68 is the messianic Psalm prophesying the passion of Jesus. Saint Paul quotes Isaias and David to show that God blinds and withdraws His grace from those who refuse to acknowledge the truth, allowing them to believe falsehood. Jesus Himself confirmed the same to His disciples: Luke 8:9-10 And his disciples asked him what this parable might be. To whom he said: To you [the leaders of His new Church] it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God; but to the rest in parables, that seeing they may not see and hearing may not understand. And again St. Paul says: 2 Cor. 4:2-4 But we renounce the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness nor adulterating the word of God: but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience, in the sight of God. And if our gospel be also hid, it is hid to them 139


that are lost, In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of unbelievers that the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not shine unto them. 2 Thess. 2:8-11 And then that wicked one shall be revealed: whom the Lord Jesus shall kill with the spirit of his mouth and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: him whose coming is according to the working of Satan, in all power and signs and lying wonders: 10 And in all wicked deception to them that perish: because they receive not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. Therefore God shall send them the operation of error, to believe lying: 11that all may be judged [condemned] who have not believed the truth. Saint Paul is speaking about the anti-Christ and all deceivers preceding the anti-Christ. Sacred Scripture here says that God will hide the truth from those who do not love and believe it and will thus allow them to condemn themselves. Why does God do this? Because He wills that the truth should be known infallibly for all time through the leaders of His Church, as we shall now show. Truth Guaranteed by the One True Church of Jesus Christ Jesus, the Word of God, is truth, but He willed that His commandments be made known not personally to every man but primarily through His one true Church. He guaranteed infallible truth through the leaders of His Church when He said to Peter: Matt. 16:18-19 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, [singular, one Church, not many churches] and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven. An untruth, a lie, could never be bound in heaven, so Christ, the divine head of the Church, delegated authority over His earthly Church to Peter and promised to give infallible truth to that Church through Peter and his successors by sending them the Holy Ghost, the Paraclete, the spirit of truth. Jn. 15:26-27 But when the Paraclete cometh whom I will send you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceedeth from the Father, he shall give testimony of me. And you shall give testimony, because you are with me from the beginning. You, refers to the apostles who were with Christ “from the beginning.” The Holy Ghost gives truth to the Church through the apostles and their successors and the Church gives it to the world as Sacred Scripture says again: 1 Tim. 3:15 If I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the Church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth (RSV). A pillar supports the building. A bulwark is a fortified defensive wall. Therefore the Bible says that the Church (not the Bible) is the support and defense of the truth. Jesus reinforces this teaching thusly: Matt. 18:15-18 But if thy brother shall offend against thee, go and rebuke him between thee and him alone. If he shall hear thee, thou shalt gain thy brother. And if he will not hear thee, take with thee one or two more: that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may stand. And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican [condemned]. Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven. 140

You refers again to the apostles and those Jesus appointed leaders of His Church. And those who do not accept the God-given authority and teaching of the apostles and their successors despise Christ and despise His Father. Luke 10:16 He that heareth you heareth me: and he that despiseth you despiseth me: and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me. You, refers to the leaders of His Church, the ones who are to receive the truth from the Holy Spirit and teach it to the world, as Sacred Scripture confirms again: Acts 1:1-2, 8 The former treatise I made, O Theophilus, of all things which Jesus began to do and to teach, Until the day on which, giving commandments by the Holy Ghost to the apostles whom he had chosen . . . But you shall receive the power of the Holy Ghost coming upon you, and you shall be witnesses unto me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and Samaria, and even to the uttermost part of the earth. We see even more distinctly in this verse, that you refers “to the apostles,” and those Jesus appointed leaders of His Church. These verses reveal the central, indispensable role Christ gave His Church in proclaiming His truth. He gave His commandments to the apostles and their descendants, and they are to proclaim His truth “to the uttermost part of the earth,” as Sacred Scripture says again in another place: John 17:9, 17-21 I pray for them. I pray not for the world, but for them whom thou hast given me [the apostles and leaders of His Church]: As thou hast sent me into the world, I also have sent them into the world. And for them do I sanctify myself, that they also may be sanctified in truth. And not for them only do I pray, but for them also who through their word shall believe in me. That they all may be one, as thou, Father, in me, and I in thee; that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. Here again, Christ sanctifies them, the apostles and leaders of His Church, in the truth, and He prays for them also who through their word shall believe in Him. God gives the truth to the apostles; the apostles give the same truth to all men of the earth, totally united through the one, holy, catholic, apostolic, living, visible, true Church of Jesus Christ, which shall prevail against the gates of hell until the end of the world. There could not exist a more powerful analogy of the unity, the oneness, God requires of all men in and through His Church, than the oneness of God the Father and God the Son. We must be one in faith as God the Father and God the Son are one. There is only one true Church, but Sacred Scripture also says there can be false apostles working in false churches. 2 Cor. 11:13-15 For such false apostles are deceitful workmen, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no wonder: for Satan himself transformeth himself into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his [Satan’s] ministers be transformed as the ministers of justice, whose end shall be according to their works. Individual men can appear to be ministers of justice but actually be deceitful workmen. Individuals can be deceived. The Church cannot be deceived. Without the infallible truth of the teachings of the Church through the successors of Peter, Satan could do his evil work, unopposed, through false apostles and false workers in false churches. But the one true Church of Jesus Christ is holy and without blemish as Sacred Scripture tells us: Eph. 5:25-27 Husbands, love your wives, as Christ also loved the church and delivered himself up for It: That he might sanctify It, cleansing It by the laver of water in the word of life: That he might present It to himself, a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that it should be holy and without blemish. 141


The only way the Church can be composed of sinful men and yet be “holy and without blemish” is through the infallible truth guaranteed by Christ to the Church through Peter and his successors. This is according to the mind of God. This is God's way. This is the way defined in the Bible. This is the only way there can be one faith and one body in the Church as God commands. Christ is our head; we are His mystical body, the Church. A body can have only one head, a head only one body. Ephesians 4:4-6 There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of us all. There is only one true Church of Jesus Christ, and one of its functions as the pillar and bulwark of truth, is to interpret God's Word in order to give the one body the infallible truth about the one Faith. We can compare the authority of the Church to interpret the words of the Bible, which it created, with the authority that The Supreme Court of the United States has to interpret its Constitution. Without the Supreme Court there is no way to interpret the meaning of the Constitution in specific cases. Without a supreme court chaos and anarchy would result.142 Calvin taught that there is no visible Church; it is invisible. Yet, Sacred Scripture says: Matthew 5:14 You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hid. Christ likens the Church to a city set on a hill, something very visible, an organization which is now worldwide! Without a visible Church with infallible teaching and governing authority over men, God’s people will never be united in one faith as God commands: John 17:22-23 The glory which thou [Father] hast given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one, I in them and thou in me, that they may become perfect in one [perfectly one, KJV], so that the world may know that thou hast sent me and hast loved them even as thou hast loved me. Being perfectly one cannot mean being divided into literally thousands of different factions that cannot agree on what is truth, as Jesus warns: Matthew 12:25, 30 And Jesus knowing their thoughts, said to them: Every kingdom divided against itself shall be made desolate: and every city [church] or house divided against itself shall not stand. He that is not with Me is against Me, and he that gathereth not with Me scattereth. It is important to repeat here the arguments made earlier. Christ appointed Peter to watch over His one, true, visible, earthly Church: John 21:15, 17 Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Feed my lambs . . . Feed my lambs . . . Feed my sheep.” Matthew 16:18-19 And I [Christ] say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven. Christ gave Peter the keys to the gates of heaven. Keys are made to keep undesirable people out. The Jewish high priest wore the large keys to the Holy of Holies prominently on his breast as a sign of his authority to keep unauthorized people from going in. Christ gave to Peter the keys to the gates

Note: the decisions of the US Supreme court are fallible and can be changed or over-ridden by Congress, but when the Church teaches infallibly on the Bible, Her decision is without error and cannot be changed or over-ridden.


of heaven, the Holiest of Holies, and said He would abide by Peter's decisions about letting people in. Christ did not take back from Peter the keys to the gates of heaven. They are still locked, and because the gates of hell shall never prevail against God's one true Church, Peter's successors still have the keys. Conclusion: Everyone who wants to get into heaven must come to Peter's successors for the keys. No Salvation Outside the Church – Ex Cathedra Statements Those truths which the head of His Church has declared to be bound on earth and bound in heaven, as authorized by the words of Christ in Matthew 16:15-19, are called ex cathedra, a Latin phrase meaning “from the chair” (of Peter). The following infallible definitions by three popes state the Dogma of Faith, “outside the Church there is no salvation,” extra Ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS), a doctrine taught by Jesus Christ to His apostles, preached by the fathers of the Church, declared ex cathedra by the successors of Peter, and piously believed by the true faithful in every age of the Church.143 Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215 “There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which no one at all is saved.” Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctum, 1302 “We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441 “The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety, and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.” These are infallible definitions clearly stating God's will: Outside the Roman Catholic Church, there is no salvation. The words are plain, simple, and emphatic. Solemn infallible definitions are intended to clarify, to be clearly understandable, and not to be ambiguous. And in the case of this dogma, clarity was uniquely ensured by the three successive definitions of increasing detail, so that the meaning would be crystal clear and no ambiguity could be found in it. Yet the vast majority of modern Catholics today contradict these infallible statements, believing there is salvation outside the Church. Some may question why this dogma was solemnly defined by the popes only 1215 years after the birth of Christ. If true, why wasn't it defined in the early years of the Church? The answer is that the popes normally make solemn definitions only when a truth is seriously challenged. This truth was firmly believed from the beginning without serious challenge. Here’s the proof. Witness of Great Christian Writers of the Early Church The following are just a few passages from the works of great Christian writers from the earliest
143, The popes on Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, Ex Cathedra Statements, January 31, 2005, accessed November 10, 2010,



days of the Catholic Church, showing that the Church has always believed and taught this dogma. 144
Saint Irenaeus (died 202)

“[The Church] is the entrance to life; all others are thieves and robbers. On this account we are bound to avoid them. . . . We hear it declared of the unbelieving and the blinded of this world that they shall not inherit the world of life which is to come. . . . Resist them in defense of the only true and life giving faith, which the Church has received from the Apostles and imparted to Her sons.” (Against Heresies , Book III)
Saint Cyprian (died 258)

“He who has turned his back on the Church of Christ shall not come to the rewards of Christ; he is an alien, a worldling, an enemy. You cannot have God for your Father if you have not the Church for your mother. Our Lord warns us when He says: . . . ‘he that is not with Me is against Me, and he that gathereth not with Me scattereth.’ Whosoever breaks the peace and harmony of Christ acts against Christ; whoever gathers elsewhere than in the Church scatters the Church of Christ.” (Unity of the Catholic Church)
Lactantius (died 310)

“It is the Catholic Church alone which retains true worship. This is the fountain of truth, this is the abode of the faith, this is the temple of God; into which if anyone shall not enter, or from which if anyone shall go out, he is a stranger to the hope of life and eternal salvation. ” (The Divine Institutes)
Saint Augustine (died 430)

“No man can find salvation except in the Catholic Church. Outside the Catholic Church one can have everything except salvation. One can have honor, one can have the sacraments, one can sing alleluia, one can answer amen, one can have faith in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and preach it too, but never can one find salvation except in the Catholic Church.” (Sermo ad Caesariensis Ecclesiae Plebem)
Saint Fulgentius (died 533)

“Most firmly hold and never doubt that not only pagans, but also all Jews, all heretics, and all schismatics who finish this life outside of the Catholic Church, will go into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.” (Enchiridion Patristicum)
Pope Pelagius II (578 - 590)

“Consider the fact that whoever has not been in the peace and unity of the Church cannot have the Lord. . . .Although given over to flames and fires, they burn, or, thrown to wild beasts, they lay down their lives, there will not be (for them) that crown of faith but the punishment of faithlessness. . . .Such a one can be slain, he cannot be crowned. . . . [If] slain outside the Church, he cannot attain the rewards of the Church.” (Denzinger 246-47)
Saint Thomas Aquinas (died 1274)

“There is no entering into salvation outside the Church, just as in the time of the deluge there was none outside the ark, which denotes the Church.” (Summa Theologica)

144, The Fathers of the Church on Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, April 25, 2005, accessed November 11, 2010,


Saint Peter Canisius (died 1597)

“Outside of this communion – as outside of the ark of Noah –there is absolutely no salvation for mortals: not for Jews or pagans who never received the faith of the Church, nor for heretics who, having received it, corrupted it; neither for the excommunicated or those who for any other serious cause deserve to be put away and separated from the body of the Church like pernicious members . . . for the rule of Cyprian and Augustine is certain: he will not have God for his Father who would not have the Church for his mother.” (Catechismi Latini et Germanici) Witness of the Pre–Vatican II Modern Popes All the modern popes have also affirmed this fundamental dogma of the Catholic Church, although the Vatican II popes have not stated it as clearly and definitively as their predecessors, which has undoubtedly contributed to the current crisis. 145
Pope Leo XII (1823 – 1829)

“We profess that there is no salvation outside the Church. . . . For the Church is the pillar and ground of the truth. With reference to those words Augustine says: ‘If any man be outside the Church he will be excluded from the number of sons, and will not have God for Father since he has not the Church for mother.’” (Encyclical, Ubi Primum)
Pope Gregory XVI (1831 – 1846)

“It is not possible to worship God truly except in Her; all who are outside Her will not be saved.” (Encyclical, Summo Jugiter)
Pope Pius IX (1846 – 1878)

“It must be held by faith that outside the Apostolic Roman Church, no one can be saved; that this is the only ark of salvation; that he who shall not have entered therein will perish in the flood. ” (Denzinger 1647)
Pope Leo XIII (1878 – 1903)

“This is our last lesson to you; receive it, engrave it in your minds, all of you: by God ’s commandment salvation is to be found nowhere but in the Church.” (Encyclical, Annum Ingressi Sumus) “He scatters and gathers not who gathers not with the Church and with Jesus Christ, and all who fight not jointly with Him and with the Church are in very truth contending against God. ” (Encyclical, Sapientiae Christianae)
Pope Saint Pius X (1903 – 1914)

“It is our duty to recall to everyone great and small, as the Holy Pontiff Gregory did in ages past, the absolute necessity which is ours, to have recourse to this Church to effect our eternal salvation.” (Encyclical, Jucunda Sane)
Pope Benedict XV (1914 - 1922)

“Such is the nature of the Catholic Faith that it does not admit of more or less, but must be held as a whole, or as a whole rejected: This is the Catholic Faith, which unless a man believe faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.” (Encyclical, Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum)

145, The popes on Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus – Pre-Vatican II Modern popes, January 31, 2005, accessed November 11, 2010,



Pope Pius XI (1922 – 1939)

“The Catholic Church alone is keeping the true worship. This is the font of truth, this is the house of faith, this is the temple of God; if any man enter not here, or if any man go forth from it, he is a stranger to the hope of life and salvation . . . .Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ, no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors.” (Encyclical, Mortalium Animos)
Pope Pius XII (1939 – 1958)

“By divine mandate the interpreter and guardian of the Scriptures, and the depository of Sacred Tradition living within Her, the Church alone is the entrance to salvation: She alone, by Herself, and under the protection and guidance of the Holy Spirit, is the source of truth.” (Allocution to the Gregorian, October 17, 1953) Witness of the Vatican II Popes The Vatican II popes also affirmed the infallibly defined dogma, outside the Church there is no salvation. 146
Pope John XXIII (1958 – 1963)

“How beautiful is the Church of Christ, the ‘fold of the sheep!’ Into this fold of Jesus Christ no man may enter unless he be led by the Sovereign Pontiff, and only if they be united to him can men be saved. “Outside the true Catholic faith no one can be saved, so help me God!” (Coronation Homily, PTC:1556) Pope Paul VI (1963 – 1978) “Is the hierarchy perhaps free to teach what they find most to their liking on matters of religion, or what they expect will be most pleasing to the proponents of certain current views opposed to all doctrine? Certainly not! The prime duty of the episcopate is to transmit strictly and faithfully the original message of Christ, the sum total of the truths which He revealed and confided to the Apostles as necessary for salvation. “The means of salvation and sanctification are known by all men, and are necessary to everyone who wishes to be saved. “Not without sorrow can we hear people continually claiming to love Christ but without the Church; to listen to Christ but not to the Church; to belong to Christ but outside of the Church. The absurdity of this dichotomy is clearly evident in this phrase of the Gospel: ‘Anyone who rejects you, rejects me.’” Pope John Paul I (1978) “Jesus and the Church are the same thing; indissoluble, inseparable. Christ and the Church are only one thing. It is not possible to say: I believe in Jesus, I accept Jesus, but I do not accept the Church. “The ship of the Church is guided by Christ and by His Vicar. . . . It alone carries the disciples and receives Christ. Yes, it is tossed on the sea, but outside one would perish immediately. Salvation is only in the Church; outside it one perishes.”

146, The popes on Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus – Vatican II popes, January 31, 2005, accessed November 10, 2010,


Pope John Paul II (1978 – 2005) “As a sacrament of intimate union with God, the Church is in Christ, outside whom there is no salvation. “The mystery of salvation is revealed to us and is continued and accomplished in the Church, and from this genuine and single source, like “humble, useful, precious and chaste” water it reaches the whole world. Dear young people and members of the faithful, like Brother Francis [St. Francis of Assisi] we have to be conscious of and absorb this fundamental and revealed truth contained in the phrase consecrated by tradition: there is no salvation outside the Church. From Her alone there flows surely and fully the life giving force destined in Christ and in His Spirit, to renew the whole of humanity, and therefore directing every human being to become a part of the Mystical Body of Christ [the Church].” [And there is this very clear and powerful challenge which Pope John Paul II presented to thirtyfive American Archbishops in Rome, in March, 1989:] “We are the guardians of something given, and given to the Church universal [Catholic]; something which is not the result of reflection, however competent, on cultural and social questions of the day, and is not merely the best path among many, but the one and only path to salvation.” Pope Benedict XVI (2005 –) In his decree, Dominus Iesus, August 6, 2000, Pope Benedict XVI said, “If it is true that the followers of other religions can receive divine grace [actual grace is supposed, as Benedict XVI did not say sanctifying grace], it is also certain that objectively speaking they are in a gravely deficient situation in comparison with those who, in the Church, have the fullness of the means of salvation. However, “all the children of the Church should nevertheless remember that their exalted condition results not from their own merits, but from the grace of Christ. If they fail to respond in thought, word, and deed to that grace, not only shall they not be saved, but they shall be more severely judged.” In the document “Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church,”147 approved by Pope Benedict XVI and released on July 10, 2007, five questions were asked and answered, of which we quote the first: First Question: Did the Second Vatican Council change the Catholic doctrine on the Church? ” Response: The Second Vatican Council neither changed nor intended to change this doctrine, rather it developed, deepened and more fully explained it. This was exactly what John XXIII said at the beginning of the Council. Paul VI affirmed it and commented in the act of promulgating the Constitution Lumen Gentium: “There is no better comment to make than to say that this promulgation really changes nothing of the traditional doctrine. What Christ willed, we also will. What was, still is. What the Church has taught down through the centuries, we also teach.’ In simple terms, that which was assumed, is now explicit; that which was uncertain, is now clarified; that which was meditated upon, discussed and sometimes argued over, is now put together in one clear formulation.” The bishops repeatedly expressed and fulfilled this intention. [4]

Vatican website, Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church, not dated, accessed November 10, 2010,



Footnote four [4] referenced above was printed in Latin, even in the English translation of the document published on the Vatican website. Why not in English? Perhaps because the footnote explicitly states the traditional, infallibly defined dogma, “outside the Church no salvation,” and the framers of the documents of Vatican II wanted to downplay or minimize reference to this traditional teaching. But the traditionalists at least managed to get the teaching in a Latin language footnote in an English translation. This is a prime example of the attempt at Vatican II to distance the Church from Her traditional roots. Here is the English translation of footnote [4]:148
[4] The Council wished to express the identity of the Church of Christ with the Catholic Church. This is clear from the discussions on the decree Unitatis redintegratio. The Schema of the Decree was proposed on the floor of the Council on 23/9/1964 with a Relatio (Act. Syn. III/II 296-344). The Secretariat for the Unity of Christians responded on 10/11/1964 to the suggestions sent by bishops in the months that followed (Act. Syn. III/VII 11-49). Herewith are quoted four texts from this Expensio modorum concerning this first response. A. (In Nr. 1 {Prooemium} Schema Decreti: Act. Syn. III/II 296, 3-6) Page 5, lines 3-6: It also appears that the Catholic Church is found among those Communions, which would be false. The reply is made: Here only the fact, as it is viewed by all, is to be described. Afterwards it is clearly affirmed that the Catholic Church alone is the true Church of Christ . (Act. Syn. III/VII 12). [Ed. – And outside the one true Church of Jesus Christ there is no salvation ( Cantate Domino)]. B. (In Caput I in genere: Act. Syn. III/II 297-01) 4 – Let it be said more expressly that there is one sole true Church of Christ; that this is the Apostolic Roman Church; that all must seek to know Her and enter Her in order to obtain salvation[.] The reply is made: In the entire text what is demanded is adequately proclaimed. On the other hand it must also not be passed by in silence that in other Christian communities revealed truths and ecclesial elements are found. (Act. Syn. III/VII 15). Cf. also ibid. pt. 5. C. (In Caput I in genere: Act. Syn. III/II 296s) 5 – It should be said more clearly that the Roman Catholic Church alone is the true Church[.] The reply is made: The text presupposes the doctrine set out in the constitution ‘De Ecclesia’ (= Concerning the Church), as is affirmed on page 5, lines 24 – 25. (Act. Syn. III/VII 15). Thus the commission whose task it was to evaluate the responses to the Decree Unitatis redintegratio clearly expressed the identity of the Church of Christ with the Catholic Church and its unicity, and understood this doctrine to be founded in the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen gentium. D. (In Nr. 2 Schema Decreti: Act. Syn. III/II 297s) Page 6, lines 1 - 24: Let the unique nature of the Church be expressed more clearly. It is not enough to insist upon the unity of the Church, as is done in the text. The reply is made: a) The identification of the Church of Christ with the Catholic Church is clearly apparent from the entire text, although the ecclesial elements of other communities are declared, as should be done. Page 7, line 5: The Church governed by the successors of the Apostles with the successor of Peter as its head (compare the new text on page 6, lines 33 - 34) is explicitly described as ‘the sole flock of God’ and on line 13 as ‘the one, sole Church of God.’ (Act. Syn. III/VII). The two expressions quoted are those of Unitatis redintegratio 2.5 & 3.1.

148 website, What’s in that Footnote?, commentary on footnote [4] of the Vatican document Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church , translation by Br. André Marie, M.I.C.M., accessed November 11, 2010,


This is the end of the translation and discussion on the footnote. Indeed, this document affirms the infallibly defined dogma of the Church “There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved.” (Pope Innocent III, Fourth Latern Council, 1215.) ABC Action News on the Internet carried the following reference to an Italian newspaper article commenting on the document “Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church,” approved by Pope Benedict XVI and released on July 10, 2007. LORENZAGO DI CADORE, Italy, July 10, 2007 – Pope Benedict XVI reasserted the primacy of the Roman Catholic Church, approving a document released yesterday that says other Christian communities are either defective or not true churches and Catholicism provides the only true path to salvation. . . . It was the second time in a week that Benedict has corrected what he says are erroneous interpretations of the Second Vatican Council, the 1962-1965 meetings that modernized the Church.149 USCCB Committee on Doctrine, 2007: A recent document written by Bishop William Lori, representing the Committee on Doctrine of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), also affirms the EENS dogma. The document refutes the teaching of the book by Father Peter Phan, in which he claims there is salvation outside the Roman Catholic Church. Father Phan is also being investigated by a former president of the Catholic Theological Society of America. The title of Bishop Lori's document is: “Clarifications Required by the Book Being Religious Interreligiously: Asian Perspectives on Interfaith Dialogue, by Reverend Peter C. Phan.” The Father Phan book asserts that it is not necessary to preach the Gospel to non-Christians because they can be saved in their own faith. Bishop Lori’s document has two very significant headings pertaining to Father Phan’s doctrinal error: “Jesus Christ as the unique and universal Savior of all mankind” and “The Church as the unique and universal instrument of salvation.” 150 Something that is “unique” is one of a kind, the only one, and “universal” means it applies to everyone. This document by the Committee on Doctrine of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) affirms the unique and universal nature of the Church: outside of Her there is no salvation. USCCB Revises US Catholic Catechism, 2008: The US bishops have voted to ask the Vatican to approve a small change in the US Catholic Catechism for Adults to clarify church teaching on God's covenant with the Jewish people. The change, which must be confirmed by the Vatican Congregation for Clergy, would remove from the catechism a sentence that reads: “Thus the covenant that God made with the Jewish people through Moses remains eternally valid for them.” Replacing it would be this sentence: “To the Jewish people, whom God first chose to hear His word, belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ” (Rom 9:4-5; cf. CCC, No. 839). “Talking points” distributed to the bishops with the change said the proposed revision “is not a change in the church's teaching.” [Ed. – No, the proposed revision is not a change in the Church’s teaching but the original

ABC Action News, Pope: Other Christians Not True Churches, July 10, 2007, accessed February 3, 2011, 150 John L. Allen, Jr., “Breaking News: Vatican, bishops investigating Georgetown theologian Phan,” National Catholic Reporter Newspaper, September 12, 2007, accessed January 3, 2011,



text in the US catechism was. The original text had to be removed because it could have been understood to at least imply an erroneous statement of the Church’s teaching.] “Catholics understand that all previous covenants that God made with the Jewish people have been fulfilled in Jesus Christ through the new covenant established through his sacrificial death on the cross,” the talking points say. “The prior version of the text,” they continue, “might be understood to imply that one of the former covenants imparts salvation without the mediation of Christ, whom Christians believe to be the universal savior of all people.”151 Look at the proposed revision to the catechism. Does it clearly state and clarify the issue made in the “talking points” distributed to the bishops, namely that a Jew cannot be saved by the old Mosaic covenant but must accept Christ as his God, his Messiah, his Savior in order to attain eternal salvation? No. The revision removes the implied heresy but it totally evades a statement of the truth that needs to be communicated. The real question goes unanswered in the catechism. This is an example of ambiguity and the evasion of infallibly defined truth in modern Church documents. It is incontrovertible that God in His infinite justice could not fail to make known infallibly the requirements that He places on every soul for its salvation. It has been shown from Sacred Scripture, the writings of the saints and the infallible definitions of the popes and their encyclicals, that the literal interpretation of the Church’s dogma, extra Ecclesiam nulla salus, EENS, outside the Church there is no salvation, is reasonable and defendable. The great Christian writers from the early Church to popes of the twentieth century held the literal interpretation of this dogma and the popes after Vatican II have declared that no change has occurred in the modern Church’s teaching on the necessity of being in the Catholic Church to be saved.
The Understanding of Non-Catholic “Christian” Churches

Let’s look at how those outside the Catholic Church understood what the Church taught about Herself. The non-Catholic “Christian” churches have always known and understood that the Roman Catholic Church teaches there is no salvation outside Her. Always known, that is, until Vatican II which, they say, changed that understanding. Let us see how the Protestants understood Vatican II. For this understanding we go to a website claiming to be an unbiased source of information on all Christian and non-Christian religions.152 Here is their statement: This Chapter discusses the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church concerning other denominations within Christianity, other religions, ethical groups, philosophies, and spiritual paths. The main topics dealt with are:  How the Catholic Church views the legitimacy and authority of these other faith traditions, and  Whether the Catholic Church believes that the members of these other groups have a chance of being saved. The Catholic Church teaches that individuals who are not saved spend eternity after death being tortured in hell with no hope of relief. The historical teaching of the Roman Catholic Church was “Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus” (Outside the Church, there is no salvation). That is, for a person to be saved – and avoid Hell – it is absolutely necessary that they be subject to the pope. All Muslims, Buddhists,

Nancy Frazier O’Brien, “Bishops vote to revise US catechism on Jewish covenant with God,” Catholic News Service/US Conference of Catholic Bishops, 08/12/2008, accessed February 2, 2011, 152 Religious Tolerance website, “Catholic Views of Other Faith Groups,” Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance, accessed November 26, 2011,


Hindus, and followers of other non-Christian religions were destined for hell. All members of Protestant, Anabaptist, Mormon, and other Christian denominations were headed there as well. This position was moderated significantly by two documents written in the late twentieth century:  The Second Vatican Council's Declaration on the Relation of the Church to NonChristian Religions, issued in 1976.  “Dominus Iesus” written by Pope Benedict XVI in the year 2000 when, as Cardinal Ratzinger, he was the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. These documents state that Jesus created only a single church, now comprising the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Churches. Other Christian denominations are not considered “proper” churches; they suffer from “defects.” Religions other than Christianity are considered to be “gravely deficient.” Their rituals can constitute “an obstacle to salvation” for their followers. Still, the Catholic Church now recognizes that it is possible for some individuals who are neither Catholic nor Orthodox to attain Heaven. Notice that no quotations from either of the two documents are cited to support their conclusion that the Church’s position has changed on this issue. But because the language of the modern Church is no longer the precise Thomistic language of Scholastic philosophy, error or ambiguity has crept into Her documents, as the understanding of them by this Protestant source reveals. They can also quote the new Catechism of the Catholic Church to strengthen their contention that the Church has changed Her position. But as shown previously, the modern popes have said that Vatican II did not change the Church’s understanding of Herself. What the Church now teaches about Herself is the same as it has always taught in every age in the past. Outside of Her there is no salvation. No pope could change that which has been infallibly defined. The following excerpt from an article published in July, 2007, by the worldwide Protestant Reformed Church complains about Pope Benedict XVI claiming the Catholic Church is the one and only true Church of Jesus Christ. Christian leaders have challenged the Vatican’s claim that the Catholic Church is t he only true church of Jesus Christ. In a letter addressed to Cardinal Walter Kasper, President of the Pontifical Council of Christian Unity, the Rev. Dr. Setri Nyomi, General Secretary of the World Alliance of Reformed Churches (WARC), questioned the Vatican’s statement at a time when unity is at the forefront of the global church agenda. The Vatican reaffirmed that only the Roman Catholic Church is “the one true Church of Christ” in a corrective document released Tuesday, ratified by Pope Benedict XVI, according to Agence France-Presse.153 A Table of Non-Catholic “Christian” Church Origins It is a historical fact that Our Lord Jesus Christ founded His Church in the year AD 33. The following chart shows the founding date of many other churches, most of whom consider themselves Christian. With the exception of the first church in the list, the Roman Catholic Church, none of them can claim the charism of infallibility given by Christ to Peter and his successors to protect His Church from error in the teaching of Faith and morals. It has been declared infallibly by this “pillar

Ethan Cole, “Christian Leaders Rebut Vatican’s ‘One True Church’ Claim,” Christian Today, July 12, 2007, accessed February 21, 2011,



and bulwark of truth,” the Roman Catholic Church, that only in Her can salvation be found. None of the other churches in the list has any claim to infallible truth with which to contradict or refute this fundamental Roman Catholic doctrine.
WHAT IS THE HISTORY OF YOUR CHURCH? CHURCH Catholic Orthodox Lutheran Anabaptist Anglican Mennonites Calvinists Presbyterian Congregational Baptist Dutch Reformed Congregationalist s Quakers Amish Freemasons Methodist Unitarian Methodist Episcopal Episcopalian United Brethren Disciples of Christ Mormon United Methodist Protestant Churches of Christ Seventh Day Adventists Christadelphian, A.K.A. Brethren of Christ Salvation Army Holiness Jehovah's Witnesses YEAR MADE 33 1054 1517 1521 1534 1536 1555 1560 1582 1609 1628 1648 1649 1693 1717 1739 1774 1784 1789 1800 1827 1830 1830 1836 1844 1844 1865 1867 1867 FOUNDER Jesus Christ Certain Catholic bishops Martin Luther Nicholas Storch & Thomas Munzer Henry VIII Menno Simons John Calvin John Knox Robert Brown John Smith Michaelis Jones Pilgrims & Puritans Massachusetts George Fox Jacob Amman Masons from four lodges John and Charles Wesley Theophilus Lindley sixty preachers Samuel Seabury Philip Otterbein and Martin Boehm Thomas and Alexander Campbell Joseph Smith Methodists Warren Stone and Alexander Campbell Ellen White John Thomas William Booth Methodists Charles Taze Russell

WHERE Jerusalem Constantinople Germany Germany England Switzerland Switzerland Scotland Holland Amsterdam New York Massachusetts England France London England London Baltimore, MD American Colonies Maryland Kentucky New York USA Kentucky Washington, NH Richmond, VA London United States Pennsylvania


John Salza, “WHAT IS THE HISTORY OF YOUR CHURCH?” Scripture Catholic, accessed September 10, 2010,


Christian 1895 Mary Baker Eddy Science Church of God in 1895 Various churches Christ of God God Church of c.1850 Various religious Nazarene -1900 bodies Pentecostal Aglipayan Assemblies of God Iglesia Ni Christo Four-square Gospel United Church of Christ Calvary Chapel United Methodist Born-again Harvest Christian Christian and Missionary Alliance Saddleback Nondenominational 1901 1902 1904 1914 1917

Boston Arkansas Pilot Point, TX

Charles F.Parkham Topeka, KS Gregory Aglipay Pentecostals Felix Manalo Philippines Hot Springs, AZ Philippines Los Angeles, CA Philadelphia, PA Costa Mesa, CA Dallas, TX United States Riverside, CA Colorado Springs, CO California United States

Aimee Semple McPherson 1961 Reformed and Congregationalist 1965 Chuck Smith 1968 Methodist and Evangelical United Brethren churches c.1970 Various religious bodies 1972 Greg Laurie 1974 Albert B. Simpson

1982 Rick Warren c.1990 Various

Please answer questions 57 through 61 in the Survey Questions Booklet. . Baptism of Desire? What is baptism of desire and how does it operate?155 Opinion in the Church has not been unanimous. The controversy over baptism of desire concerns primarily the interpretation of Our Lord’s words in John 3:5 (see following) in which Jesus said that the Sacrament of Baptism is a requirement for entrance into heaven. This requirement for salvation was also defined infallibly by the Council of Trent. Yet the fathers and doctors of the Church have considered the possible occurrence of a person who desires Baptism but is prevented by death from receiving the sacrament. This is the issue of baptism of desire. The Council of Trent did not define baptism of desire, but it did make pronouncements that relate to the proper understanding of the concept of baptism of desire. It is necessary to review that understanding because Progressivist theologians have erroneously used baptism of desire as the basis for their motivation for and promotion of the heresy of universal salvation (see more following). The Mission of the Church


Baptism of desire would more aptly be called “desire for Baptism” (a phrase used by the Council of Trent) or the vow or the intention to receive the Sacrament of Baptism, although the phrase baptism of desire ( desiderio) is used by St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Alphonsus de Ligouri, St. Robert Bellarmine and other fathers and doctors of the Church. St. Thomas more often uses the phrase “desire for Baptism.”



And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. Going therefore, teach ye all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. And behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world (Matthew 28:18-20). This is the mission Jesus gave His Church before He ascended into heaven; to teach and baptize. And of all the things He commanded during His life on earth, the only thing He specifically reminded them to teach before He departed was to baptize. It is still the mission of the Church today. And, regarding baptizing them, Jesus said, “Except a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God” (John 3:5). How does the Church explain the words of Our Lord in John 3:5? The Council of Trent quotes twice this verse, once explaining the word “water” as being “true and natural water” (Denzinger 858), and the other time explaining the words “except a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost” as expressing the necessity of the water “re aut voto” – Latin for “in fact or in desire” (or more precisely vow, voto means vow). Here are the words of Trent, Session 6, Chapter 4. After the promulgation of the Gospel this passing (from sin to justice) cannot take place without the laver of regeneration (can. 5 de bapt.), or a desire for it, as it is written: “except a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God” (see Denzinger 796 and 847). Therefore, the Trent fathers’ understanding of the words of John 3:5, “Except a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God,” is not the literal meaning of the words without exception but, rather, the meaning is either (1) Baptism as defined in Canon 5 of Session 7 is sufficient for justification of the sinner, or (2) a desire for it (a vow to receive it) is sufficient for justification of the sinner. Trent on the Grace of the Sacrament We must now consider the relationship between salvation and justification. Trent defines justification as the transition from the state of original or mortal sin to the state of sanctifying grace. Session 6 of Trent is replete with references to the importance of Faith and the grace flowing from it, in the justification of a person desiring to enter the Church. Trent states infallibly that this sanctifying grace in the soul at the moment of death is necessary for salvation, as shall be shown by what follows. Father Rahner’s anonymous Christian has not expressed a desire to enter the Church, does not have Catholic Faith in his heart, does not have sanctifying grace in his soul, and therefore would not be saved should he die in that state. Here are references from Trent affirming this truth. Chapter 2 of Session 6 states: Him [Jesus] has God proposed as a propitiator through Faith in His Blood. A propitiator is one who appeases or reconciles. Here Trent is saying that the sinner is reconciled with God through Faith in the Blood of Jesus Christ. Catholic Faith in the saving Blood of Jesus Christ is necessary for justification and salvation. The necessity, also, of spiritual rebirth for salvation, is found in the following statement from Session 6, Chapter 3, on being born again by the grace of the sacrament. But although Christ died for all [II Cor. 5:15], yet not all receive the benefit of His death, but those only to whom the merit of His passion is communicated. [Communicating to the sinner Catholic Faith in the saving passion and death is necessary to receive the propitiatory 154

benefit of Christ’s saving passion and death. Without that Faith there is no salvation.] For, as indeed men would not be born unjust, if they were not born through propagation of the seed of Adam, since by that propagation they contract through him, in conception, injustice as their own, so unless they were born again in Christ, they never would be justified [can. 2 and 10], since in that new birth through the merit of His passion, the grace, whereby they are made just, is bestowed upon them. (Denzinger 795) Also in Chapter 3, [If] they were not born again in Christ, they would never be justified, since in the new birth there is bestowed upon them, through the merit of His passion, the grace by which they are made just. In Chapter 4, [In] adults the beginning of that justification must proceed from the predisposing grace of God through Jesus Christ. [And,] That they who by sin have been cut off from God, may be disposed through His quickening [life giving] and helping grace to convert themselves to their own justification, assenting to and cooperating with that grace.”[The sinner must assent to and cooperate with God’s grace to be justified.] Nor yet is he able by his own free will and without the grace of God to move himself to justice in His sight. Most importantly, in the statement from Session 6, Chapter 6, on justification by the grace of the sacrament we have, Now they [adults] are disposed to that justice [can. 7 and 9] when, aroused and assisted by divine grace, receiving Faith “by hearing” [Rom. 10:17 – Trent says the sinner must hear the preached Faith to be justified.], they are freely moved toward God, believing that to be true which has been divinely revealed and promised [can. 12 and 14], and this especially, that the sinner is justified by God through His grace, “through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus” (Rom. 3:24) . [Denzinger 798] And, [they are disposed to that justice] finally, when they resolve to receive Baptism[.] In Chapter 7, This disposition or preparation is followed by justification itself, which is not only the remission of sins but also the sanctification and renewal of the inward man through the voluntary reception of the grace and gifts whereby an unjust man becomes just. [The sinner must voluntarily, of his own free will, assent to receiving the grace of justification. This sanctifying grace cannot be received anonymously or unknowingly as Father Rahner claims. This Faith, conformably to Apostolic tradition, catechumens ask of the Church before the sacrament of Baptism, when they ask for the Faith that gives eternal life. “The Faith that gives eternal life” is the key to understanding the concept of baptism of desire. Salvation, “eternal life,” comes through Faith, the Catholic Faith. Without Catholic Faith there is no justification and hence no salvation. In Chapter 6 we learned that man is disposed to justice (i.e., is disposed to receiving sanctifying grace) when he resolves to receive Baptism. Here in Chapter 7 we learn that after being disposed to justice by resolving to receive Baptism, man receives the Faith that gives eternal life. Catholic Faith is necessary for eternal life. In Chapter 8, But when the Apostle says that man is justified by Faith and freely, these words are to be 155


understood in the sense in which the uninterrupted unanimity of the Church has held and expressed them, namely, that we are therefore said to be justified by Faith, because Faith is the beginning of salvation, without which it is impossible to please God . . . and we are said to be justified gratuitously, because none of those things that precede justification, whether Faith or works, merit the grace for justification. So, in Chapter 8 we learn that man is justified i.e., receives sanctifying grace gratuitously, when he asks for the Faith that gives eternal life. These initial chapters in Session 6 repeatedly state that the reception of Catholic Faith is necessary for the reception of sanctifying grace, which leads to justification and is necessary in the soul at the moment of death for salvation. In Chapter 11, For God does not forsake those who have been justified by His grace, unless He first be forsaken by them.” Chapter 16 speaks of the fruit of justification and the sufficiency of sanctifying grace in the soul for meriting eternal life, i.e., for salvation. It states that for one who is justified and perseveres to the end in sanctifying grace, nothing more is wanting unto salvation. Here is the text. [We] must believe that to those justified, nothing more is wanting from being considered [can. 32] as having satisfied the divine law by those works which have been done in God according to the state of this life, and as having truly merited eternal life to be obtained in its own time (if they shall have departed this life in grace)[.] (Denzinger 809) God, in His infinite justice and mercy, could not forsake the unbaptized catechumen who, having vowed to receive the sacrament of Baptism, dies in the state of sanctifying grace received when he was justified through hearing, having accepted in his heart the saving message of Jesus Christ and having Faith in Him. Has such a hypothetical catechumen ever existed? Only God knows. But if it has ever happened, then the occurrence must have been very rare because of the difficulty of satisfying all the necessary conditions. Therefore, we see clearly that it would be contrary to the teaching of the Council of Trent to extrapolate from the salvation of a hypothetical unbaptized catechumen with Catholic Faith in his heart and sanctifying grace in his soul at the moment of death, to the salvation of the “anonymous Christian” of Father Karl Rahner or the unqualified statement of #1250 of the new Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) “every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church . . . can be saved.” And it would also be contrary to the three infallible definitions of extra Ecclesiam nulla salus, outside the Church there is no salvation.” As noted previously, the statements of Father Rahner and the CCC are not infallible. Catechisms may contain an imprimatur but an imprimatur can be revoked and catechisms revised. Infallible papal definitions and infallible dogmatic definitions of the ecumenical councils of the Catholic Church cannot be revoked or revised and their definitions must always be understood in the same sense they have always been understood by the tradition of the Church. Please answer questions 62 through 64 in the Survey Questions Booklet. .


Chapter 7 – Vitality in Traditional Catholicism
Increase of Vocations in Traditional Religious Orders This Chapter examines the continuing vitality (especially in the growing number of priests and seminarians) existing in those groups of traditional Catholics who use the pre–Vatican II Latin Mass and heed the warnings and follow the direction of the popes quoted in this book. These groups prove the viability and value of adhering to the traditional Latin Mass and The Papal Plan for Restoration. The Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX) Regarding the importance of the traditional Latin Mass, it is necessary to first write about the one organization which, more than any other, has promoted and perpetuated the use of that Mass; the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX or FSSPX). It is difficult to envision how the traditional Latin Mass would have survived had it not been for the SSPX keeping it alive after Vatican II. At the very least we can say that, in the number of Masses offered, the SSPX has been the major promoter of the Latin Mass since Vatican II. Since Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI have both taken steps toward reinstating the pre-Conciliar Mass, it seems now that the SSPX mission to preserve Catholic tradition has been beneficial for the Church. Yet before Summorum Pontificum, most Catholics would have said that those in the SSPX and those who attend their Masses had separated themselves from the Catholic Church and the pope. This is fundamentally not true. Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos was the first president of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei (PCED), the commission given jurisdiction by Pope Benedict XVI over matters relating to the traditional Latin Mass. It is responsible for enforcing ecclesial law contained in Summorum Pontificum, the July 2007 Motu Proprio of Pope Benedict XVI, reinstating the traditional Latin Mass in all dioceses of the world. In his February 8, 2007, interview, in the German publication Die Tagespost, Cardinal Hoyos said, The bishops, priests and faithful of the Society of St Pius X are not schismatics. It is Archbishop Lefebvre who had undertaken an illicit episcopal consecration and therefore performed a schismatic act. It is for this reason that the bishops consecrated by him have been suspended and excommunicated. The priests and faithful of the Society have not been excommunicated. They are not heretics.156 As evidenced from the following, taken from the Internet Home Page of their website, the SSPX does not conduct itself as a schismatic organization. The Society of St. Pius X professes filial devotion and loyalty to Pope Benedict XVI, the Successor of Saint Peter and the Vicar of Christ. The priests of the SSPX pray for the intentions of the Holy Father and the welfare of the local Ordinary at every Mass they celebrate. Late in 2006, at the request of SSPX leader Bishop Bernard Fellay, the SSPX began praying rosaries for Pope Benedict XVI. They prayed 2.5 million rosaries for the pope in 2006.157 Then a Crusade of 12 million rosaries was requested by Bishop Fellay in 2009. The final results reported to Pope Benedict XVI for that Rosary Crusade was not 12 million but more than 19 million rosaries

Mershon, Brian, “Cardinal Castrillón: SSPX not in schism,” April 10, 2000, accessed February 4, 2011, 157 Angelqueen website, “The Spiritual Bouquet Became a Magnificent Garland of Flowers,”, accessed December 3, 2010,



prayed throughout the world between May 1, 2009, and March 25, 2010, with the largest number, 5.5 million, prayed in the US.158 A schismatic is one who deliberately and formally separates himself from the Catholic Church and the pope. Do these spiritual bouquets to the pope sound like acts of schismatics? Obviously not. On January 21, 2009, the excommunications of the four SSPX bishops consecrated by Archbishop Lefebvre were nullified in a decree ordered by Pope Benedict XVI.159 For a review of the ongoing discussions between the SSPX and the Vatican concerning Vatican Council II, read the analysis of the Australian theologian Father John Lamont on the reasons for the disagreement between the SSPX (FSSPX) and Rome160 and Father Gilles Routhier on the history of the dialogue between the SSPX and Rome on these issues.161 In Father Lamont’s analysis he said, “Bishop Fellay has stated that the society accepts 95% of its [Vatican II] teachings.” Father Lamont lists eight teachings addressed in the documents of Vatican II, and states, “The vast majority of theologians in Catholic institutions in Europe, North America, and Australasia would reject most or all of these teachings. … It would be difficult, for example, to find a Jesuit teaching theology in any Jesuit institution who would accept a single one of them. “Such teachings however form part of the 95% of Vatican II that the FSSPX accepts. Unlike the 5% of that council rejected by the FSSPX, however, the teachings given above are central to Catholic faith and morals, and include some of the fundamental teachings of Christ himself. … This means that the FSSPX is more loyal to the teachings of Vatican II than much of the clergy and hierarchy of the Catholic Church.” The discussions between the Vatican and the FSSPX concern the Vatican II understanding and conciliar definitions of religious freedom, ecumenism, the Church, and collegiality. Father Lamont says, “The nature of the teaching of the Catholic Church on religious freedom, ecumenism, the Church, and collegiality, is of great importance to all Catholics. The questions raised by the discussions between the Holy See and the FSSPX thus concern the whole Church, not merely the parties to the discussion [SSPX and Rome].” A faithful Catholic would then logically ask why the results of these discussions are being kept secret. Indeed, every informed Catholic needs to know the results of these discussions. Father Lamont says there are two sides to the arguments of the FSSPX. “One side is the claim that certain statements of Vatican II are false and should not be accepted; this is the side that refuses the authority of [5% of] the council. The other side is the positive description of the doctrines [pre-Vatican II magisterial pronouncements of great authority] that should be accepted in the place of these supposedly false statements. “How can there be any objection to the FSSPX upholding the truth of [pre-Vatican II] magisterial pronouncements of great authority? … This question really answers itself. There can be no such objection.”


SSPX website, “All the results of the Rosary Crusade,” Society of Saint Pius X, April, 2010, accessed December 11, 2010, 159 Cardinal Giovanni Battista, “Decree of the Congregation for Bishops,” January 21, 2009, accessed February 4, 2011, 160 Father John R. T. Lamont, “A Theologian’s Questions,” April 13, 2012, in an article by Sandro Magister, “For the Lefebvrists, It’s the Last Call to the Sheepfold,” accessed April 22, 2012, 161 Father Gilles Routhier, “On the Interpretation of Vatican II - The Hermeneutic of Reform, a Task for Theology,” in an article by Sandro Magister, “Benedict XVI, the Reformer,” January 19, 2012, accessed April 25, 2012,


Increase in the Number of SSPX Priests, 1970 – 2010 Figure 7 is a graph showing the increase in the number of SSPX priests from 1970 through 2010.162 The graph shows steady linear growth, reminding us of the linear growth in the number of Catholic priests in the US prior to Vatican II (see the graph on page 31). This is in stark contrast to the decline in the number of Novus Ordo priests for the same period following Vatican II (See the graph on page 32).

163 Status of the7: SSPX Worldwide in 2008 Figure Growth in Numbers of SSPX Priests 4 bishops. 6 seminaries (Switzerland, Germany, France, USA, Argentina and Australia).

SSPX website, “SSPX has 569 priests,” News, July 20, 2012, accessed November 8, 2012, 163 SSPX Asia website, “Statistics of the SSPX Worldwide,” Society of St. Pius X District of Asia, November 1, 2008, accessed November 27, 2011,



215 seminarians. 491 priests, present in 30 countries.[569 in 2012] 164 religious sisters. 117religious Brothers. 725 Mass Centers. 88 Schools and 2 Universities. Status of the SSPX in the USA in 2011164 80 seminarians. 85 priests. 24 sisters. 14 brothers. 98 chapels. 25 schools & 1 college. 850 Third Order members. 18 priories. 3 houses of formation. 3 retreat houses. 1 Publishing House (Angelus Press). In comparison, how many dioceses in the US with only eighty-five priests have eighty seminarians studying for the priesthood? These statistics should send a clear message to US bishops struggling with the unresolved problem of declining numbers of priests and seminarians.


SSPX US website, “What is the Society of St. Pius X?” Society of Saint Pius X, accessed November 27, 2011,


While many Catholic seminaries have closed and the number of seminarians has declined, new seminaries are being built to house the growing number of seminarians enrolling to study for the traditional priesthood and to offer the Extraordinary Form of the Mass. Here we see the architect’s design for the new SSPX Saint Thomas Aquinas Seminary in Virginia, USA. Construction of the seminary has already begun. The number of students enrolled at the current building housing the seminary has nearly doubled in the past decade, making it necessary to build the new seminary. This and other similar new seminaries provide the ultimate solution to the current priest shortage. This is the proven solution of The Papal Plan for Restoration.



The mission of the Saint Thomas Aquinas Seminary is to train priests in traditional Catholic philosophy and theology, and to offer the Extraordinary Form of the Mass. (Photos are screen shots from the video at and Please answer questions 65 and 66 in the Survey Questions Booklet. . 162

The Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter ( FSSP) The following is a brief history and status of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter, July, 1988 through October, 2011.165
      

 

 

July 18, 1988: Founded as a clerical society of apostolic life. The founders were priests from the SSPX. October 18, 1988: Erected as an institute of pontifical right by the Holy See. Easter 1990: Cardinal Ratzinger visits the motherhouse (in Wigratzbad, Bavaria). 1995: first personal parish entrusted to the FSSP. September 12, 1999: Pope John Paul II blesses the corner stones and crucifixes for the two new FSSP seminaries in Europe and in America. October 8, 1999 and October 20, 2001: the Superior General delivers an address at the Synods of Bishops in Rome. December 2000; June 2002; June 2005; May 2008: Cardinal Castrillon-Hoyos, President of the Ecclesia Dei Commission and Prefect of the Congregation for the Clergy, comes to bless the new Saint Peter Seminary and to ordain FSSP priests. June 29, 2003: Definitive approval of the Constitutions by the Holy See. February 22, 2007: Foundation of the Confraternity of Saint Peter, a society which gathers those who are attached to the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter and who wish to support its charism through prayers and sacrifices. March 2008: The Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter is granted a personal parish in Rome. July 6, 2009: Private audiences with Pope Benedict XVI.

Figure 8: Our Lady of Guadalupe, new FSSP seminary, Denton, Nebraska, USA


FSSP website, “What Are We? A Few Figures,” Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter, October 1, 2011, accessed November 27, 2011,



Figure 9: FSSP Membership Growth The graph in Figure 9 shows the growth in the order from 1988 through October, 2011. The leveling of seminarians after the year 2000 was due to overcrowding and moving of the existing seminary facilities. The increase in numbers of seminarians resumed after a new larger seminary was built. Status of the FSSP Worldwide in October, 2011  228 priests.  10 deacons.  154 seminarians.  204 Mass Centers.  59 canonically erected houses.  19 personal parishes.  117 dioceses served in 17 countries. The average age of all members is 36 years. Please answer question 67 in the Survey Questions Booklet. .

Other New Orders Promoting the Extraordinary Mass The following is a list of some of the more well-known traditional orders formed after Vatican II to promote the pre-Vatican II Latin Mass with its spirituality and theology. All of these orders have a membership that is young, vital, and growing.
Canons Regular of Saint John Cantius, Chicago, USA

The Canons Regular of Saint John Cantius (SJC)166 is a clerical Institute of Consecrated Life in the Catholic Church, founded in 1998 in the Archdiocese of Chicago as the Society of St. John Cantius (SSJC) by Fr. C. Frank Phillips, C.R., the pastor of St. John Cantius Church in Chicago. In 1999 Francis George, O.M.I., Cardinal Archbishop of Chicago, approved this society as a public

Canons Regular of St. John Cantius website, “Restoration of the Sacred,” accessed November 27, 2011,


diocesan association. In 2006 it became the Canons Regular of St. John Cantius (SJC). Its members live in community under the Augustinian Rule.167 Their Sanctamissa website is probably the most well-known website specifically designed to promote the Tridentine Mass worldwide on the Internet.168 They offer workshops for training priests to say the Mass in the Extraordinary Form, DVDs for priests to train themselves and excellent online tutorials on the traditional Mass. The order administers a traditional parish in Chicago offering the traditional Latin Mass.169
Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest, Chicago, USA

The Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest [Latin: Institutum Christi Regis Summi Sacerdotis] is a Society of Apostolic Life of Pontifical Right whose goal is the honor of God and the sanctification of priests in the service of the Church and souls. . . . Recognizing the importance of a deep harmony between faith, liturgy, life, and the power of beauty in attracting the human senses to the things above, an integral part of the Institute’s charism is the use of the traditional Latin Liturgy of 1962 for the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and the other sacraments.170 In the United States, the Institute is located in Illinois, Wisconsin, Missouri, New Jersey, California, and Arizona, with national headquarters in Chicago. Its oldest United States apostolate is St. Mary Oratory in Rockford, Illinois, . . . In Kansas City, Missouri in 2005, Bishop Robert Finn established an oratory (a public church where the Mass and other rites may be administered) for the Institute at an historic church otherwise in danger of being closed. One of its most recent foundations was in Santa Clara, California, at Our Mother of Perpetual Help.171
Benedictines of Clear Creek Abbey, Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA

Our Lady of the Annunciation of Clear Creek is a monastic foundation of the French Abbey Notre Dame de Fontgombault, itself a foundation of Saint Pierre de Solesmes. Over the years Solesmes started new monasteries, one of which was the Abbey of Fontgombault, restored to monastic life in 1948. Fontgombault in turn, after having sent monks to three monasteries in France, has now started one in Oklahoma in response to the gracious invitation of His Excellency Edward Slattery, Bishop of Tulsa. It is indeed a part of the Solesmes tradition to cultivate a solemn, public liturgical Office. The monks of Clear Creek celebrate God's glory in Latin, so appropriate to give an idea of God's majesty, a sense of the sacred. Thus the monks exploit the riches developed over centuries in the Church's liturgy and cultivate Gregorian chant. Two other main features of the Solesmes Congregation and which the monks of Clear Creek will strive to fully live must be noted: deep fidelity to the Holy See and devotion to the Virgin Mary.172


Wikipedia Online Encyclopedia, “Canons Regular of St. John Cantius,” accessed December 13, 2010, 168 Sancta Missa homepage, accessed December 13, 2010, 169 St. John Cantius Parish homepage, accessed December 13, 2010, 170 Institute of Christ the King website, “Who We Are – Get to Know Us,” accessed February 8, 2011, 171 Wikipedia Online Free Encyclopedia, “Institute of Christ the King Sovereign King,” accessed February 9, 2011, 172 Benedictines of Clear Creek website, “About Clear Creek Monastery,” accessed December 13, 2010,



The Benedictines of Mary, Queen of Apostles, Gower, Missouri, USA United with Our Lady at the foot of the Cross, the Benedictines of Mary, Queen of Apostles seek above all else, a life of union with God in prayer as guided by the Rule of St. Benedict. Totally consecrated to the Queen of Apostles, we take Our Lady’s hidden life at Ephesus as an inspiration for our own. We seek to be what she was for the early Church: a loving and prayerful support to the Apostles, the first priests, and daily offer prayer and sacrifice for the sake of her spiritual sons. 173 Our community first began under the aegis of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter in 1995, in the Diocese of Scranton, Pennsylvania. We were originally called the Oblates of Mary, Queen of Apostles for a two-fold reason. First, to indicate the offering of ourselves to the Benedictine family (Oblatae is Latin for “offered”). And secondly, because we had consecrated ourselves to Our Lady, and offered ourselves to her service. We began following a monastic horarium as laid out by St. Benedict in his Rule, and chanting in Latin, the Divine Office according to the 1962 Breviarium Monasticum. In March 2006, we accepted the invitation of Bishop Robert W. Finn to transfer to his diocese of Kansas City-St. Joseph in Missouri. We were established as a Public Association of the Faithful with the new name, “Benedictines of Mary, Queen of Apostles.”174 The PCED and its Mission

This building, adjacent to the Basilica of St. Peter in Rome, houses the offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) and the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei (PCED) which is responsible for overseeing the implementation of Pope Benedict XVI’s Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum restoring the pre-Conciliar Latin Mass, the Extraordinary Form of the Mass, throughout the Church. (Photo by Robert Wolfe)


Benedictines of Mary, Queen of Apostles website, “Home,” accessed November 27, 2011, 174 Benedictines of Mary, Queen of Apostles website, “Our Priory – About Ephesus,” accessed November 27, 2011,


Daily Mass in the Extraordinary Form at Saint Peter’s Basilica, Rome. Our holy father humbly and patiently teaches his bishops by his good example. With his approval, possibly even by his direction, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass in the Extraordinary Form is offered daily in Saint Peter’s Basilica in Rome. The author and his wife were privileged to assist at that Mass while visiting the Vatican in the spring of 2011. (Photo by Robert Wolfe)



The main altar of Saint Peter’s Basilica is on the right, and immediately adjacent on the left is the altar where the Extraordinary Form of the Mass is offered daily. (Photo by Robert Wolfe) France’s Seminarians To Be Over One-Third Traditionalist Monsignor Ignacio Barreiro, chief of Human Life International’s Rome bureau, speaking about the possible future regularization of the priests and bishops of the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX) in France, and the resistance to that regularization by the bishops of the dying parishes of France, said, Upon final regularization Monsignor Ignacio Barreiro said, “More than one-third of all seminarians in France will be in traditionalist seminaries.” This would include the SSPX, the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter (FSSP), the Institute of the Good Shepherd and the Institute of Christ the King (ICR) as well as some other lesser known traditionalist priestly groups.175 Young People Predominate Latin Mass Attendance Church leaders were surprised that young people and young families were the largest category of Catholics to attend the Extraordinary Form of the Mass when it was re-introduced to the Church in 2007. Here are some on-line comments about this surprising trend. Vatican Radio: Priest emphasizes many young people drawn to Traditional Latin Mass. In an interview with Vatican Radio on the second anniversary of the implementation of Summorum Pontificum, Father Joseph Kramer, FSSP, emphasized that the average age of those attending Mass at his parish is 30.176

Brian Mershon, “Vatican Insider Projects Speedy SSPX Resolution,” The Remnant Newspaper, February 28, 2009, accessed February 4, 2011, 176 Catholic Culture Website, “Vatican Radio: Priest emphasizes many young people drawn to traditional Latin Mass ,” Catholic Culture, accessed December 3, 2010,


Singapore: Traditional Latin Mass Draws Young Working Adults. What immediately strikes a first-time visitor to this Mass, organized by the Traditional Latin Mass (TLM) movement in Singapore, is the congregation. The young working adults, mostly in their 20s, who make up about three-fourths of the people, were born after local languages replaced Latin in liturgies following Vatican Council II.177 Merchantville, NJ: Latin Mass Draws Interest. For adherents of the traditional Latin Mass, the interest of young people is proof of its enduring resonance and offers hope that it may revitalize an American church struggling to hold on to the young.178 Sancta Missa Website: Newcomers to the Traditional Mass. While young people are the largest group that attends the Tridentine Mass, adults are returning today to be spiritually fed by the Mass of their youth.179 But Young People Have Fled the Novus Ordo Mass The new Mass, with its modern music and lively spirit, was expected to attract young people but the statistics show that young people have fled the new Mass. As we have seen, a CARA poll in 2008 in the US found that weekly Mass attendance by “Pre–Vatican II” Catholics, older people born before 1943, was 45% while weekly Mass attendance by “Post–Vatican II” Catholics, younger people born between 1961 and 1981, was 15%. And in France young people have completely abandoned the Novus Ordo Mass. As we have already documented, a 2012 French poll shows that of the young people in the age group 18 to 24, 0% attend the Novus Ordo Mass every Sunday, and 79% never attend. For those contemplating the future of the Novus Ordo Mass, these are solemn statistics. Please answer questions 68 and 69 in the Survey Questions Booklet. . Saint Thomas More LifeBlog, Singapore, Traditional Latin Mass Draws Young Working Class Adults, July 29, 2009, accessed December 3, 2010, 178 Neela Banerjee, “Latin Mass Draws Interest After Easing of Restrictions,” New York Times, Merchantville, NJ, November 10, 2007, accessed 2010/12/03, 179 Sancta Missa website, “Newcomers to the Traditional Mass,” Sancta Missa, accessed December 3, 2010,


Chapter 8 – Summary and Conclusions
Summary of the Statistical Measures of the Crisis This is a summary of what has been documented in the preceding chapters concerning the decline in the Catholic Church where the Novus Ordo Mass has been offered. At the expense of a few additional pages and some duplication in the book, it was thought that a concise summary of all the statistics would be useful to readers. For details on the source of these statistics, given in the footnotes of the preceding chapters, look in the index under the entry “Statistics.” Unless otherwise noted, the following statistics are for the USA.  Attendance at Mass immediately dropped after Vatican II, and within ten years was down by 60% in France and Holland, 50% in Italy, 20% in England and Wales.  Twenty years after Vatican II, 85% of all Catholics in France, Spain, Italy and Holland did not go to Mass.  In France and Holland, the percentage of Catholics at Mass each Sunday has now (2011) dropped to less than 10%.  Religious and seminary populations plummeted. In Holland, two-thousand priests and fivethousand religious brothers and nuns abandoned their ministries. In the twelve years 1965-1977, some twelve to fourteen thousand priests worldwide asked to be relieved of their duties, or simply left.  Sixty thousand nuns left their convents between 1966 and 1983.  33% of the seminarians in France now come from the small number of communities using the pre– Vatican II Latin Mass.  A CBS poll in 1958 found that 75% of US Catholics went to Mass weekly while in 2002 a University of Notre Dame poll found that 25% attend weekly. This amounts to a 67% decline in roughly 40 years after Vatican II.  A CARA poll in 2008 found that weekly Mass attendance by “Pre–Vatican II” Catholics (born before 1943) was 45% while weekly Mass attendance by “Post–Vatican II” Catholics (born 196181) was 15%.  In 1965 approximately 1% of Catholic parishes in the USA were without a resident priest. In 2002, 15% of parishes were priest-less. In 2020 that figure is projected to be 25%.  In 2008, Muslims outnumbered Catholics in the world, 19.2% to 17.4%.  In 1968 there were 338 annulments in the US. In 1998 there were 50,498 annulments, more than a one-hundred times increase. In America we have 6.2% of the world’s Catholic population and 79% of the world’s annulments.  In 2008, a poll showed that in excess of 80% of US Catholics dissent from infallible Church dogma condemning contraception.  A 2008 poll by the American bishops reported that 68% of Catholics said they could be in good standing in the Church without going to Mass weekly, and only 23% said they go to Mass weekly.  In 1992, a Gallup poll reported that 67% of Catholics no longer believe in the Real Presence of the Holy Eucharist.  In 1994, a NY Times/CBS poll reported that 70% of Catholics in the age group 18 to 29 no longer believe in the Real Presence of the Holy Eucharist.  A 2008 Pew poll of 35,000 Americans found that : o One-third of those who said they were raised Catholic no longer consider themselves Catholic. This means 10% of Americans are former Catholics. 171


o Spanish speaking immigrants are replacing American cradle Catholics who no longer practice the Faith. Even so, today nine-million fewer Catholics attend Mass on Sundays than did in 1950. o 48% of Catholic respondents favor legal abortion (16% in all cases, 32% in most cases). o Only 18% agree that abortion should always be illegal. o 58% said that society should accept homosexuality. o Only 16% believe that their Church is the one true means of salvation. 79% said that many different faiths could lead to salvation.  For every US Evangelical/Pentecostal who has become a Catholic (roughly 1.8 million), eight American Catholics have gone in the other direction (roughly 14-15 million). The 8:1 ratio. [This 8:1 ratio is a prime example of the disaster of the false ecumenism identified and condemned by Pope Pius XI in his 1928 encyclical Mortalium Animos. It is a strong cause and effect relationship linking Vatican II with the current crisis in the Church.  In the presidential elections of 2008, 54% of Roman Catholics voted for Barack Obama,180 the most liberal, radical, pro-abortion candidate in the history of American elections. Only a few US Catholic bishops made strong statements before the elections warning Catholics that it would be a grievous sin to vote for a pro-abortion candidate.  A 2010 study by CARA reported that 16% of students at Catholic colleges and universities become more pro-life and more convinced of traditional marriage, whereas 31 percent become more supportive of legal abortion and 39 percent embrace same-sex “marriage.” Only seven percent increased attendance at religious services, while 32 percent reduced attendance. While attending a Catholic institution, 8% of Catholic students leave the Catholic faith  In October 2008, the Cardinal Newman Society published a comprehensive study of practices and beliefs of current and recent students at Catholic colleges and universities which found that: o nearly 1 in 5 respondents knew another student who had or paid for an abortion. o 46% of current and recent students—and 50% of females—said they engaged in sex outside of marriage. o 84% said they had friends who engaged in premarital sex. o 60% agreed strongly or somewhat that abortion should be legal. o 60% agreed strongly or somewhat that premarital sex is not a sin. o 78% disagreed strongly or somewhat that using a condom to prevent pregnancy was a serious sin. o 57% agreed strongly or somewhat that same-sex “marriage” should be legal. o 57% said the experience of attending a Catholic college or university had no effect on their participation in Mass and the sacrament of reconciliation. o 54% of respondents said that their experience of attending a Catholic college or university had no effect on their support for the teachings of the Catholic Church. o 56% said their experience had no effect on their respect for the pope and bishops.181  In 1993, projections indicated that between 1966 and 2005 the number of US diocesan priests would drop by 40%. By 2003, two years prior to the projected date, the number of priests had already dropped by 40%.

Jean Torkelson, “54% of Catholics Voted for Obama” (Pro-Life News),” Rocky Mountain News, November 6, 2008, accessed December 12, 2010, 181 CNSweb, “New Study Confirms Crisis in Catholic Higher Education,” Cardinal Newman Society, October, 2008, accessed January 1, 2011, x.


 In 1996, 30% of the parishes in six Midwestern dioceses were without a resident priest. In 2007, Bishop John Steinbock stated that half of the parishes in seven dioceses in the US had no resident priest. Linking the Council with the Crisis The following is a summary from previous chapters of problems contributing to the crisis in the modern Church, and a summary of the evidence linking each problem with the implementation of Vatican II, the ten cause and effect relationships previously introduced. Recall that Cardinal Ratzinger called the Novus Ordo Mass a manufactured “product.” We have referred to Catholics who attend this Mass as the “new product group.” As in all statistically sound and valid evaluation procedures, we have identified a control group that did not receive the new product, namely, those in traditional Catholic communities using the pre-Vatican II Latin Mass. The discussion of each problem compares the findings from the new product group with findings from the control group. Following the summary is a list of the many reasons for the vitality in the traditional control group. Comparing the vitality in this group, not affected or least affected by Vatican II, with the crisis in the group most directly affected by Vatican II, links the crisis with the implementation of Vatican II. 1. The Decline in Priestly Vocations The decline in the number of priests and seminarians following Vatican II is the most explicit link we have identified between the Council and the current crisis in the Church. The Church was strong and growing prior to Vatican II. “In the early 1960s, the Church was experiencing its proudest moments” (Bishop Paul Zipper). “Strong and respected, conscious of its power, it circulates from one end of the world to the other; no longer can any sophism withstand it” (Godfrey Kurth). In the traditional control group, not affected by Vatican II, vocations to the priesthood did not decline but continued the steady growth occurring prior to Vatican II. Turn to page 30 to review the graph showing the decline in Novus Ordo seminarians and page 32 for the decline in the number of priests ordained to offer the Novus Ordo Mass. Then turn to page 157 to review the graph showing the growth in the number of traditional SSPX priests and to page 164 to review the graph showing the growth in traditional priests, deacons and seminarians in the FSSP. Comparing the graphs the message is clear and obvious: decline in the Novus Ordo era priesthood after Vatican II versus vitality and growth in the traditional priesthood for the same period. This growth in traditional Catholicism occurred despite the fact that the Novus Ordo era bishops throughout the world gave little support or encouragement to the traditional orders. In fact, they labeled SSPX priests and their seminaries schismatic, thereby actively discouraging their vocations. Despite these negative actions young men entered traditional seminaries and the priesthood flourished.
Comparing Numbers – Novus Ordo vs. Tradition

It is instructive to compare the number of traditional priests and seminarians to the number of their Novus Ordo era counterparts. The guidance and encouragement of priests is a major factor in a young man’s decision to enter the seminary. We therefore compare the number of priests and seminarians produced in the Novus Ordo era Church with the number produced by the SSPX, FSSP and other traditional orders in the Church.



We first compare the total number of seminarians to the total number of priests in the world. Statistics are available for the year 2010.182 In the worldwide Novus Ordo era Church in 2010 there were approximately 58,000 seminarians and 412,000 priests.183 The ratio of seminarians to priests was therefore 58,000/412,000 = 0.14 As of November 1, 2008, in the SSPX, there were 215 seminarians and 491 priests.184 The ratio of seminarians to priests was therefore 215/491 = 0.44. In the FSSP in November, 2012, there were 161 seminarians (incl. Deacons) and 236 priests.185 The ratio of seminarians to priests is therefore 161/236 = 0.68. Using this measure we see that SSPX priests are producing seminarians at a rate of more than three times that of the Novus Ordo era Church (.44/.14 = 3.14) and FSSP priests were producing seminarians at a rate of almost five times that of the Novus Ordo era Church (.68/.14 = 4.86). The guidance and encouragement of Catholics, especially parents, is also a major factor in a young man’s decision to enter the seminary. We therefore compare the number of seminarians to the number of Catholics. Statistics are available for the number of Catholics served by the SSPX but could not be obtained for the FSSP. In 2010 there were roughly 1.2 billion Catholics and 58,000 seminarians in the world. Therefore, in the Novus Ordo era Church, the number of seminarians for each million Catholics was 58,000/1,200 = 48.3 (Note: To compute the ratio per one million Catholics we must first divide 1.2 billion by one million. The result is 1,200, which is the number used in the previous formula and those to follow. In other words there are 1,200 millions in 1.2 billion.) The Vatican estimates there are about 1 million traditional Catholics in the world 186 and the SSPX estimates they serve 1.5 to two million traditional Catholics worldwide. Therefore, for our calculations, let us first use the Vatican number of one million Catholics served by the SSPX worldwide. The number of SSPX seminarians for each million Catholics is then 215/1 = 215. Therefore, by this measure the SSPX is producing more than four times more seminarians per million Catholics than the Novus Ordo era Church (215/48.3 = 4.45). If we assume that 1.5 million faithful are served by the SSPX then the SSPX is producing approximately three times more seminarians per million Catholics than the Novus Ordo era Church. If we assume that 2 million Catholics are served by the SSPX then the SSPX is producing more than twice as many seminarians per million Catholics as the Novus Ordo era Church. Now we compare the total number of diocesan and religious priests in the Novus Ordo era Church worldwide with the total number of traditional priests (in the SSPX + FSSP + other traditional priestly orders). In the Novus Ordo era Church in 2010 there were 1.2 billion Catholics and a total of 412,000 priests. Therefore, the number of priests per million Catholics was 412,000/1,200 = 343. There are, very conservatively, 500 SSPX priests, 200 FSSP priests and 200 priests in other traditional orders worldwide, for a total of roughly 900 traditional priests in the world. 187 Since the

CARA website, “Frequently Requested Church Statistics,” accessed October 3, 2012, 183 Ibid. 184 SSPX Asia website, “Statistics of the SSPX Worldwide,” November 1, 2008, accessed October 2, 2012, 185 FSSP Website, “What Are We? A Few Figures …,” October 1, 2011, accessed October 2, 2012,

Catholic Culture website, “All We Ask is for the Mass,” May 1, 2005, accessed October 2, 2012, 187 Fisheaters Catholic Forum, “Another Liberal Trying to Poke Other People’s Eyes,” no date, accessed October 2, 2012,;wap2 174

Vatican estimates there are about 1 million traditional Catholics in the world,188 the number of traditional priests per million traditional Catholics is 900/1 = 900. This calculation shows that traditional Catholics have produced more than two and a half times more priests per million Catholics than those in the Novus Ordo era Church (900/343 = 2.62). A more fitting and equitable comparison would be to compare the number of diocesan priests with the traditional priests. In 2010 there were 277,000 diocesan priests worldwide.189 Therefore, by this measure the number of diocesan priests per million Catholics was 272,000/1,200 = 227. This calculation shows that traditional Catholics produced priests at almost four times the rate of Catholics in the Novus Ordo era Church (900/227 = 3.96). In summary, these calculations show that although the bishops of the world discouraged traditional Catholics and forbad the traditional Mass, traditional Catholics were still much more productive of priests and seminarians than Novus Ordo era Catholics. Our bishops must take note of this incredible discrepancy and contradiction. We shall do one final calculation. In 1970 there were 270,924 diocesan priests in the world and 653.6 million Catholics.190 The number of diocesan priests per one million Catholics was therefore 270,924/653.6 = 415. Compare that number with the number 900 calculated previously, the number of traditional priests per million traditional Catholics in 2010, and you will see immediately that traditional priestly orders in 2010 were producing priests at a rate of more than twice the preConciliar rate (900/415 = 2.17). Therefore, we must logically conclude that if the bishops had stayed with the pre-Conciliar Mass and traditional Catholicism, the current serious shortage of priests would not have occurred and the Church would be producing priests at twice the rate she did before the “reforms” that followed Vatican II. The conclusion that must be drawn from these statistics and these calculations is that in 1970 there was no need for a “reform” of the liturgy, there should not have been an abrogation of the Mass of antiquity, and there is a proven need for its worldwide return today. The statistics documented in this book prove that the attempted reform after Vatican II, as Cardinal Ratzinger admitted, has not been successful. What is needed, as Cardinal Ottaviani and Monsignor Klaus Gamber so emphatically and prophetically proclaimed, is a more devout and faithful adherence to the theology and praxis of the classical Mass of antiquity, the pre-Conciliar Latin Mass of the Roman rite. This is The Papal Plan for Restoration. This is the wisdom of the pre-Conciliar popes. This is a plan that has been proven to work in today’s Catholic world. Observe what we have just shown. Two separate control groups, the traditional Catholic communities, and the Protestant denominations, both experienced growth during the same period of time that the group using the Novus Ordo new product declined. The patient became terribly ill on the new product, indicating a strong cause and effect relationship between the use of the new product and the illness that resulted. We continue with further evidence supporting The Plan of our popes. 2. Abandonment of the Teaching of Thomistic Philosophy In his 1879 encyclical Aeterni Patris, Pope Leo XIII said, “Whoso turns his attention to the bitter strifes of these days and seeks a reason for the troubles that vex public and private life must come to the conclusion that a fruitful cause of the evils which now afflict, as well as those which threaten us, lies in this: that false conclusions concerning divine and human things, which originated in the [modern] schools of philosophy, have now crept into all the orders of the State, and have been

Catholic Culture website, “All We Ask is for the Mass,” May 1, 2005, accessed October 2, 2012,
CARA, “Frequently Requested Church Statistics,” cited previously. Ibid.

189 190



accepted by the common consent of the masses.” And to combat that danger, in Aeterni Patris the pope commanded the restoration of the teaching by Catholic bishops of the Scholastic philosophy of Saint Thomas Aquinas. Recognizing the same danger in 1950, Pope Pius XII, in his encyclical Humani Generis, repeated the warnings of Pope Leo XIII against those who “despise” Scholastic philosophy and try to remove it from the training of priests and lay persons. He condemned such a course of action in 1950, as strongly as did Pope Leo XII in Aeterni Patris in 1879. In Section 31 of Humani Generis, Pope Pius XII wrote, “[T]he Church demands that future priests be instructed in philosophy ‘according to the method, doctrine and principles of the Angelic Doctor [St. Thomas Aquinas].’”191 Yet, after Vatican II, the teaching of Thomistic philosophy was essentially abandoned in Novus Ordo era seminaries where priests are instructed, and by almost all educators, schools, colleges, universities, and bishops in the Church where the Novus Ordo Mass is offered. This is not the case in traditional Catholicism, where the teaching of Thomistic philosophy continued without interruption after Vatican II. And Pope Leo XIII proclaimed: “We say with St. Augustine: ‘In an authority so high, admit but one officious lie, and there will not remain a single passage of those apparently difficult to practice or to believe, which on the same most pernicious rule may not be explained as a lie uttered by the author willfully and to serve a purpose.’ And thus it will come about,” the holy Pope continues, “everybody will believe and refuse to believe what he likes or dislikes in them.” This is precisely what has happened in the post Vatican II Church where the Novus Ordo Mass is offered. Our two pre-Vatican II popes predicted what current statistics confirm; Catholic clergy, religious and laity contradict Her dogmas and Her interpretation of Sacred Scripture and even hold them in contempt. Today, polls have shown that 68% of all Catholics in the US do not believe that missing Mass on Sunday without serious reason is a mortal sin; 70% of Catholics in the age group 18 to 29 believe the Holy Eucharist is a “symbolic reminder” of Jesus, indicating they do not believe infallibly defined Catholic dogma regarding the Real Presence in the Holy Eucharist; an overwhelming 79% of Catholics believe that many different faiths can lead to eternal life, contradicting the infallibly defined dogma outside the Church there is no salvation; more than 80% of Catholics dissent from the infallible teaching of the encyclical Humanae Vitae of Pope Paul VI on the intrinsic evil of contraception. All this dissent occurred in the Novus Ordo new product group after Vatican II, but it did not occur in the traditional control group. From observations in the external forum, then, the effect of Vatican II has been that literally millions of Catholics died and continue to die without sanctifying grace in the soul because they live their lives in contradiction of infallibly defined Catholic dogma, thus depriving themselves of heaven and condemning themselves to eternal punishment. This frightful consequence could have been prevented! A major part of the remedy was given by Pope Leo XIII: “We exhort you, venerable brethren, in all earnestness to restore the golden wisdom of St. Thomas, and to spread it far and wide for the defense and beauty of the Catholic faith[.] In the first place, with regard to studies, We will and strictly ordain that Scholastic philosophy be made the basis of the sacred sciences. . . . And let it be clearly understood above all things that when We prescribe Scholastic philosophy We understand chiefly that which the Angelic Doctor [Saint Thomas Aquinas] has bequeathed to us.” The personal experience of this editor has been that the problem was prevented in the traditional Catholic control group. That group adhered to the teaching of the pre-Vatican II popes and continued teaching the Scholastic philosophy of Saint Thomas Aquinas. We are not aware of an existing poll confirming that assertion, but we expect it will be strongly confirmed by traditional Catholics who respond to the poll which is an integral part of this book.

Code of Canon Law, [1917], can. 1366, 2.


The traditional Church followed the decrees of Popes Leo XIII and Pius XII demanding the teaching of Thomistic philosophy and as a result the faith remained strong and the priesthood did not decline. The Novus Ordo era Church unexplainably abandoned Thomistic philosophy with the resulting statistics on loss of faith just cited. Comparing the two cases creates a strong cause and effect relationship linking the implementation of Vatican II with the current crisis.. Please answer questions 70 through 72 in the Survey Questions Booklet. . 3. The Church is No Longer Considered Necessary for Salvation The fathers, doctors and popes of every Catholic era including our own modern era have been quoted affirming the traditional Catholic understanding of the infallibly defined dogma “outside the Church there is no salvation.” Yet this dogma has been essentially abandoned since Vatican II by Novus Ordo clergy and laity alike, who now believe and preach that salvation can be found outside the Catholic Church. This is a new and unique phenomenon in the two-thousand year history of the Church. A false ecumenism has emerged among these modern Catholics, promoting indifferentism and teaching that non-Catholics need not come into the Catholic Church in order to obtain salvation. There is therefore no longer urgency in the Church to evangelize the world as Our Lord commanded. As a result, since Vatican II, the Church has become less and less relevant to Catholics and to the world. Thomistic philosophy gives one the ability to think and reason precisely and correctly. The demise of Thomistic philosophy in the modern Church has left those Catholics unable to understand, correctly interpret, or defend this infallibly defined Catholic dogma. Vatican II is therefore strongly linked to the statistically verified abandonment of this Catholic dogma. Those in the traditional Catholic control group have not abandoned Thomistic philosophy nor their belief in this fundamental dogma, and are committed to its restoration throughout the Church. Indifferentism and false ecumenism are not found in this growing Catholic minority. This also links Vatican II with the crisis in the Church. For more on the negative effects of false ecumenism after Vatican II, see problem number 7 which follows on page 180. Please answer questions 73 and 74 in the Survey Questions Booklet. . 4. The Revolution in the Novus Ordo Mass: Reliable statistics show that many of those who attend the Novus Ordo Mass have abandoned many traditional Catholic beliefs, especially the belief in the Eucharistic Real Presence. Archbishop Annibale Bugnini, the architect of the New Mass, said openly, “We must strip from our Catholic prayers and from the Catholic liturgy everything which can be the shadow of a stumbling block for our separated brethren; that is, for the Protestants.”192 He therefore led the creation of the Novus Ordo Mass with the assistance and consultation of six Protestant observers of Vatican II. The Novus Ordo Mass was deliberately shorn of much of its Catholicism and was Protestantized by the solicited advice and influence of these Protestants. As Michael Davies explained, the differences between the Catholic Mass and Protestant Lord’s Supper were clearly defined at the time of the Protestant “Reformation”. The most striking differences were: 1. The Catholic Mass was celebrated in Latin; the Protestant Lord’s Supper in English. 2. Much of the Catholic Mass was celebrated in an inaudible tone; the Protestant Lord’s Supper was spoken audibly throughout.


L’Osservatore Romano, March 19, 1965, reported by John Vennari in the Catholic Family News, April, 2009, page 24.



3. The Catholic Mass began with the Psalm Judaic me, in which the priest stated specifically that he was going unto the altar of God (an altar is for sacrifice), and ended with the sublime Last Gospel; in the Protestant Lord's Supper the Judaic me and the Last Gospel and many traditional prayers were abolished, particularly the sacrificial Offertory prayers. 4. The Catholic Mass was celebrated on a sacrificial altar with the priest and all the faithful facing east, from whence Christ would return in His Second Coming; the Protestant Lord's Supper was celebrated on a table with a presider facing the people. 5. In the Catholic Mass, Holy Communion was placed on the tongue of the kneeling communicant by the anointed hand of a priest; in the Protestant Lord's Supper it was placed in the hand of the standing communicant by someone who was not a validly ordained priest. 6. In the Catholic Mass, Holy Communion was given to the laity under one kind only; in the Protestant Lord's Supper it was always administered under both kinds. 193 This clear distinction between the Catholic Mass and Protestant worship remained unchanged until the Second Vatican Council, making it clear, as John Cardinal Newman expressed it, that Catholicism and Protestantism are two different religions,194 and not two ways of expressing the same Faith. Yet, the very same Mass changes instituted by the Protestant “reformers” to eradicate the “popish Mass” and the Catholic Faith, were incorporated after Vatican II into the new Catholic Novus Ordo Mass of Pope Paul VI. What could account for leaders of the Church being unable to comprehend ahead of time that the destruction these changes to the Mass caused at the time of the Protestant Reformation would also cause the same destruction after Vatican II? Answer: the deliberate protestantizing of the Catholic Mass by Catholic Progressivists! Sadly, it was only after the damage had been done that Pope Paul VI acknowledged that “the smoke of Satan” had entered the Church. Regarding the Novus Ordo Mass Cardinal Ratzinger said, [The] crisis in the Church that we are experiencing today is to a large extent due to the disintegration of the liturgy, . . . when the community of Faith, the worldwide unity of the Church and Her history, and the mystery of the living Christ are no longer visible in the liturgy, where else, then, is the Church to become visible in Her spiritual essence?195 The crisis in the Church today “is to a large extent due to the disintegration of the liturgy” in which “the community of faith, the worldwide unity of the Church . . . and the mystery of the living Christ are no longer visible in the liturgy[.]” This is a startling admission by one who was destined to become the Vicar of Christ on earth. The future pope acknowledged that the changes in the Mass that Cardinal Ottaviani’s study warned against, in advance of the promulgation of the new Mass, did indeed cause a liturgical revolution. Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, admitted what current statistics obviously show: the Mass of Vatican II is a major cause of the crisis. Also linking this disaster to Vatican II, we again have the traditional control group with which to compare the Novus Ordo new product group. The Catholic orders and communities retaining the pre–Vatican II Latin Mass have suffered none of the problems in the new Mass; no clown Masses, no rock and roll music, no polka Masses, no clamor for women priests, a steady increase in the number of seminarians and priests, the promotion of Latin hymns and Gregorian chant in the Mass
193 194

Michael Davies, The Catholic Sanctuary and the Second Vatican Council, TAN Books, 1997, pp.6-14 Ian Kerr, John Henry Newman: A Biography, Oxford University Press, 1988, p. 590. 195 Joseph Ratzinger, Milestones, Ignatius Press, San Francisco, 1998.


as mandated by Vatican II. The list goes on and on describing a vital Church in which the Novus Ordo problems do not exist because The Papal Plan for Restoration has been adhered to faithfully. Had Cardinal Ottaviani’s warnings been heeded, the “disintegration of the liturgy” admitted by Cardinal Ratzinger could have been prevented. And as Monsignor Klaus Gamber said in his 1993 book, The Reform of the Roman Liturgy - It’s Problems and Background, there is only one remedy for the current liturgical problems; a return to the Mass that continues to produce Catholic vitality. “In the final analysis, this means that in the future the traditional rite of Mass must be retained in the Roman Catholic Church . . . as the primary liturgical form for the celebration of Mass. It must become once more the norm of our Faith and the symbol of Catholic unity throughout the world, a rock of stability in a period of upheaval and never-ending change.” 196 In his preface to that book Cardinal Ratzinger said Monsignor Klaus Gamber is “the one scholar who, among the army of pseudo-liturgists, truly represents the liturgical thinking of the center of the Church.” He also said in his preface, “J. A. Jungmann, one of the truly great liturgists of our century, defined the liturgy of his time, such as it could be understood in the light of historical research, as a 'liturgy which is the fruit of development. . . . What happened after the Council was something else entirely: in the place of liturgy as the fruit of development came fabricated liturgy. We abandoned the organic, living process of growth and development over the centuries, and replaced it – as in a manufacturing process – with a fabrication, a banal on-the-spot product.” After forty years of the Novus Ordo Mass, Pope Benedict XVI, through his Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum, 2007, has taken the initial step in restoring the traditional rite of Mass, as Msgr. Gamber said must be done, decreeing that the traditional Latin Mass will be promoted along with the Novus Ordo Mass throughout the Catholic world. The cause and effect relationship between the implementation of Vatican II and the liturgical crisis, proven by our statistics and acknowledged by the highest Church leaders, is undeniable. The question is: Will the bishops act? Will they restore the Latin Mass and its theology? If they do, statistics show that the faithful will follow their lead. In February, 2008, CARA conducted a survey on the pre-Vatican II Latin Mass.197 The following question was asked: As you may be aware, Pope Benedict XVI recently eased restrictions on the use of the older Latin Tridentine Mass, as celebrated just before the Second Vatican Council in the mid1960’s. Do you favor as an alternative to the newer Mass, bringing back the older Latin Tridentine Mass for those who would prefer this option? Among all those polled, 88% either favored bringing back the old Mass or had no opinion (25% favored, 63% had no opinion). Only 12% were opposed. Among the strongest supporters for the return of the Latin Mass in 2008 are weekly Mass attendees (33 percent favored its return). The 2008 CARA survey included questions replicating a series from a 1985 Gallup poll. The percentage of Catholics who “oppose” the return of the Latin Mass dropped from 35% in 1985 to only 12% in 2008. The following results from the 2008 poll also showed that younger people are more disposed to the Latin Mass than older people. When born Before 1943

% opposed 24%

Gamber, Monsignor Klaus, The Reform of the Roman Liturgy – Its Problems and Background, Roman Catholic Books, September, 1993. 197 Mark Gray, The Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate, “CARA on Interest in the Latin Mass,” August 24, 2009, accessed December 11, 2012, archived at



1943-60 1961-81 1982 or later

13% 7% 6%

The results of these polls indicate that our bishops would encounter little opposition from their faithful if they instituted a Latin Mass in every parish. Indeed, if the faithful were to be taught the wisdom of our quoted popes they would clearly see and understand why restoring the pre-Vatican II Mass and its theology would bring back the vitality of the pre-Vatican II Church. Please answer questions 75 through 79 in the Survey Questions Booklet. 5. Universal Dissent from Humanae Vitae A fundamental cause of the dramatic decline in the number of Novus Ordo priests is the almost universal dissention from the encyclical Humanae Vitae of Pope Paul VI by modern bishops, priests, theologians, and Catholic married couples, significantly reducing the size of modern Catholic families and the number of young men who could possibly have a vocation to the Novus Ordo priesthood. Further decline in the number of Novus Ordo priests is the prediction of respected statisticians today. With this acknowledged trend, there will be more consolidations and closures of parishes, with more priestless parishes led by religious and laity, which is also predicted by reputable Catholic sociologists and statisticians. In traditional Catholic communities, large families of five to ten and even more children are not uncommon. The spouses in these families believe and observe the norms of Humanae Vitae. These large, young Catholic families are drawn to the traditional Latin Mass in growing numbers and many of their sons fill traditional seminaries. New traditional seminaries are being built. These large traditional Catholic families are an essential element in the remedy for the current priest shortage and a major element in The Papal Plan for Restoration. The worldwide dissent from Humanae Vitae in the Novus Ordo era Church after Vatican II contrasted with the obedience to this infallible encyclical in the traditional Catholic control group is a strong cause and effect relationship linking Vatican II with dissent from this dogma and the effect of that dissent. 6. Modernism/Neo-Modernism/Liberalism Modernism was defined and warnings of its harmful effects on the Faith and the Church were given primarily by Pope Blessed Pius IX in his Syllabus of Errors of 1864 and Pope Saint Pius X in his 1907 encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis, although many other popes, for example, Gregory XVI, Leo XIII, and Pius XII, also wrote against these same errors. God has perhaps ratified the wisdom of Blessed Pius IX and Saint Pius X by preserving their bodies incorrupt since their death. The pre-Vatican II popes issued scathing condemnations of modernism and liberalism. Yet a major proponent of Modernism, Fr. Karl Rahner, was not only allowed to attend Vatican II but became one of its leading theologians and advisors (periti). His “anonymous Christian,” whom he believes can be saved without the Catholic faith and without the Sacrament of Baptism, is now enshrined in the documents of Vatican II and the new Catechism of the Catholic Church. The devastating effect this has had on the Catholic Faith is shown primarily by the fact that most Novus Ordo era Catholics believe the Catholic Church and the Catholic Faith are not necessary for salvation. The net effect, as all can plainly see and Pope Benedict XVI has admitted, is that the Catholic Faith has become less and less relevant to people in the world today. 7. False Ecumenism


In his 1928 encyclical Mortalium Animos , Pope Pius XI spoke of the many people who fervently desire the unity of all Christian churches and indeed all men. Of those men in th e Church with this desire the pope writes, 2. [C]onventions, meetings and addresses are frequently arranged by these persons, at which a large number of listeners are present, and at which all without distinction are invited to join in the discussion, both infidels of every kind, and Christians, even those who have unhappily fallen away from Christ or who with obstinacy and pertinacity deny His divine nature and mission. Certainly such attempts can nowise be approved by Catholics, founded as they are on that false opinion which considers all religions to be more or less good and praiseworthy, since they all in different ways manifest and signify that sense which is inborn in us all, and by which we are led to God and to the obedient acknowledgment of His rule. 5. Admonished, therefore, by the consciousness of Our Apostolic office that We should not permit the flock of the Lord to be cheated by dangerous fallacies, We invoke, Venerable Brethren, your zeal in avoiding this evil. See page 66 and following for the condemnation by this Pope of the false ecumenism of our present day. How, then, is it possible that a major cause of indifferentism, so thoroughly condemned by Pope Pius XI, has become so obviously present and even encouraged and promoted in the Church today? The following is a commentary by the Catherine of Siena Institute (CSI), a ministry affiliated with the US Western Province of the Dominicans, on the previously cited 2008 study by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, The overall percentage of Catholics hasn't changed that much in recent years – but if we weren't losing so many members, we'd be growing dramatically and make up 33% of the country, not 23%! Catholic numbers have remained relatively constant because their massive losses (1/3) have been offset by huge Hispanic immigration. For every US Evangelical/Pentecostal who has become a Catholic (roughly 1.8 million), 8 American Catholics have gone in the other direction (roughly 14 -15 million). The 8:1 ratio. [This 8:1 ratio is a prime example of the disaster of the false ecumenism identified and condemned by Pope Pius XI in his 1928 encyclical Mortalium Animos. It is a strong cause and effect relationship linking Vatican II with the current crisis in the Church.] The disproportion is even greater among Hispanic speaking people. 20% of US Hispanic Catholics become Evangelicals or Pentecostals.”198 Here again, traditional Catholic communities are growing and with them a return to the traditional understanding of our quoted popes on the relationship of the Church to all nonCatholics: there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church. 8. Warnings of Approved Marian Apparitions


Catherine of Siena Institute blog entry by Sheri, “The 8:1 Ratio: Where to Begin?” accessed January 26, 2011, See also The Washington Times, “Catholic Tradition Fading in the U.S.,” February 26, 2008, accessed July 27, 2011, For their source, see the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, U.S. Religious Landscape Study, review,, and the full report,



In the 16th century, the Blessed Virgin Mary warned at Quito, Equador, of a great crisis in the Church and society that would occur in the 20th century, four centuries later! Her warnings having gone unheeded, the Virgin Mary came again, this time to Fatima, Portugal, in the early twentieth century (1917) to repeat her warning. She said that after 1960 (Vatican II?) the reason for her apparitions and warnings would become clear. Still having been ignored, she came to the USA in the 1950s repeating virtually the same warnings, and again to Akita, Japan, in the 1970s, with the same serious warning of impending chastisement if her messages were not heeded. Her warnings are still being ignored, which reflects a major loss of faith in the intercessory power of the Blessed Virgin Mary. The control group, the traditional Catholic Orders and the Catholic lay communities growing around them continue to petition our bishops and our Pope to follow the directives of the Blessed Virgin Mary’s prophetic messages to our age. This group, because of its strong devotion to Mary, has not suffered the ill effects of those in the new product group who have in general waned in their devotion to her and therefore do not heed her warnings. 9. Pre-Conciliar Popes’ Warnings Buried by Progressivists All of our quoted pre-Vatican II popes were emphatic that the dangers they identified and wrote strong warnings and legislation against, would result in devastation to the Faith and the Church if not vigorously combated. In Humani Generis (1950), less than fifteen years before Vatican II, Pope Pius XII warned of the crisis in the Church and commanded Catholic bishops to take strong action against the following modern errors:  Evolution.  False ecumenism.  Universal salvation.  Pantheism.  Existentialism.  Communism.  Denial of scriptural inerrancy.  Denial of the dogma No Salvation Outside the Church  Failure to teach Scholastic philosophy, resulting in widespread religious ignorance and selfdeceit, the teachings of the Church being universally denied and contradicted. Yet Progressive theologians and bishops who gained control of Vatican Council II threw out the carefully prepared agenda for the Council that would have addressed the problems identified in Humani Generis and the other encyclicals we have cited, replacing the prepared agenda with a new one that ignored the problems. As the obvious and predictable result, the problems grew more acute as time passed until, now, there are no Catholic nations left on the face of the earth. The traditional doctrine of the Social Kingship of Christ was abandoned at Vatican II and has ceased to exist in the modern Church. But it was not abandoned and is still advocated and practiced in traditional Catholicism. 10. The Control Group Remained Healthy Vitality in traditional Catholicism has remained strong. The fact that traditional Catholics did not suffer the consequences of the implementation of Vatican II is a strong positive cause and effect relationship linking the implementation of the Council with the current crisis. The following factors, all fostered by The Papal Plan for Restoration, contribute to that strength: some in small ways; others in very major ways; but all together maintaining a truly Catholic identity and culture in the Church and in the world. 182

Offering the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass according to the pre–Vatican II 1962 Missal of Pope John XXIII (and all the sacraments in the traditional rite as well). o The predominantly sacrificial nature of the old Mass draws devout souls seeking God; predominantly young devout souls. True worship requires a sacrifice and much of the sacrificial nature was deliberately removed from the Novus Ordo Mass to make it less objectionable to Protestants. Yet Protestants did not come to the Mass, but Catholics left in droves. o Offering the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass at the high altar of sacrifice instead of a banquet table. o The true Eucharistic presence of the Body and Blood of Christ is the “mystery of faith” proclaimed at the Consecration in the traditional Mass. This sacrificial, Eucharistic nature is the fundamental reason adherents attend this Mass. In the Novus Ordo Mass the proclamation of the Eucharistic “mystery of faith” at the consecration was deleted and at another place in the Mass a totally different Protestant “mystery of faith” was inserted, namely, the mystery of the death, resurrection, and second coming of Christ (“Let us proclaim the mystery of faith: Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again.”). The central mystery of the Mass was obviously changed and obviously, from the statistics cited, resulted in loss of faith in the Real Presence. o In the traditional Mass, the separate consecrations of the bread and wine, representing the separation of the Body and Blood of Christ in His sacrifice on the cross, are followed by the commingling of the Eucharistic Body and Blood of Christ and the following sacred petition, which completes the Mass’s perpetuation of Christ’s sacrifice and His taking up divine life again in the resurrection. Placing a fragment of the sacred Host into the Sacred Blood the priest prays, “May this mingling and consecration of the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ avail us who receive it unto life everlasting. Amen.” This sacred prayer asking Almighty God to give salvation to all who receive the Body and Blood of Christ, is not present in the English missal Breaking Bread, used by most Catholics at the Novus Ordo Mass in the US; in its place, a fraternal handshake among men takes place. The acknowledgement of eternal salvation present in the traditional Mass was replaced in the Novus Ordo congregation by a sign of friendship among men; the divine was replaced by the natural. o Retention of the tabernacle containing the real Eucharistic presence as the center of attention on the high altar. o The silence inherent in the holy sacrifice of the traditional Mass is sacred. This profound sacred nature draws the devout worshiper, but it was substantially removed from the Novus Ordo Mass, most dramatically from the Consecration. Unwavering orthodoxy, meaning strict adherence to the authentic traditional teachings of the popes and the magisterium of every age in the Church. Rigorous study, meaning study of the fundamentals of the Faith as presented in Scripture, orthodox catechisms, Scholastic philosophy according to the Summa Theologicae of St. Thomas Aquinas, and papal writings from every age in the Church Frequent reception of the Sacrament of Confession by throngs of traditional Catholics. Priests and religious always wearing traditional attire. Reviving the apostolate of teaching nuns in Catholic schools. Retention of Catholic traditions that promoted reverence and vitality in the past. Father Annibale Bugnini said the goal of his innovations in the Novus Ordo Mass was to remove 183

     


everything that could be offensive to Protestants. Because of this, all of the following traditions were largely abandoned by Novus Ordo Catholics in the post–Vatican II era. Looking at this list it seems logical to conclude that the Progressivists wanted to eradicate the practice of traditional Catholicism. They succeeded where the Novus Ordo Mass is offered but all of the following traditions have been kept by traditional Catholics and are important factors in the vitality of their traditional Catholic communities. These seemingly simple and insignificant gestures, practices and customs, adorning the pure Catholic theology and praxis of the traditional Mass, make the difference between sacred liturgy and banality, between orthodoxy and modernism, between an abundance of priestly vocations and a dearth. o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 184 Always making the sign of the cross when beginning and ending a prayer. Silence while in a church.. Women always wearing a veil or head covering while in church. Very modest dress code, especially for women. Taking holy water and making the sign of the cross when entering and leaving the church. Genuflecting when entering and leaving the pew. Genuflecting when passing in front of the tabernacle. Genuflecting on both knees when the Holy Eucharist is exposed on the altar. A veil covering the tabernacle door. Kissing of the priest’s hand by altar servers during Mass and by lay persons when greeting a priest outside of Mass, because of reverence and respect for the priesthood. Bowing to the priest as he passes the faithful in the entrance procession. Three cloth coverings on the altar of sacrifice instead of only one covering on the Novus Ordo table. Genuflecting during the Creed and the Last Gospel at “and the Word was made flesh.” Latin, the Church’s official language, in the Mass, with Latin-English missals for active participation of the faithful at Mass. Gregorian chant and traditional Catholic hymns at Mass. The faithful singing the Gregorian chant responses at a high Mass. The sung high Mass being the principle Mass on Sundays and all feast days. Mass with both the priest and the people united, facing toward God, i.e., liturgical east, from where Christ will return in His Second Coming, as was the longstanding Catholic tradition since the fourth or fifth centuries. The blessing with water by the priest before high Mass (Asperges Me and Vidi Aquam). Receiving only the Sacred Host at Holy Communion as tradition dictates because the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ are completely present in it. Reception of Holy Communion on the tongue while kneeling at a communion rail. Communion rails were removed from almost all Catholic churches after Vatican II and kneelers were removed from many churches. Only a priest or deacon distributing Holy Communion. Long communion lines and a long wait for Holy Communion are not a problem for traditional Catholics. Only priests and deacons touching the sacred host and the sacred vessels used at Mass. Respect for the three hours fast before Holy Communion.

o o o o o o o o o o

Only male clergy and male altar servers in the sanctuary during Mass. Only a priest or deacon reading the Gospel and Epistle in English at Mass. Leonine prayers for the conversion of Russia after a low Mass. Kneeling for private thanksgiving after Mass. Black vestments, not white, at a Requiem Mass. When walking past a church, making the sign of the cross and men tipping their hats. The traditional Way of the Cross by St. Alphonsus Ligouri, not modern Progressivist substitutes. Traditional public devotions, such as litanies, novenas, Forty Hours devotion, missions during Lent, etc. Praying before and after meals, especially the Angelus, even in public restaurants and eating places. Not eating meat during Lent, on Fridays, Ember days, and other special days.

These ten cause and effect relationships linking Vatican II with the problems of the current crisis in the Catholic Church are not all of equal importance, but taken together, they make a strong argument for the expansion into the entire Church of The Papal Plan for Restoration. The Six Elements of the Papal Plan for Restoration The Papal Plan for Restoration, taken from the papal encyclicals and related documents examined in this book, consists of the following six major elements. If these six elements were put into practice throughout the Church, the other dogmas, directives and recommendations of the preConciliar popes would also be believed, respected and heeded. And the current crisis in the Church would no longer exist – but there would undoubtedly be more Catholic martyrs. 1. Restoration of the vitality of the traditional pre-Conciliar Latin Mass as the primary liturgical rite throughout the Church, as urged by Monsignor Klaus Gamber, the first step having been already legislated by Pope Benedict XVI in his Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum. 2. Restoration of the teaching of Scholastic philosophy in Catholic seminaries and schools as decreed by Pope Leo XIII in his encyclical Aeterni Patris. 3. Restoration of belief in the necessity of the Church for salvation, by the preaching and teaching of the dogma outside the Church there is no salvation, as commanded in the infallible definitions of Pope Innocent II and the Fourth Lateran Council, Pope Boniface XIII in his Bull Unam Sanctum, and Pope Eugene IV in his Bull Cantate Domino. 4. Restoration of vigilance against a host of serious Modernist threats against the Church by the preaching and teaching of the Syllabus of Errors of Blessed Pope Pius IX and the encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis of Pope Saint Pius X against Modernism; and of Humani Generis of Pope Pius XII against Liberalism. 5. Restoration of true ecumenism by the preaching and teaching of the encyclical Mortalium Animos of Pope Pius XI against false ecumenism. 6. Restoration of large Catholic families (and the priesthood) by the preaching and teaching of the encyclical Humanae Vitae of Pope Paul VI against contraception. Conclusions Vatican II was convened by Pope John XXIII for the purpose of “aggiornamento,” to let in a breath of fresh air that would update and invigorate the Church, making it more relevant and stronger in the modern world. Cardinal Ratzinger’s assessment of the results of Vatican II was that the opposite has actually occurred. The reality as opposed to the myth of what has taken place since 185


the Council was assessed accurately by Cardinal Ratzinger in a statement published in the December 24, 1984, English edition of L'Osservatore Romano: Certainly the results [of Vatican II] seem cruelly opposed to the expectations of everyone, beginning with those of Pope John XXIII and then of Pope Paul VI: expected was a new Catholic unity and instead we have been exposed to self-destruction. Expected was a new enthusiasm, and many wound up discouraged and bored. Expected was a great step forward; instead we find ourselves faced with a progressive process of decadence which has developed for the most part under the sign of a calling back to the Council, and has therefore contributed to discrediting it for many. The net result therefore seems negative. I am repeating here what I said ten years after the conclusion of the work: it is incontrovertible that this period has definitely been unfavorable for the Catholic Church. The fact that this period has been unfavorable to the Catholic Church is due to no small extent to the prohibition of the Tridentine Mass. Even had the 1970 Missal been an improvement upon that of 1570, the prohibition of the latter was certain to be harmful for the Church. The folly of changing liturgical rites to which the faithful were accustomed was appreciated by many eminent authorities long before Vatican II The statistics, the words of popes, and the corroborating documentation presented here make it clear that Cardinal Ratzinger was correct in his assessment. The Catholic Church and the Faith of Catholics have suffered cruel attack both from without and from within the Church and the attack has been aimed, as in the Protestant revolution, primarily at the Catholic Mass and the Catholic priesthood. In the Novus Ordo era Church, the Catholic Mass of antiquity was suppressed and under the new Mass the priesthood declined in numbers and stature. Yet in the traditional control group, despite attempts to kill it, the classical Latin Mass is very much alive and through it Catholic faith is strong, orthodox, and growing. Traditional Catholic seminaries are full and new ones are being built. Devout and faithful adherence to the theology and praxis of the pre-Conciliar Mass has filled these seminaries. One must therefore logically conclude that there was no need for “reform of the liturgy,” no need for the new Mass, and in fact, as predicted by Cardinal Ottaviani’s study the statistics prove that the “reform” was harmful to the Church and the priesthood. That conclusion is corroborated by the fact that a “reform of the reform” is currently thought to be necessary and is being promoted by leaders in the Novus Ordo era Church.
Projected Growth if Vatican II had not Happened

To further support and strengthen this conclusion, we now develop a realistic estimate of the number of worldwide diocesan Catholic priests the Church would have had today if there had been no Novus Ordo Mass and no Vatican II “reform” of the growing Church of the 1960s. If after Vatican II our bishops had supported the traditional Mass it is logical to assume that the rate of growth in the number of priests worldwide from 1970 until today would have been at least the same as the actual rate of growth that did occur in the number of traditional priests during that same period. We saw that the number of Catholics in the world today is roughly one billion and the number of traditional Catholics, according the Vatican estimate, is approximately one million. That means that, according to the Vatican, there are roughly one thousand times more Catholics in the worldwide Church than traditional Catholics. To get from one million trads to one billion worldwide Catholics we must therefore multiply the number of traditional Catholics by one thousand. Using that same scaling factor, to get from the number of traditional priests to the number of worldwide priests that we would have had without the “reform” of Vatican II, we must multiply the growth in the number of traditional priests by one thousand. We showed that the increase in the number of 186

traditional priests from 1970 to 2010 (which was a linear increase over time) was approximately 900. Multiplying that number by one thousand we get 900,000, the increase in the number of worldwide priests we would have had without the “reform” of Vatican II. When we add that number to the number of worldwide diocesan priests in 1970 ( 271,000) we see that in the Catholic world today we would have had 271,000 + 900,000 or approximately 1.2 million priests, instead of 271,000. This number is realistic because the growth in traditional priests occurred during the exact same time period as the worldwide decline in the Novus Ordo era Church and its priesthood. It is also realistic because the increase of 900 priests occurred despite the opposition of the bishops to them and their traditional Mass. The increase would have been greater had the bishops supported them. With 1.2 million traditional Catholic priests, the Church and the world would not be in the mess it is in today. Another strategic development that must be acknowledged, a reality that is undeniable today, is the fact that the number of young Catholics who attend the traditional Mass is growing and the number of young people who attend the Novus Ordo Mass continues to decline. The reasons for this sad reality have been clearly explained by our pre-Conciliar popes but the modern Church does not acknowledge the wisdom of the pre-Conciliar popes. It is realistic to assume that as more and more young men contemplating a priestly vocation learn the wisdom of these popes the growth of the traditional Mass will accelerate and the decline of the new Mass will accelerate. The “new evangelization” is already defined and is under way in and by these young faithful traditional Catholics. The new evangelization is their return to the traditional Mass and its theology. These young Catholic faithful will be the future implementers of The Papal Plan for Restoration. One day in the future they will be the predominant force in the Church and the cardinals and the pope will come from their ranks. The Church will then flourish again. But we must face today. The changes in Church law pertaining to the Mass and priestly formation were made after Vatican II in an attempt by Church leaders to implement its “spirit.” Some of those laws have been proven to be harmful. Since they are administrative in nature, not dogmatic, they can be changed or revoked. As Cardinal Ottaviani said, “The subjects for whose benefit a law is made have always had the right, nay the duty, to ask the legislator to abrogate the law, should it prove to be harmful.” By issuing Summorum Pontificum Pope Benedict XVI has responded to the faithful requesting the abrogation of an unwritten, unjust, and harmful law, never promulgated by Rome, forbidding the traditional Latin Mass. The right of the faithful to have the traditional Latin Mass is now explicit in ecclesial law.



The pope sees the statistical reality in the Church today and has begun the process of correction with Summorum Pontificum and the return of the traditional Latin Mass. He has also given example to his bishops and the faithful by distributing Holy Communion by the traditional method – with communicant kneeling and receiving the Sacred Host on the tongue. By his actions the pope acknowledges the efficacy of this truly Catholic Mass and its holy praxis. By his words and actions he acknowledges the truthfulness of what we have written here about the Mass.

In these pictures Pope Benedict XVI makes his will known by distributing Holy Communion in the traditional way, on the tongue of kneeling communicants. (Many more photos like these can be found on the Internet using the search terms – benedict, communion, kneeling) But our bishops are still silent on Summorum Pontificum and have not yet begun as a body to follow the pope’s lead. We therefore earnestly ask the faithful who read what is written here to complete the Survey Questions Booklet and return it to the publisher so that the resulting analysis of the survey can be sent to our bishops. Then contact your pastor and your bishop and give them a copy of the book. Ask them to follow our holy father’s lead. Ask for the Extraordinary Form of the Mass in your parish. The author spent more than thirty years after Vatican II in the Novus Ordo era Church actively participating as lector, altar server, parish council member, member of finance and facilities committees and other active ministries. In 1997 he began attending the traditional Latin Mass and for the past twelve years has been an active member in a traditional Catholic community where The Papal Plan for Restoration is followed and, with the approval of the local bishop, a priest chaplain offers the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass daily in the Extraordinary Form. A new Church is being built to replace the outgrown chapel where that Mass is now offered. In July, 2007, after Pope Benedict XVI issued Summorum Pontificum, the author and his wife petitioned a local pastor to provide an Extraordinary Form Mass at one of the parish churches in the city where they lived and they became the coordinators for the monthly Latin Mass and Gregorian chant schola the pastor started there. This is what our Holy Father desires for all Catholic parishes in the world. This is the mission he has 188

given the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei. Let our bishops follow the lead of our holy father and the PCED by beginning now to do whatever is necessary to offer the Extraordinary Form of the Mass in every parish. Our quoted surveys tell them the return of the old Mass will not be opposed by their faithful. Prayer for Our Holy Father after Each Rosary V. Let us pray for our Pontiff, Pope Benedict [or the currently reigning pope]. R. The Lord preserve him and give him life, and make him to be blessed upon the earth, and deliver him not up to the will of his enemies (Roman Breviary). Our Father, Hail Mary
From the old Raccolta. A plenary indulgence on the usual conditions, when this prayer has been devoutly said every day for a month. (S.C. Nov. 26, 1876; S. P. Ap., Oct 12, 1931)

Let us pray. Almighty and everlasting God, have mercy upon Thy servant, Benedict [or current pope], our Supreme Pontiff, and direct him, according to Thy loving-kindness, in the way of eternal salvation; that of Thy gift, he may ever desire that which is pleasing unto Thee and may accomplish it with all His might. Through Christ Our Lord. Amen (Roman Ritual).
From the old Raccolta. An indulgence of three years, a plenary indulgence once a month on the usual conditions, for the daily devout recitation of this prayer. S. P. Ap., March 10, 1935)

Let us also vow to put our trust in Our Lady, taking to heart her words to Saint Juan Diego in 1531. My dear little son, Juan Diego. Listen and let it penetrate your heart. Do not be troubled or weighed down with grief. Do not fear any illness or vexation, anxiety or pain. Am I not here who am your Mother? Are you not under my shadow and protection? Am I not your fountain of life? Are you not in the folds of my mantle? In the crossing of my arms? Is there anything else you need? 199 And, trusting in Our Lady, let our pope, together with our bishops, heed her heavenly command, given at Fatima in 1917, to consecrate Russia to her Immaculate Heart; for this is obviously also the desire of her divine Son, our Lord Jesus Christ. A prayer to Our Lady for the conversion of Russia, America, and the entire world (Blessed Pope Pius IX, Raccolta No. 579) O Mary, Mother of Mercy and Refuge of sinners, we beseech thee, be pleased to look with pitiful eyes upon poor heretics and schismatics. Thou who art the Seat of Wisdom, enlighten the minds that are miserably enfolded in the darkness of ignorance and sin, that they may clearly know that the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church is the one true Church of Jesus Christ, outside of which neither holiness nor salvation can be found. Finish the work of their conversion by obtaining for them the grace to accept all the truths of our Holy faith, and to submit themselves to the Supreme Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of Jesus Christ on earth; that so, being united with us in the sweet chains of Divine charity, there may soon be only one fold under the same one Shepherd; and may we all, O Glorious


Brian Kelly, “The Magnificate, Hymn of the Incarnation,” website, (August 25, 2007), accessed May 17, 2012,



Virgin, sing forever with exultation: Rejoice, O Virgin Mary, thou only hast destroyed all heresies in the whole world. Amen. Hail Mary three times. An Indulgence of 500 days (S.C. Prop. of the Faith., Dec. 30, 1868; S.P. Ap., March 18, 1936. Raccolta No. 579). All of us, Catholic laity and clergy, must be men and women of good will. Good will means desiring the truth with all our heart and being willing to go wherever the truth leads. The truth is that the popes and the statistics tell us we went down the wrong road after Vatican II. Let us vow, as men and women of good will, to go back to the right road, as C. S. Lewis advises; “We all want progress, but if you're on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn, and walking back to the right road; in that case, the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive.”200 The right road leads back to the traditional Mass and the flourishing Church it nourished prior to 1970, and the Church it faithfully sustained throughout fifteen hundred years of good times and bad, until the Progressivist implementers of Vatican II tried foolishly and unsuccessfully to kill it. That is the final conclusion one must reach by a logical and truthful examination of the evidence documented in this book. Please answer question 80 in the Survey Questions Booklet.


C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (New York, NY: MacMillam Publishing Co., 1947), p. 36.


abortion Catholic bishops, 36 Catholic college students, 37 Catholic dissent, 60 Catholic politicians, 37 Humanae Vitae, 78 linked to contraception, 82 minors, 36 Obama, 36 partial birth, 36 Sebelius, 36 Tiller, 36 abrogate harmful laws, 86, 187 Amerio, Romano, 17 Anglicans, 69 Anglicanorum Coetibus, 71 homosexual bishops, 69 annulments, 34, 171 anonymous Christian, 56, 154, 156, 180 anti-Christ, 121, 140 apriorism is heresy, 61 Australia, 69, 117, 118 Baptism of desire, 153, 155 Benedict XVI begun restoration, 20 Dominus Jesus, 151 ecumenism talk to youth, 68 unity in institutional structure, 68 excommunications nullified, 158 faith less relevant, 180 God disappearing, 40 Gregorian Rite, 20 hermeneutic of continuity, xiv, 19 hermeneutic of discontinuity, 19 Holy Communion on tongue, kneeling, 131 humanity losing its bearings, 40 liturgy abrogated harmful law, 187 continuity with tradition, 130, 132 new Mass cause of crisis, 178 no division in rite, xiv on Fatima message, 41 on liturgy and faith, 128 on salvation, 147, 149, 151 on status of Church, 40 on the liturgy, 101 on true ecumenism, 68, 69 perseverance needed, 20 primacy of the Church, 149 Quito prophesies, 40 restored Latin Mass, xiii, 157, 179, 185 return of Anglicans, 70 simple faith needed, 27 Summorum Pontificum, xiii, 133 Beno, Patrick F., Editor Signs of the Times, 17 birth control dissent of Catholics, 60 Humanae Vitae, 77, 79 pill, 81 used by Catholics +80%, 2008 poll, 34 bishops appeal to, xiv, 189 mistrust of, 18 silent, xiii, 188 survey data for, xv will they act?, 18 Bocci, Cardinal Antonio, 21 Borromeo, St. Charles, 65 Buchanan, Patrick J. Index of Catholicism, 34 CARA, 37 Catechism of the Catholic Church, 57, 68, 151, 156, 180 Catholic Colleges Survey abortion, 37, 172 condom use, 38, 172 loss of faith, 37, 172 Mass attendance, 37, 38, 172 premarital sex, 38, 172 prolife, 37, 172 same-sex marriage, 37, 172 Catholic communities, xiii, xiv, 18, 20, 28, 173, 180 control group, 175 191


remedies produce good fruit, 22 vitality never lost, 22 warnings heeded, 22 Catholic thought, 20 cause and effect relationships contraception, 76 false ecumenism, 172, 181 Holy Eucharist, 92 Humnae vitae, 180 introduced, 18 link Council with crisis, 18, 22, 185 liturgy, 179 loss of faith, 22 Marian messages, 42 new Mass, 21, 175 Real Presence, 21 scholastic philosophy, 177 traditional Catholicism, 22, 182 Church no longer necessary?, 19 strong before Vat II, 20 Communion in the hand, 122 Confession, 183 Consilium, 86 conspiracy of silence, 20 control group, 22, 173, 175, 176, 178, 180, 182, 186 crisis causes of, 19 Church not necessary, 137, 185 contraception, 185 false ecumenism, 185 Modernism, 185 pre-Conciliar Mass killed, 185 Scholasticism killed, 75, 185 external, 17 how to resolve?, 17 internal, 17 logical statements about, 22 of truth, 18, 22, 56 predicted, 19 resolvable!!, 17 Dangers 1738, Clement XIII, 46 1832, Gregory XVI, 45 192

1864, Pius IX, 45 1879, Leo XIII bad philosophy, 54 commands teach true philosophy, 54 evils afflict the Church, 53 exhorts bishops, 56 most bitter adversaries, 54 refute heresies, confirm dogmas, 55 Scholastic always and everywhere, 55 teach Scholastic Philosophy, 53 teach youth Scholasticism, 55 tempest upon us, 56 these dangerous times, 55 throw aside ancient wisdom, 55 1881, Leo XIII, 46 1884, Leo XIII, 46 1888, Leo XIII, 46 1891, Leo XIII, 47 1901, Leo XIII, 47 1907, Pius X all religions true?, 59 based on religious feelings?, 59 Christ’s divinity denied, 61 Church called abusive, 60 contradictions justified, 62 crisis of truth, 63 curiosity, pride, ignorance, 63 dogmas called erroneous, 62 dogmas must evolve?, 59 evolution controls everything, 61 evolution of dogma, 59 imperative- act without delay, 57 in heart of Church, 58 pantheism, 60 Pascendi, 56 Protestant influence, 63 ravings of Modernists, 58 remedies for averting evils, 58 ridicule, contempt of theology, 63 Sacraments not of Christ, 60 Scholastic Philosophy trashed, 62 scholasticism, contempt of, 63 sources of errors, 58 war against scholastic philosophy, tradition, magisterium, 63 1919, Pius X, 48 1925, Pius XI, 49 1928, Pius XI

[Type text] admonishes bishops, 66 all religions good, 66 bishops avoid this evil, 67 Church pillar of truth, 67 ecumenical meetings, 66 ecumenism- false rationale, 66 ecumenism injures faith, 67 ecumenism-false rationale, 66 faith completely destroyed, 67 false ecumenism condemned, 66 most grave error, 67 non-Catholic meetings forbiden, 67 pantheistic Christians, 66 Prots do not return, 67 reject true religion, 66 return to Rome, 67 return to true Church, 67 unlawful meetings, 67 1937, Pius XI, 50 bitter fruit fortold, 50 1950, Pius XII advocates of novelty, 73 attacked on all sides, 71 caution on evolution, 75 charge to the bishops, 76 compelled with grief, 75 contempt of teaching authority, 73 deadly fruit, 74 defend original sin, 76 destruction of the faith, 73 diagnose correctly, 72 eirenism, indifferentism, 72 Eucharist symbolic, 74 evolution, dialectical materialism, 72 in that sense…, 74 infallible, no discussion, 73 list of modern errors, 182 meaningless formula, 75 men resist truth, grace, 72 new exegesis, scripture, 74 original sin perverted, 74 repudiates all immutable, 72 self-deception, 71 souls created by God, 75 spurn teaching office, 72 submit to Authority, 75 teach Scholasticism again, 75, 176 immutability of truth, 138 decline in Church vitality, 19 denial of truth, 22 devil, 143, 144 diabolical disorientation, 41 diocesan priests, 119 divine permanence, 60 Dominus Iesus, 147 ecumenism return of Anglicans, 69 TAC seeks reunion, 69 unity in the Church CCC #813, 68 Eucharist, 28 Trent on Real Presence, 98 existentialism, 72 extra Ecclesim nulla salus, outside the Church no salvation, 137 Faber, Fr. Frederick, 39, 119, 123 false ecumenism Catholics apostatized to Protestantism, 68 loss of faith, 68 never allowed, 67 Protestants do not convert, 68 Fatima and the Papal Plan, 42 cause and effect relationship, 182 coincides with Akita, 44 miracle, 41 Pius XII, 39 warning, 42 Ferrara, Christopher A. Pope stands w/Trads, 40 First Vatican Council sense of dogmas cannot change, 19 FOCA, 36 Freemasonry, 17 French Revolution, 21 FSSP, 168 Full Pews and Empty Altars, 33 Gamber, Monsignor, 116 Georgetown University, 29, 37 Gregory the Great codified Mass, 20 Gruner, Fr. Nicholas promotes Fatima message, 41 Guadalupe message of, 40 Our Lady of, 39 Guimãres, Atila Sinke, 17 193


hermeneutic of continuity, xiv hermeneutic of discontinuity, 19 Humanae Vitae, 76 immanence, 60 immanentism, 72, 73 In the Murky Waters of Vatican II, 17 Inside the Vatican, xi, 27 Iota Unum, 17 kneelers, 184 Kurth, Godfrey, ix, 20 Kurth, Godfrey, 20 Lamont, Fr. John, 158 large families from traditional Catholic parents, 61 Latin Mass Church flourished, 20 never abrogated, xiii, 19 restored in all parishes, 20 Traditional theology, 18 lay persons, 27, 184 Canon 229- defend doctrine, 27 must defend doctrines, 26 lex orandi, lex credendi, 21, 133 loss of faith Catholic colleges, 37 caused by new Mass, 21, 133 causes, 22 denial of eens, 22 false ecumenism, 68 in Blessed Virgin, 182 in college students, 172 in Real Presence, 21, 92, 183 predicted, 21 statistical evidence, 22 Mahowald, Steve C. Eclipse of Truth, 34 major premises of book, 17 Maluf, Br. Francis, M.I.C.M, PhD, 44 Marian apparitions, 19 Mass attendance, xiv, 18, 34, 117, 169, 171 1958 Gallup poll, 34 2008 bishops poll, 35 CARA study, 29, 30 Post–Vatican II Catholics, 30 Pre–Vatican II Catholics, 30 young people, 168 Mass of Paul VI angels disappeared, 94 194

Apostles disappeared, 94 caused loss of faith, 133 departure from Trent, 85 Gregorian chant eliminated, 96 Latin eliminated, 96 Memorial Acclamation, 92 Mystery of Faith, 91 priest minimized, 93 problems predicted, 21 propitiatory sacrifice compromised, 88 Purgatory eliminated, 94 Real Presence denied, 87 real presence implicitly repudiated, 91 Real Presence supressed, 90 rejected by Synod, 86 sacrifice denied, 87 sacrifice obscured, 89 sacrifice of praise disappeared, 88 smoke of Satan, 25 striking departure from Trent, 21 Transubstantiation gone, 95 Church, 154 music and active participation, 112 ars integra, 114 choir sings, people listen, 115 get help, start slowly, 116 Gregorian- pride of place, 111 hostility by clergy, 113 learning chant, 115 Musicam sacram, 1967, 112 must be sacred, 110 participate sacredly, 112 polyphony, 111 restoring in a parish, 111 secular not envisioned, 112 taught in seminaries, 111 teaching of Pius X, 113 treasure of sacred, 111 Muslims, 171 outnumber Catholics, 61 new product, 22, 173, 175, 176, 182 New Song for the Lord, A, 113 Nicea II upheld traditions, 63 Novus Ordo Missae, 21, 104 departure from Trent, 85 study of, 20 Oath Against Modernism, 19, 138

[Type text] Obama, Barack, 36, 43, 172 objectives of the book, 17, 18 ordinations, 19 Ottaviani Intervention, 104, 178 predicted crisis, 21 predicted loss of faith, 21 to stop new Mass, 85 Ottaviani, Cardinal Alfredo, 21, 187 Our Lady of America approved by Church, 42 outside the Church no salvation, 62, 143, 144, 145, 147, 148, 150, 156, 176, 177 Papal Plan for Restoration, 185 effective today, 18, 157 six elements of, 185 supporting, 22 parishes, 121, 134, 180 combined, closed, sold, 19 famine of Eucharist, 19 no resident priest, 19 Pascendi Dominici Gregis, 57 ignored by Vat II caused crisis, 66 pedophile scandal in priesthood, 18 polititians, pro-abortion uncensured by bishops, 60 polls 1958 Gallup- Mass attendance, 34 1992 Gallup- Holy Eucharist, 35 1994 NY Times - Holy Eucharist, 35 2007 Pew Forum- Americans, 35 2008 bishops- Mass attendance, 35 2008 Newman Soc- students, 37 2008 Polls- contraception, 34 2008 voter exit, 36 2010 Britain- Latin Mass, 134 2010 CARA- students, 37, 172 polygenism condemned, 75 Pope John Paul, 114, 133, 146, 147 Pope John XXIII, 134, 146 convened Vat II, 34, 185 Missal, 183 Pope Paul VI, 25, 50, 102, 105, 119, 126, 134, 176, 180, 185 Popes affirm crisis Karol Wojtyla greatest historical confrontation, 25 Paul VI apostacy at highest levels, 25 clouds, storms, darkness, 25 darkness of Satan, 25 devil’s adversary power, 25 disintegration of Church, 25 Satan at summit, 25 Satan entered Church, 25 smoke of Satan, 25 Ratzinger- crisis must be treated, 18 powers of darkness, 21 praxis, 184 priest shortage, 33 priest-less parishes, 171 priests will be scorned, 44 Progressivists, 184 spoken of by Kurth, 21 what they intend, 17 Quito confirmed by Benedict XVI, 40 dangers threatening the faith, 41 warnings, 40 Rahner, Fr. Karl, 56, 107, 138, 155, 180 Ratzinger, 26, 178 catastrophic consequences, 26 crisis must be treated, 18, 26 disintegration of liturgy, 178 Fatima with coincides with Akita, 44 Latin rite no more, 119 new Mass a product, 22, 173 New Song, 113 on Gamber, 101, 116, 179 on liturgical music, 114 on Mass facing people, 125, 127 on old Mass ban, 118 self-destruction, 26, 186 young Progressivist, 107 Real Presence, 92, 95, 98, 99, 105, 107, 121, 177 diminished in new Mass, 21 reforms, 102, 103, 117 at the grass roots, 20 outlined by popes, 20 Reilly, Patrick J., 37 relativism dogmatic relativism, 73 religions all equally good?, 181 195


religious orders, 123 religious sense, 58 remedies 1907, Pius X be vigilant, zealous, firm, 64 bishops must be strict & vigilant, 65 bishops must condemn injurious books, 65 bishops must institute Councils of Vigilance, 65 bishops must prevent reading of Modernists, 65 bishops must remove Modernists, 64 bishops must submit diliget and sworn reports, 65 doctorates based on scholasticism only, otherwise null and void, 65 observe apostolic and ecclesial traditions, 64 profession of faith, 64 teach scholastic philosophy, 64 Virgin, destroyer of all heresies, 65 from six encyclicals, 44 in papal writings, 17 restoration, 22, 106, 111, 176 salvation CCC #1260, 57 found outside the Church?, 19 Sasagawa, Sister Agnes, Akita, 44 Satan, 25, 140, 141 schismatic, 157, 158 Schneider, Bishop, 127 Schoenherr, Richard, 33 Schwartz, Michael, 34 statistical study, 33 Sebelius, Kathleen, 36 self-deception, 39 seminarians, 65, 119, 157, 160 decline, 19 France- 1/3 traditional, 168 seminaries empty after Vat II, 117 must restore Thomism, 185 post Vat II, 19 traditional at full capacity, 186 large families fill, 180 shortage of priests, 18 smoke of Satan, 178 196

Spanish speaking immigrants, 35, 172 SSPX, 157, 159, 168, 173 vindicated, 157 statistics abortion, 36, 38, 172 annulments, 34, 171 apostacy, 35 Argentina, 159 Australia, 117, 159 Austria, 95 Belgium, 117 Brothers, 160 Canada, 117 Catholic colleges, 37 contraception, 34, 171 elections, 36, 172 England, 117 Eucharistic Presence, 35 France, 30, 34, 117, 119, 159, 168, 171 FSSP, 164, 168, 173 Germany, 95, 117, 159 Holland, 34, 117, 124, 171 homosexuality, 36, 172 indifference, 36 Ireland, 117 Italy, 34, 117, 171 Mass attendance, 30 9 million fewer, 172 Mexico, 50 Muslims, 34, 61, 171 New Zealand, 117 nuns, 34, 171 obvious and verifiable, 17 priest-less parishes, 18, 19, 171, 180 priests, xiv, 33, 34, 41, 76, 119, 157, 159, 160, 163, 168, 173 Real Presence, 21, 74, 87, 171, 176 Religious Sisters, 160 Russia, 42, 50 salvation, 36 Scotland, 117 seminarians, 41, 76, 160, 171 Sonnier, 29 Spain, 34, 50, 171 Switzerland, 95, 159 US, 19, 34, 35, 83, 117, 119, 159, 171 Weekly Mass attendance, 117, 134, 171 9 million fewer, 35

[Type text] Summorum Pontificum, 133, 157, 179, 185 Latin Mass never abrogated, 19 Summorum Pontificum poll 1. Great Britain - 2010, 134 2. 60% unaware of SP, 135 3. if old Mass in parish, 134 4. 66.4% would attend, 135 5. bishops oppose SP, 135 Survey Questions 01-11, 26 12, 27 13-14, 33 15-21, 38 22-23, 44 24-25, 55 26-27, 64 28-29, 65 30-31, 68 32, 69 33-35, 70 36 – Number not used, 70 37, 76 38-39, 83 40, 101 41, 104 42-43, 110 44-45, 111 46-48, 116 49-50, 123 51, 123 52, 126 53-54, 134 55-56, 135 57-61, 153 62-64, 156 65-66, 162 67, 164 68-69, 169 70-72, 177 73-74, 177 75-79, 180 80, 190 summary to be published, 26 Tiller, George, 36 Traditional Anglican Communion (TAC), 69 traditions abandoned after Vat II, 183 transubstantiation, 74 Tridentine Mass banned after Vat II, 102 by diocesan priests, 119 called Gregorian Rite, 20 glorious at Chartres, 119 list of new orders, 164 prohibited, 186 Sancta Missa website, 165 symbol of unity, 119 young people predominate, 169 universal salvation, 56 USCCB, 149, 150 Vatican II crisis exploded after, 45 Progressivists controlled, 182 vital immanence, 58 vital permanence, 60 warnings Akita, 44 encyclicals, 44 Father Greenstock semantics, 107 Fatima, 42 Our Lady of America, 43 Quito, 40



Catholic Restoration Resources, LLC 73 Old Troy Road Fitzwilliam, NH 03447 USA Dear prospective reader, Catholic Restoration Resources has published a new book entitled, THE PAPAL PLAN FOR RESTORATION Restoring the Catholic Priesthood A Study Guide for Laity, Seminarians and Clergy. It is a 200 page book in 8 ½ X 11 study guide format. As the title suggests, it describes a plan taken from key papal encyclicals that engendered and safeguarded the vitality of the faith in the pre-Conciliar Church. That plan is still being followed by small traditional Catholic communities around the world today, producing that same vitality in their members. The book is available online for free reading and downloading from the Catholic Restoration Resources website. Please go to to read and download the book. This two page overview and a thirty page overview of the book are also available on the website for those who do not have the time or inclination to study the entire 200 page book. A paperback edition and an E-book version of the book will also be available from the publisher. The book quotes more than twenty encyclicals from the mid 1800s until after Vatican II, and studies in detail six key encyclicals. It then links the warnings of problems these popes saw and combated, with statistics on the very same problems that afflict the Church even more seriously today. Ten cause and effect relationships are developed linking current problems with the causes of those problems and their remedies taught by the pre-Conciliar popes. Statistics in the book show how the crisis the Church is now facing, especially the crisis in the shrinking priesthood and falling Mass attendance, could have been prevented had the bishops at Vatican II heeded the wisdom and the warnings of the pre-Conciliar popes. And the current crisis could be remedied if those popes were to be heeded now. The book shows these assertions to be statistically sound and defendable. Integral to the study guide is an 80 question survey on the faith, the Mass and the Papal Plan for Restoration. The reader is prompted to answer specific questions as the study progresses. The answers to the questions are to be recorded in a Survey Questions Booklet which comes with the book and is to be returned to the publisher who will tabulate and analyze the responses. The resulting report will be made available to the public and will be sent to our bishops to provide them with new information on the status of the faith and the attitude of the faithful toward the two forms of the Mass and the Papal Plan for Restoration. Please visit our website to read the book or the overviews. Leave your comments on our website blog. Take the survey and return it to the publisher. We hope to make this survey a worldwide sampling of the faithful in the Catholic Church today. Copy this letter and send it to your friends, neighbors, associates, priests, seminarians, and your bishop and encourage them to visit our website. Gratefully, Robert and Joan Wolfe, Founders Catholic Restoration Resources, LLC



In the Book: A wake-up call for Catholics Modern popes quoted acknowledging the crisis in the Church. Statistics on the problems the Church is currently facing. A thorough study guide on the problems and their proposed solutions. More than twenty papal encyclicals quoted. Six key encyclicals studied in detail. Six elements of the Plan developed from the encyclicals. Ten cause and effect relationships developed, statistically linking the implementation of Vatican II with the crisis. Statistical evidence that the current crisis could have been prevented had the bishops at Vatican II not ignored the WARNINGS of pre-Conciliar popes. A logical, defendable, statistical estimate of the number of Catholic priests the Church would have today if Vatican II had not occurred and pre-Conciliar Church growth had been fostered and encouraged to continue. Statistical evidence that the current shortage of priests has a proven remedy that is not being implemented or considered by our bishops. Statistics on vital Catholic communities successfully implementing the Plan. New seminaries ordaining many traditional priests for the Extraordinary Form Mass. An extensive survey questionnaire on the Faith, the Mass, and The Plan. About the Author The author, Robert N. Wolfe, is married, Catholic, a father of five children, and is retired after 35 years of service with International Business Machines Corporation (IBM). He has a baccalaureate degree in engineering, served in manufacturing, marketing, product development, and research positions within IBM, and has published in the IBM Journal of Research and Development and other technical journals. The Papal Plan for Restoration is his first full length Catholic book.


Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Special offer for students: Only $4.99/month.

Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Cancel anytime.