You are on page 1of 43

By Father Alejandro Maca1

November 4, 2016
Feast day of Saint Charles Borromeo

A few weeks ago, someone talked to me about a group that can be called "Sedevacantists who
claim that the current visible Catholic Church is a heresy due to the reforms made by the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council. The Pope is, according to them, not a real Pope and perhaps not even a
I was interested in studying the reasons why this group claims that the 7200 Masses I atended as
a layman, and the 2400 Masses I have celebrated as a priest are not valid, i.e. Jesus Christ has not
been really, sacramentally, present there2. Of course it is an extremelly serious accusation and the
reasons should be very clear.
According to Lumen Gentium the Eucharist is "the source and summit of the Christian life"3, so
the logic of the argument should be the following:

The Eucharist is the center of the Church


The Vatican II introduced some changes that invalidated this Sacrament


The actual Church is heretical

To find the list of critics to the "Conciliar" Church I visited the following Websites:

1 I am a member of Opus Dei since 1993 and was ordained priest in Rome in 2011. I have a degree in Computer Science and a Doctorate in Philosophy from the Pontificia Universit della Santa Croce (Rome).
2 Not to mention all the Masses celebrated in the Church over the past 45 years.
3 LG 11.

In addition, I read the article Resistance and Indefectibility (1991) by Sedevacantist Bishop Donald J. Sanborn.
I basically looked for the exact reasons why the "Novus Ordo" (as they like to call it) is not valid.
Unfortunately, I just found many generic critiques to it. In the latter article, for instance, we read
that "this abomination of modernism is the work of the devil" and "these changes substantially contradict the faith, morals, worship and discipline of the Catholic Church". But I could not find any of
those substantial changes in that 14-page long article.
Moreover, although it may seem imposible, I didn't find any direct reference to any of the official
documents of the Church in any of the articles I reviewed, which are all available online:

Catechism of the Catholic Church4

Documents from the Second Vatican Council5

Code of Canon Law6

General Instruction of the Roman Missal7

Not to mention the current Order of the Mass in Latin and English8.

Despite this I decided to continue looking for the reasons why the "Novus Ordo" is invalid. To do
so I reviewed the following articles:

The Holy Catholic Mass: How the Vatican II Sect transformed the August Sacrifice of the
Altar into a Liturgical "Happy Meal" (Novus Ordo Watch)
8 Available at (among many other places).

Key Issues (Traditional Mass)

Theological Position: Sede Vacante (Religious Congregation of Mary Immaculate Queen)

In this article we read: "nowhere is the apostate nature of the Vatican II religion more evident
than in what it has done to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, which is the true and perfect worship
which alone is per se acceptable to the Most Holy Trinity". And later: "if someone were to change the
liturgical actions or prayers of the Holy Mass substantially, this would necessarily change or impact
the belief of Catholics"10.
What are the substantial changes in the liturgy that would invalidate the Holy Sacrifice of the Altar in this "poisonous new Modernistic religion"? The article suggests the following:

Lack of Solemnity

Ugly Architecture

To celebrate coram populo

Is that all? Yes.

If the Eucharist is the Center of the Church, it should be celebrated with great dignity and piety.
The solemnity depends on the celebration: it not the same when a Bishop celebrates a Feast day in
the Cathedral, and the daily Mass in a parish. It's the same sacrifice (Jesus on the Cross), and both
Masses should be celebrated with great dignity and piety, but the degree of solemnity may differ.
It is very painful when a priest celebrates the Holy Sacrifice without the due reverence. This causes great pain to Our Lord as He Himself has revealed to a mystic in recent times11. But to say that this
sometimes happens, does not mean that all priests do the same. Along with priests that handle the
Sacred Body of Our Lord without the required reverence, there are many who of us who celebrate the
Mass with love, gratitude and profound reverence.
It is not mentioned in this article but I have read that one of the problems of the "Novus Ordo" is
that it's not necessary to celebrate in Latin. I personally like Latin and half of the times I celebrate the
Holy Mass I do so in Latin, but when I celebrate in Spanish (my native language) I don't feel less
united with God (the Apostles did not celebrate in Latin). And it's not completely true that when peo- (emphasis mine).
11 I'm thinking of a private revelation made to Catalina Rivas, an estigmatized woman who lives in Mexico.


ple attended Mass in Latin (before the Vatican II) they were fully aware of what was happening. I
was told that when the Mass was celebrated in Latin in parishes, many people used to begin praying
the Rosary until the Consecration because they did not know Latin nor had a missalette to follow the
ceremony. I'm not saying this was correct, but it shows that the big problem then, as it is now, is ignorance.

Architecture is something that can be debated. Of course, one may prefer one style or another,
and even arrive at the conclusion that some style is better than another one. But what cannot be said
is that for a Mass to be valid it must be celebrated in a beautiful church. Further, it is false that all
churches built after the Vatican II are ugly. I know many beautiful churches and oratories built in
recent times.

There is absolutely no contradiction between celebrating a Mass coram populo and celebrating
coram Deo. The Holy Mass is always celebrated by the priest with the faithful towards God. If the
priest faces the people, that does not mean that the sacrifice of the Mass is not offered to God.
I myself half the times (on average) celebrate in a chapel with an altar ad orientem, and half the
times in an altar coram populo. I sincerely do not notice any difference because I always offer the
Holy Sacrifice of Our Lord to God the Father. Whether I see the faces of the attendants or not is completely irrelevant.

Needless to say that none of these critiques affect the validity of the Eucharist in the "Novus Ordo". Though the title of the article is "promising", How the Vatican II Sect transformed the August
Sacrifice of the Altar into a Liturgical "Happy Meal", the criticisms are very weak. One would expect
a reference to the new Ordo Missae (or the IGMR) in which we could read something like: "Welcome
to this 'happy meal' in which we are united to worship Our Lord Jesus Christ", and instead of the
words of the consecration something like: "Jesus said 'where two or three are gathered in my name, I
am there among them', let us welcome Him with a resounding applause!". But that's not the case.

In this article we read:

The new liturgy is an ecumenical liturgy, and seeks to erase any doctrines which are distinctly
Catholic, and to turn the Catholic liturgy into a form of worship which would not be offensive to
any Protestant. It is man-centered worship, stripped of all symbolism of the supernatural 13.

Fortunately we also find a list of critiques:

it contains a heretical definition of the Mass;

it was composed with the express purpose of making an ecumenical liturgy, pleasing to
Protestants, stripped of Catholic truths concerning the priesthood, the Holy Sacrifice of
the Mass, and the Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist;

it was composed with the help and input of six Protestant ministers, which shows the heretical spirit in which it was conceived and formulated;

its authors systematically deleted from its prayers and lessons doctrines which would be
offensive to heretics;

it teaches, both by its omissions and by its symbolism and gestures, heresies and errors
concerning the priesthood, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, and the Real Presence of Christ
in the Holy Eucharist.

Furthermore, it is most probably invalid owing to a defect of intention which it causes in

him who celebrates it, and owing, at least in the vernacular, to a blasphemous alteration
of the words of Christ in the consecration formula.

Unfortunately, the accusations are very vague. What is the heretical definition of the Mass? What
are the errors concerning priesthood, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, and the Real Presence of Christ
in the Holy Eucharist? In which documents we can find that? I will merely analyze the first one: that
of the heretical definition of the Mass.

To see wheather the definition of the Holy Mass is heretical, we must see what was dogmatically
defined by the Council of Trent (session XXII):



CANON I. If any one saith, that in the mass a true and proper sacriflce is not offered to God; or,
that to be offered is nothing else but that Christ is given us to eat; let him be anathema.
CANON II. If any one saith, that by those words, Do this for the commemoration of me (Luke xxii.
19), Christ did not institute the apostles, priests; or, did not ordain that they, and other priests
should offer His own body and blood; let him be anathema.
CANON III. If any one saith, that the sacrifice of the mass is only a sacrifice of praise and of
thanksgiving; or, that it is a bare commemoration of the sacrifice consummated on the cross, but
not a propitiatory sacrifice; or, that it profits him only who receives; and that it ought not to be offered for the living and the dead for sins, pains, satisfactions, and other necessities; let him be
CANON IV. If any one saith, that, by the sacrifice of the mass, a blasphemy is cast upon the most
holy sacrifice of Christ consummated on the cross; or, that it is thereby derogated from; let him be
CANON V. If any one saith, that it is an imposture to celebrate masses in honour of the saints, and
for obtaining their intercession with God, as the Church intends; let him be anathema.
CANON VI. If any one saith, that the canon of the mass contains errors, and is therefore to be abrogated; let him be anathema.
CANON VII. If any one saith, that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs, which the Catholic Church makes use of in the celebration of masses, are incentives to impiety, rather than offices
of piety; let him be anathema.
CANON VIII. If any one saith, that masses, wherein the priest alone communicates sacramentally,
are unlawful, and are, therefore, to be abrogated; let him be anathema.
CANON IX. If any one saith, that the rite of the Roman Church, according to which a part of the
canon and the words of consecration are pronounced in a low tone, is to be condemned; or, that
the mass ought to be celebrated in the vulgar tongue only; or, that water ought not to be mixed

with the wine that is to be offered in the chalice, for that it is contrary to the institution of Christ;
let him be anathema14.

Have any of those canons been denied, changed or abrogated by the Liturgical Reform? None of
them. In the document Sacrosanctum Concilium we find:
III. The Reform of the Sacred Liturgy
21. In order that the Christian people may more certainly derive an abundance of graces from the
sacred liturgy, holy Mother Church desires to undertake with great care a general restoration of the
liturgy itself. For the liturgy is made up of immutable elements divinely instituted, and
of elements subject to change. These not only may but ought to be changed with the passage
of time if they have suffered from the intrusion of anything out of harmony with the inner nature
of the liturgy or have become unsuited to it.
In this restoration, both texts and rites should be drawn up so that they express more clearly the
holy things which they signify; the Christian people, so far as possible, should be enabled to understand them with ease and to take part in them fully, actively, and as befits a community.
Wherefore the sacred Council establishes the following general norms:
A) General norms
22. 1. Regulation of the sacred liturgy depends solely on the authority of the Church, that is, on the
Apostolic See and, as laws may determine, on the bishop.
2. In virtue of power conceded by the law, the regulation of the liturgy within certain defined limits
belongs also to various kinds of competent territorial bodies of bishops legitimately established.
3. Therefore no other person, even if he be a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority 15.

What was the result of the Reform regarding the Eucharist? We can find that in the Institutio
Generalis Missalis Romani. In that document are contained all the official instructions to celebrate,_Canons.html

the Holy Mass, and in the Introduction of it (see Appendix 1) we find constant references to the
Council of Trent.
Another important document is, of course, the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It contains what
we Catholics believe. Regarding the Eucharist we find the following points (I will cite only a few)16:
1106. "Together with the anamnesis, the epiclesis is at the heart of each sacramental celebration,
most especially of the Eucharist: You ask how the bread becomes the Body of Christ, and
the wine the Blood of Christ I shall tell you: the Holy Spirit comes upon them and accomplishes what surpasses every word and thought Let it be enough for you to understand that it is
by the Holy Spirit, just as it was of the Holy Virgin and by the Holy Spirit that the Lord, through
and in himself, took flesh. [St. John Damascene, De fide orth 4, 13: PG 94, 1145A]"
1324. "The Eucharist is 'the source and summit of the Christian life.' [LG 11] 'The other
sacraments, and indeed all ecclesiastical ministries and works of the apostolate, are bound up with
the Eucharist and are oriented toward it. For in the blessed Eucharist is contained the whole spiritual good of the Church, namely Christ himself, our Pasch.' [PO 5]"
1327. "In brief, the Eucharist is the sum and summary of our faith: 'Our way of thinking is
attuned to the Eucharist, and the Eucharist in turn confirms our way of thinking.' [St. Irenaeus,
Adv. haeres. 4, 18, 5: PG 7/l, 1028]"
1329. "The Lord's Supper, because of its connection with the supper which the Lord took with his
disciples on the eve of his Passion and because it anticipates the wedding feast of the Lamb in the
heavenly Jerusalem. [Cf. 1 Cor 11:20; Rev 19:9] The Breaking of Bread, because Jesus used this
rite, part of a Jewish meat when as master of the table he blessed and distributed the bread, [Gal
3:27] above all at the Last Supper. [Cf. Mt 26:26; 1 Cor 11:24] It is by this action that his disciples
will recognize him after his Resurrection, [Cf. Lk 24:13-35] and it is this expression that the first
Christians will use to designate their Eucharistic assemblies; [Cf. Acts 2:42, 46; Acts 20:7, 11] by
doing so they signified that all who eat the one broken bread, Christ, enter into communion with him and form but one body in him. [Cf. 1 Cor 10:16-17] The Eucharistic assembly
(synaxis), because the Eucharist is celebrated amid the assembly of the faithful, the visible expression of the Church. [Cf. 1 Cor 11:17-34]"
1336. "The first announcement of the Eucharist divided the disciples, just as the announcement of
the Passion scandalized them: 'This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?' [Jn 6:60] The Eucharist

Selection of points taken from:

and the Cross are stumbling blocks. It is the same mystery and it never ceases to be an occasion of
division. 'Will you also go away?': [Jn 6:67] the Lord's question echoes through the ages, as a loving invitation to discover that only he has 'the words of eternal life' [In 6:68] and that to receive
in faith the gift of his Eucharist is to receive the Lord himself."
1340. "By celebrating the Last Supper with his apostles in the course of the Passover meal, Jesus
gave the Jewish Passover its definitive meaning. Jesus' passing over to his father by his
death and Resurrection, the new Passover, is anticipated in the Supper and celebrated in the Eucharist, which fulfills the Jewish Passover and anticipates the final Passover of the
Church in the glory of the kingdom."
1355. "In the communion, preceded by the Lord's prayer and the breaking of the bread, the faithful
receive 'the bread of heaven' and 'the cup of salvation,' the body and blood of Christ who offered himself 'for the life of the world': [Jn 6:51] Because this bread and wine have been
made Eucharist ('eucharisted,' according to an ancient expression), 'we call this food Eucharist,
and no one may take part in it unless he believes that what we teach is true, has received baptism
for the forgiveness of sins and new birth, and lives in keeping with what Christ taught.' [St. Justin,
Apol. 1, 66,1-2: PG 6, 428]"
1356. "If from the beginning Christians have celebrated the Eucharist and in a form
whose substance has not changed despite the great diversity of times and liturgies, it
is because we know ourselves to be bound by the command the Lord gave on the eve of his Passion:
'Do this in remembrance of me.' [1 Cor 11:24-25]"
1359. "The Eucharist, the sacrament of our salvation accomplished by Christ on the
cross, is also a sacrifice of praise in thanksgiving for the work of creation. In the Eucharistic
sacrifice the whole of creation loved by God is presented to the Father through the death and the
Resurrection of Christ. Through Christ the Church can offer the sacrifice of praise in thanksgiving
for all that God has made good, beautiful, and just in creation and in humanity."
1360. "The Eucharist is a sacrifice of thanksgiving to the Father, a blessing by which the
Church expresses her gratitude to God for all his benefits, for all that he has accomplished through
creation, redemption, and sanctification. Eucharist means first of all 'thanksgiving.'"
1365. "Because it is the memorial of Christ's Passover, the Eucharist is also a sacrifice.
The sacrificial character of the Eucharist is manifested in the very words of institution: 'This is my body which is given for you' and 'This cup which is poured out for
you is the New Covenant in my blood.' [Lk 22:19-20] In the Eucharist Christ gives us
the very body which he gave up for us on the cross, the very blood which he 'poured
out for many for the forgiveness of sins.' [Mt 26:28]"

1367. "The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice:
'The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests,
who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different.' 'In
this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered
himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered
in an unbloody manner.' [Council of Trent (1562): DS 1743; cf. Heb 9:14, 27]"
1368. "The Eucharist is also the sacrifice of the Church. The Church which is the Body of
Christ participates in the offering of her Head. With him, she herself is offered whole and entire.
She unites herself to his intercession with the Father for all men. In the Eucharist the sacrifice
of Christ becomes also the sacrifice of the members of his Body. The lives of the faithful,
their praise, sufferings, prayer, and work, are united with those of Christ and with his total offering,
and so acquire a new value. Christ's sacrifice present on the altar makes it possible for
all generations of Christians to be united with his offering. In the catacombs the Church
is often represented as a woman in prayer, arms outstretched in the praying position. Like Christ
who stretched out his arms on the cross, through him, with him, and in him, she offers herself and intercedes for all men."
1374. "The mode of Christ's presence under the Eucharistic species is unique. It raises the Eucharist above all the sacraments as 'the perfection of the spiritual life and the end to which all the sacraments tend.' [St. Thomas Aquinas, STh III, 73, 3c] In the most blessed sacrament of the
Eucharist 'the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus
Christ and, therefore, the whole Christ is truly, really, and substantially contained.'
[Council of Trent (1551): DS 1651] 'This presence is called 'real' - by which is not intended to
exclude the other types of presence as if they could not be 'real' too, but because it is presence in
the fullest sense: that is to say, it is a substantial presence by which Christ, God and man, makes
himself wholly and entirely present.' [Paul VI, MF 39]"
1378. "Worship of the Eucharist. In the liturgy of the Mass we express our faith in the
real presence of Christ under the species of bread and wine by, among other ways,
genuflecting or bowing deeply as a sign of adoration of the Lord. 'The Catholic
Church has always offered and still offers to the sacrament of the Eucharist the cult
of adoration, not only during Mass, but also outside of it, reserving the consecrated
hosts with the utmost care, exposing them to the solemn veneration of the faithful,
and carrying them in procession.'[Paul VI, MF 56]"
1384. "The Lord addresses an invitation to us, urging us to receive him in the sacrament of the Eucharist: 'Truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man
and drink his blood, you have no life in you.' [Jn 6:53]"
1396. "The unity of the Mystical Body: the Eucharist makes the Church. Those who receive the Eucharist are united more closely to Christ. Through it Christ unites them to all the faithful in one
body - the Church. Communion renews, strengthens, and deepens this incorporation into the

Church, already achieved by Baptism. In Baptism we have been called to form but one
body. [Cf. 1 Cor 12:13] The Eucharist fulfills this call: 'The cup of blessing which we
bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it
not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are
many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread:' [1 Cor 10:16-17] If you are the
body and members of Christ, then it is your sacrament that is placed on the table of the Lord; it is
your sacrament that you receive. To that which you are you respond 'Amen' ('yes, it is true!') and
by responding to it you assent to it. For you hear the words, 'the Body of Christ' and respond
'Amen.' Be then a member of the Body of Christ that your Amen may be true. [St. Augustine, Sermon 272: PL 38, 1247]"

So no, the Vatican II was not a sect. And no, it did not transform the August Sacrifice of the Altar
into a Liturgical Happy Meal. The Holy Mass is the renewal (or, to be more precise, the representation, as it makes it present)17 of the only sacrifice of Our Lord on the Cross. It's a bloodless
sacrifice (sacramental), but absolutely real. One Holy Mass gives more Glory to God than all the Glory
given to Him by ALL the saint during ALL eternity, including Our Lady.
As St. Thomas Aquinas says, the celebration of Holy Mass is as valuable as the death of Jesus on
the cross. This was stated dogmatically by Trent and has not been changed ever since.

In the website of this congregation there are many accusations, but I will center in those related
with the "Novus Ordo":
II. NOVUS ORDO MISSAE: Following the Second Vatican Council, various commissions were established to modernize the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and the traditional rites of the Sacraments.
The particular commission established to modernize the Mass included well-known Protestant
theologians. To use the words of a well-known Cardinal, Alfredo Ottaviani, in 1969: (The Novus
Ordo Missae) represents a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session XXII of the Council of Trent. The results of this modernization were a new
definition of the Mass (reflecting Luthers concept of the Last Supper), the alteration of the Offertory prayers to delete the concept of propitiatory Sacrifice, and the substantial alteration of the

17 "Hoc sacramentum non solum est sacramentum, sed etiam est sacrificium. Inquantum enim in hoc sacramento repraesentatur passio Christi, qua Christus obtulit se hostiam Deo" (S. Th. III q. 79 a. 7 co.).

very words of Consecration (this alteration occurs in the vernacular translations). This new mass,
known as the Novus Ordo Missae, contradicts previous infallible teachings and decrees of the
Catholic Church, such as:
Pope St. Pius Vs Quo Primum and De Defectibus,
the Council of Trents decree on the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass (Session XXII),
Pope Leo XIIIs Apostolicae Curae (1896),
Pope Pius XIIs Mediator Dei (1947),
Pope Pius XIIs Sacramentum Ordinis (1948).
THEREFORE, the Novus Ordo Missae, when offered with the altered words of Consecration, is an
invalid Mass and in all other cases it is of doubtful validity. It always is a clear danger to ones faith.
For all these reasons, active participation in it would be a grave sin 19.

In summary:

the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass was modernized / protestantized

the letter from Cardinal Ottaviani: it is departure from Trent
a new definition of the Mass (reflecting Luthers concept of the Last Supper)
alteration of the Offertory prayers to delete the concept of propitiatory Sacrifice
substantial alteration of the very words of Consecration (this alteration occurs in the vernacular translations): therefore, the Mass is invalid
6. contradicts previous infallible teachings and decrees of the Catholic Church
7. it's a grave sin to participate
We previously dealt with points 1 and 3. Regarding point 4, that is not esential for the validity.
In any event, at the end of the Offertory we find a reference to the sacrifice when the people rise and
Suscpiat Dminus sacrifcium de mnibus tuis ad laudem et glriam nminis sui, ad utilittem
quoque nostram totisque Ecclsi su sanct 20.

With reference to point 5, I am not going to say much of something that can be easily found
elswhere. There was a bad translation from the Latin words of the consecration, but this did not affect the validity of the Sacrament. A substantial alteration would be to replace the words "THIS IS


MY BODY" with something like "THIS BREAD REPRESENTS THE BODY OF JESUS". Point 7 is
false: it is not a grave sin now, nor was it when priests used to say "for all" instead of "for many".
Regarding point 2, I already said why the "Novus Ordo" is not a departure from Trent. To avoid
prolonging this article too much, I recommend reading the article from Wikipedia21 on the topic and,
for those really interested, the Appendix 2 which I extracted from the book The Pope, the Council,
and the Mass Answers to Questions the "Traditionalists" Have Asked by James Likoudis and Kenneth D. Whitehead.
And finally about point 6, since we already talked about the infallible teachings of Trent, I will
merely make a brief reference to the Papal Bull Quo Primum by Pope Saint Pius V. The main purpose
of this Bull was to give uniformity to the liturgy. The Pope in no way intended to say that any other
Ordo apart from that called "Tridentine" was not valid. In fact, it is well known that the Ambrosian
Rite, the Mozarabic Rite, as well as a few ancient modified forms of the Roman Rite, such as the Dominican, Carmelite, and Carthusian Missals, were not affected by it. I recommend the excelent article
Did the Pope Intend to Bind His Successors from Changing the Tridentine Mass? by Jeffrey Mirus.
There we read:
But liturgical directives remain human laws about how to do things, not definitions of faith and
morals. As such, liturgical directives are not protected by the Holy Spirit in the same way that definitions of Faith are.
To put this another way, liturgical directives are matters of policy that affect the Faith, but not
matters of Faith themselves. There is no guarantee of infallibility for Church policy. This in no way
implies that liturgical directives are "unimportant". They just aren't matters of faith in and of
themselves; they can, in fact, be good, bad or indifferent.
So Quo Primum itself is based on the obvious principle that the liturgy is capable of change.
Liturgical directives are disciplinary and, therefore, subject to change. No theologian in the entire
history of the Church, I think, has ever maintained the contrary position, and certainly the Church
has never taught the contrary position which is, in any case, absurd on its face.
We wouldn't expect any pope to attempt to bind one of his successors in a matter of discipline (a
matter of human rather than Divine law), and the text makes it clear that Pius V did not intend to
do this22.


And again for those really interested in the topic, see Appendix 3 extracted from the book The
Pope, the Council, and the Mass.

My intention was not to make a comprehensive study of Sedevacantism, and I am well aware that
there are topics I didn't talk about. As I said in the beginning of the article, I analyzed mainly the critiques to the validity of the Sacrament of the Eucharist. As I remarked, none of the critiques to the
"Novus Ordo" made any reference to the official documents of the Catholic Church (i.e. Catechism of
the Catholic Church, Documents from the Second Vatican Council, Code of Canon Law, General Instruction of the Roman Missal). This does not mean that such a document does not exist somewhere,
but just that I didn't find it.
My intention is to show the falseness of the accusation that the "Novus Ordo" is not valid. One
may like it or not, but there are no objective reasons to support that criticism. I am not trying to say
that everything in the liturgical reform was good. Nor do I deny that the devil intended to interfere a
lot23. But despite all that, by the Grace of God, what we find in the General Instruction of the Roman
Missal is very good.
Any reform to the Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist must be faithful to what we find in the institution made by Our Lord during the Last Supper and the Tradition of the Church24. The words used by
Jesus when He instituted this sacrament25 are essential (not the literal words in Aramaic nor in Greek,
but the essence of them). What else is essential? Not much.
A Holy Mass celebrated according to the IGMR can be very graceful and pleasing to God. Unfortunately, there are some priests who change what is found in the IGMR and "adapt" the liturgy, doing
what was forbidden by Sacrosanctum Concilium 22, 3 (cited above). I myself suffer a lot when I hear
people complaining about priests that perform real abuses to the liturgy. But that does not mean that
the "Novus Ordo" is wrong in itself.
What I find among Sedevacantists is a sincere love for liturgy and a desire to be faithful to Our
Lord. But I think it is a great mistake to attempt to fix the problems in the liturgy by forming a group
separated from the rest of Catholics. In the history of the Church there have been many crises26. And

It is said, for instance, that Msgr. Annibale Bugnini wanted to "get rid" of the Roman Canon. See:
24 See the First Apology of St. Justin Martyr. For a brief history of the Ordo Missae, see:
25 Found especially in 1 Co 11:23-26.
26 Really bad Popes like Alexander VI (1492-1503), Stephen VI (896-897), Benedict IX (10321044, 1045,
10471048), or Leo X (15131521). Or the Saeculum obscurum.

there have been saints who undertook reforms in the Church. But those reforms must be done from
the inside of the Church. As Saint Ignatius of Antioch said:
As sons of the light of truth, flee divisions and evil doctrines; where your shepherd is, follow him
as his flock.
For all who belong to God and Jesus Christ are with the bishop; all who repent and return to the
unity of the Church will also belong to God, that they may live according to Jesus Christ. Do not
be deceived, my brothers. If anyone follows a schismatic, he will not obtain the inheritance of
Gods kingdom; if anyone lives by an alien teaching, he does not assent to the passion of the Lord 27.

There is an insightful article from a former Protestant that I would like to quote here:
How St Francis differed from Martin Luther or Catholic Reform vs. Protestant Reform
by Dr Taylor Marshall
How did Saint Francis reformation of the Catholic Church (Francis, rebuild my Church) differ
from Martin Luthers reformation?
Essentially, Francis teaches us that we cannot fight heresy by creating new heresies. Francis always
submitted to the Church, the popes, and the bishops.
Whenever reformation begins to the buck against the institutional Church, more heresy arises.
For example, in many regards the Monophysite heresy (i.e. Christ has one nature) was an overreaction to the Nestorian heresy (i.e. Christ is two persons). The Catholic Church has always
sought to aim directly at the truth, and not merely at the destruction of error. Too often the refutation of error crosses over into further error.
Similarly, Luther and Calvin sought to displace misunderstandings about grace and merit (i.e. the
faulty nominalism spawned by William of Ockham) by creating an alternate vision of grace and
merit (which ironically embraced Ockhams nominalism and repackaged it). Luthers solution
was in fact heretical. A quick fix is often faulty. Duct tape can fix almost anything but it eventually gives way to other problems.

From a letter to the Philadelphians by Saint Ignatius of Antioch, bishop and martyr. Office of Readings for
Thursday in the 27th week of Ordinary Time.

The annals of Church history are filled with Catholic Reformers: Paul, Athanasius, John Chrysostom, Maximus, John Damascene, Pope Gregory VII, Francis, Dominic, Catherine of Sienna, Ignatius, Teresa of Avila, et al. Each of these Catholic Reformers retained the unity of Christs Church,
submitted to church leadership, and patiently brought about renewal. In many cases, each experienced active persecution from other Christians and even fell under the suspicion of heresy. However, their humility and silence eventually vindicated their cause as advocates for the evangelical
truth of Christs doctrine.
Saint Francis of Assisi is perhaps one of the best examples of patience in the cause of reform. When
St Francis went to Rome to seek recognition from the Pope, the Pope dismissed him impatiently
and told him to go lie down with the pigs.
After a little while, Francis returned smeared with swine feces and stinking to high heaven. When
the Pope objected, Francis answered, I obeyed your words and merely did as you said. I lay down
with the pigs. Suddenly the Pope realized that this was a holy man who was willing to obey even in
the face of humiliation. The Pope listened to Francis vision for renewal and the rest is history.
When rebuffed by the pope, Saint Francis could have appealed to Sacred Scripture, showing this
his pattern of life was poor and lowly like that of Christ. He might even have contrasted his own
biblical life against the extravagance of the Papal court. Francis may even have rightly rebuked
the abbots, bishops, and cardinals for lacking evangelical witness. Instead, Francis followed the
path of Christ. He allowed himself to be misunderstood and maligned, knowing that God would
bring about his vindicationand God always does.
Contrast Saint Francis to Martin Luther. Luther did not visit Rome for confirmation of his cause,
nor did he respect the structures of the Church. In fact, Cardinal Cajetan met privately with Luther
and explained how Luther might modify his message so that Cajetan could have it approved by the
Roman Curia. If Luther had moved more slowly and charitably, he may have become Saint Martin Luther.
Unfortunately, Luther was adamant and stiff-necked. He would not attempt compromise. If the
Pope would not agree with him, then he would reject the papacy. Period. Luther would not tolerate
any authority that failed to support him immediately and without question. Consequently, when
the papal bull arrived, Luther burned it publicly and began to curse the pope as Antichrist.
Note the difference between Francis and Luther. The former moved slowly and humbly. The latter
acted independently and rashly. Consequently, the history of Protestantism is marked by rash and
hasty division there are now 36,000 Protestant denominations.
As the Apostle James wrote: the anger of man does not work the righteousness of God (Jas 1:20).
History shows that God does not use hot-heads to guide His Church into righteousness. God
chooses those who are little, meek, and humble for such is the kingdom of Heaven.

Herein lies the mystery of Catholic Reform28.

Reforms must be undertaken from whithin the Church. The devil, instead, always fosters divisions (dia-bolein in Greek means "to separate"). What have the saints done? To reform the Church
from the inside. That was the case of Saint Francis, Saint Teresa of Avila, or the Cluny.
Saint Josemaria Escriva, the Founder of Opus Dei, suffered a lot after the Council due to the
abuses made by many priests in the liturgy. What was his response?
The task for a Christian is to drown evil in an abundance of good. It is not a question of
negative campaigns, or of being anti anything. On the contrary, we should live positively, full of
optimism, with youthfulness, joy and peace. We should be understanding with everybody, with the
followers of Christ and with those who abandon him, or do not know him at all.
But understanding does not mean holding back, or remaining indifferent, but being active 29.

He loved the Church, the Immaculate Spouse of Christ, with all his heart. And cried many times
seeing what was happening after the Council. But instead of creating divisions (work of the evil one)
he prefered "to drown evil in an abundance of good". In those years he wrote Loyalty to the Church a
profound homily about the notes of the Church: One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic30.
I believe it is a big mistake to act like the Pharisee of the parable31. And, thinking of myself, if I
have received sound doctinal and liturgical formation, got a PhD, wear a cassock everyday, say the
Mass in Latin or pray the Breviary in Latin, I would be a fool if I thought that I am better than any
other priest who did not receive as much as I did. I must help others but I cannot judge anyone: I
have a greater responsibility.
It's not a secret that there are big problems in the Church. Not only in the hierarchy but also
among the faithful. But instead of only judging those who are astray we must try to help them. That is
29 Furrow, 864 (
30 It was pronounced on 4-VI-1972 and can be found here:
31 Luke 18:9-14 (NRSV) - The Parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector 9 He also told this parable to some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous and regarded others with contempt: 10 Two men
went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. 11 The Pharisee, standing by himself,
was praying thus, God, I thank you that I am not like other people: thieves, rogues, adulterers, or even like this
tax collector. 12 I fast twice a week; I give a tenth of all my income. 13 But the tax collector, standing far off, would
not even look up to heaven, but was beating his breast and saying, God, be merciful to me, a sinner! 14 I tell you,
this man went down to his home justified rather than the other; for all who exalt themselves will be humbled,
but all who humble themselves will be exalted.

what Pope Francis is trying to do: get close to the sinners in order to bring them to the Church, to get
them close to Jesus Christ who is the only one who can heal them.
As Saint Josemaria used to say: "Omnes cum Petro, ad Iesum, per Mariam!". That is the way to
go. And if we don't like something that the Pope does or says, we should always recall Davids Respect
for the Lords Anointed (1 Samuel 24:1-26:25), and do like the sons of Noah (Genesis 9:20-23).
We cannot forget what the First Vatican Council said in its Dogmatic Constitution on the Church
of Christ (Session 4, 18 July 1870) on the permanence of the primacy of blessed Peter in the Roman
Therefore, if anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the lord himself (that is to say, by
divine law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole
Church; or that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be

Many criticize Pope Francis because sometimes he lacks clarity, but he has not changed the doctrine found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. And I think the Pope is right about what this
"selfish" world needs in this moment, and he is promoting a wonderful revolution in the Church. I
believe that his actions can be compared with what Jesus did with the Samaritan woman, or Mother
Teresa with those in need.

My final suggestion to those who hold the Sedevacantist position? You have a lot to give to the
Church, "Ad Maximam Dei Gloriam"33. The Church needs to rediscover the beauty of the liturgy. You
can help to restore the sense of awe and sanctity in the liturgy. But from within the Church.

Chapter 2, n. 5 ( See also Matthew 16:17-19, Luke

22:31-34 and John 21:15-19.
33 Saint Maximilian Kolbe.

1. As Christ the Lord was about to celebrate with the disciples the paschal supper in which he instituted the Sacrifice of his Body and Blood, he commanded that a large, furnished upper room be
prepared (Lk 22:12). Indeed, the Church has always judged that this command also applied to herself
whenever she decided about things related to the disposition of people's minds, and of places, rites,
and texts for the Celebration of the Most Holy Eucharist. The present norms, too, prescribed in keeping with the will of the Second Vatican Council, together with the new Missal with which the Church
of the Roman Rite will henceforth celebrate the Mass, are again a demonstration of this same solicitude of the Church, of her faith and her unaltered love for the supreme mystery of the Eucharist, and
also attest to her continuous and consistent tradition, even though certain new elements have been

2. The sacrificial nature of the Mass, solemnly defended by the Council of Trent, because it accords with the universal tradition of the Church,[1] was once more stated by the Second Vatican
Council, which pronounced these clear words about the Mass: "At the Last Supper, Our Savior instituted the Eucharistic Sacrifice of his Body and Blood, by which the Sacrifice of his Cross is perpetuated until he comes again; and till then he entrusts the memorial of his Death and Resurrection to his
beloved spouse, the Church."[2]
What is taught in this way by the Council is consistently expressed in the formulas of the Mass.
Moreover, the doctrine which stands out in the following sentence, already notable and concisely
expressed in the ancient Sacramentary commonly called the Leonine"for whenever the memorial of
this sacrifice is celebrated the work of our redemption is accomplished"[3]is aptly and exactly expounded in the Eucharistic Prayers; for as in these the Priest enacts the anamnesis, while turned towards God likewise in the name of all the people, he renders thanks and offers the living and holy
sacrifice, that is, the Church's oblation and the sacrificial Victim by whose death God himself willed to
reconcile us to himself;[4] and the Priest also prays that the Body and Blood of Christ may be a sacrifice which is acceptable to the Father and which brings salvation to the whole world.[5]
So, in the new Missal the rule of prayer (lex orandi) of the Church corresponds to her perennial
rule of faith (lex credendi), by which we are truly taught that the sacrifice of his Cross and its sacramental renewal in the Mass, which Christ the Lord instituted at the Last Supper and commanded his
Apostles to do in his memory, are one and the same, differing only in the manner of their offering;
and as a result, that the Mass is at one and the same time a sacrifice of praise, thanksgiving, propitiation, and satisfaction.

3. Moreover, the wondrous mystery of the real presence of the Lord under the Eucharistic species,
confirmed by the Second Vatican Council[6] and other teachings of the Church's Magisterium[7] in
the same sense and with the same doctrine as the Council of Trent proposed that it must be believed,[8] is proclaimed in the celebration of the Mass, not only by the very words of consecration by
which Christ is rendered present through transubstantiation, but also with a sense and a demonstration of the greatest reverence and adoration which strives for realization in the Eucharistic liturgy.
For the same reason, the Christian people are led to worship this wondrous Sacrament through adoration in a special way on Thursday of the Lord's Supper in Holy Week and on the Solemnity of the
Most Holy Body and Blood of Christ.
4. In truth, the nature of the ministerial Priesthood proper to the Bishop and the Priest, who offer
the Sacrifice in the person of Christ and who preside over the gathering of the holy people, shines
forth in the form of the rite itself, on account of the more prominent place and function given to the
Priest. The essential elements of this function are set out and explained clearly and extensively in the
Preface for the Chrism Mass on Thursday of Holy Week, the day, namely, when the institution of the
Priesthood is commemorated. For in the Preface is made clear how the conferral of Priestly power is
accomplished through the laying on of hands; and, by the listing one by one of its duties, that power
is described which is the continuation of the power of Christ, the High Priest of the New Testament.
5. Moreover, by this nature of the ministerial Priesthood, something else is put in its proper light,
something certainly to be held in great esteem, namely, the royal Priesthood of the faithful, whose
spiritual sacrifice is brought to completion through the ministry of the Bishop and the Priests, in union with the Sacrifice of Christ, the sole Mediator.[9] For the celebration of the Eucharist is the action
of the whole Church, and in it each one should carry out solely but totally that which pertains to him,
in virtue of the place of each within the People of God. The result of this is that greater consideration
is also given to some aspects of the celebration that have sometimes been accorded less attention in
the course of the centuries. For this people is the People of God, purchased by Christ's Blood, gathered together by the Lord, nourished by his word, the people called to present to God the prayers of
the entire human family, a people that gives thanks in Christ for the mystery of salvation by offering
his Sacrifice, a people, finally, that is brought together in unity by Communion in the Body and Blood
of Christ. This people, though holy in its origin, nevertheless grows constantly in holiness by conscious, active, and fruitful participation in the mystery of the Eucharist.[10]

6. When it set out its instructions for the renewal of the Order of Mass, the Second Vatican Council, using, namely, the same words as did St. Pius V in the Apostolic Constitution Quo primum, by
which the Missal of Trent was promulgated in 1570, also ordered, among other things, that a number
of rites be restored "to the original norm of the holy Fathers."[11] From the fact that the same words
are used, it can be noted how the two Roman Missals, although four centuries have intervened, embrace one and the same tradition. Furthermore, if the inner elements of this tradition are reflected
upon, it is also understood how outstandingly and felicitously the older Roman Missal is brought to
fulfillment in the later one.

7. In truly difficult times, when the Catholic faith in the sacrificial nature of the Mass, the ministerial Priesthood, and the real and perpetual presence of Christ under the Eucharistic species were
called into question, St. Pius V was first of all concerned with preserving the more recent tradition,
then unjustly assailed, introducing only very slight changes into the sacred rite. In fact, the Missal of
1570 differs very little from the very first printed edition of 1474, which in turn faithfully takes up
again the Missal used in the time of Pope Innocent III. Moreover, manuscript books in the Vatican
Library, even though they provided material for several textual emendations, by no means made it
possible to pursue inquiry into "ancient and approved authors" further back than the liturgical commentaries of the Middle Ages.
8. Today, however, innumerable writings of scholars have shed light on the "norm of the holy Fathers," which the revisers of the Missal of St. Pius V assiduously followed. For following the first publication in 1571 of the Sacramentary called the Gregorian, critical editions of other ancient Roman
and Ambrosian Sacramentaries were disseminated, often in printed form, as were ancient Hispanic
and Gallican liturgical books; these editions brought to light numerous prayers of no slight spiritual
value but previously unknown.
In the same way, traditions of the first centuries, before the rites of East and West were formed,
are now better known because of the discovery of so many liturgical documents.
Furthermore, continuing progress in the study of the holy Fathers has also shed upon the theology of the mystery of the Eucharist the light brought by the doctrine of such illustrious Fathers of
Christian antiquity as St. Irenaeus, St. Ambrose, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, and St. John Chrysostom.
9. Hence, the "norm of the holy Fathers" requires not only the preservation of what our immediate forebears have handed on to us, but also an understanding and a more profound pondering of the
Church's entire past ages and of all the ways in which her one faith has been expressed in forms of
human and social culture so greatly differing among themselves, indeed, as those prevailing in the
Semitic, Greek, and Latin regions. Moreover, this broader view allows us to see how the Holy Spirit
endows the People of God with a marvelous fidelity in preserving the unalterable deposit of faith,
even though there is a very great variety of prayers and rites.

10. Hence, the new Missal, while bearing witness to the Roman Church's rule of prayer (lex orandi), also safeguards the deposit of faith handed down by the more recent Councils and marks in its
turn a step of great importance in liturgical tradition.
For, when the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council reaffirmed the dogmatic pronouncements of
the Council of Trent, they spoke at a far different time in world history, and, for that reason, were
able to bring forward proposals and measures regarding pastoral life that could not have even been
foreseen four centuries earlier.
11. The Council of Trent had already recognized the great catechetical usefulness contained in the
celebration of Mass but was unable to bring out all its consequences in regard to actual practice. In
fact, many at that time requested that permission be given to use the vernacular in celebrating the
Eucharistic Sacrifice. To such a request, the Council, by reason of the circumstances of that age,

judged it a matter of duty to answer by insisting once more on the teaching of the Church as had been
handed on, according to which the Eucharistic Sacrifice is in the first place the action of Christ himself, whose inherent efficacy is therefore unaffected by the manner in which the faithful participate in
it. The Council for this reason stated in these firm and likewise measured words: "Although the Mass
contains much instruction for the faithful people, it did not seem to the Fathers expedient, however,
that it be celebrated indiscriminately in the vernacular."[12] And the Council declared worthy of censure anyone maintaining that "the rite of the Roman Church, in which part of the Canon and the
words of consecration are pronounced in a low voice, is to be condemned, or that the Mass must be
celebrated only in the vernacular."[13] Nevertheless, at the same time as it prohibited the use of the
vernacular in the Mass, it ordered, on the other hand, pastors of souls to put appropriate catechesis in
its place: "Lest Christ's flock go hungry . . . the Holy Synod commands pastors and each and all of
those others having the care of souls that frequently during the celebration of Mass, either personally
or through others, they should explain what is read at Mass; and expound, among other things, something of the mystery of this most holy Sacrifice, especially on Sundays and feast days."[14]
12. Hence, the Second Vatican Council, having come together in order to accommodate the
Church to the requirements of her proper apostolic office precisely in these times, considered thoroughly, as had the Council of Trent, the catechetical and pastoral character of the Sacred Liturgy.[15]
And since no Catholic would now deny a sacred rite celebrated in Latin to be legitimate and efficacious, the Council was also able to concede that "not rarely adopting the vernacular language may be
of great usefulness for the people" and gave permission for it to be used.[16] The eagerness with
which this measure was everywhere received has certainly been so great that it has led, under the
guidance of the Bishops and the Apostolic See itself, to permission for all liturgical celebrations in
which the people participate to be in the vernacular, so that the people may more fully understand
the mystery which is celebrated.
13. In this regard, although the use of the vernacular in the Sacred Liturgy is a means, admittedly
of great importance, for expressing more clearly cate-chesis on the mystery, a catechesis inherent in
the celebration itself, the Second Vatican Council ordered additionally that certain prescriptions of
the Council of Trent that had not been followed everywhere be brought to fruition, such as the Homily to be given on Sundays and feast days[17] and the faculty to interject certain explanations during
the sacred rites themselves.[18]
Above all, the Second Vatican Council, which recommended "that more perfect form of participation in the Mass by which the faithful, after the Priest's Communion, receive the Lord's Body from the
same Sacrifice,"[19] called for another desire of the Fathers of Trent to be put into effect, namely, that
for the sake of a fuller participation in the Holy Eucharist "at each Mass the faithful present should
communicate not only by spiritual desire but also by sacramental reception of the Eucharist."[20]
14. Prompted by the same intention and pastoral zeal, the Second Vatican Council was able to give
renewed consideration to what was established by Trent on Communion under both kinds. And indeed, since nowadays the doctrinal principles on the complete efficacy of Eucharistic Communion
received under the species of bread alone are not in any way called into question, the Council gave
permission for the reception on occasion of Communion under both kinds, because this clearer form
of the sacramental sign offers a particular opportunity for understanding more deeply the mystery in
which the faithful participate.[21]

15. In this manner the Church, while remaining faithful to her office as teacher of truth, safeguarding "things old," that is, the deposit of tradition, fulfills at the same time the duty of examining
and prudently adopting "things new" (cf. Mt 13:52).
For part of the new Missal orders the prayers of the Church in a way more open to the needs of
our times. Of this kind are above all the Ritual Masses and Masses for Various Needs, in which tradition and new elements are appropriately brought together. Thus, while a great number of expressions,
drawn from the Church's most ancient tradition and familiar through the many editions of the Roman Missal, have remained unchanged, numerous others have been accommodated to the needs and
conditions proper to our own age, and still others, such as the prayers for the Church, for the laity, for
the sanctification of human labor, for the community of all nations, and certain needs proper to our
era, have been newly composed, drawing on the thoughts and often the very phrasing of the recent
documents of the Council.
On account, moreover, of the same attitude toward the new state of the world as it now is, it
seemed to cause no harm at all to so revered a treasure if some phrases were changed so that the language would be in accord with that of modern theology and would truly reflect the current state of the
Church's discipline. Hence, several expressions regarding the evaluation and use of earthly goods
have been changed, as have several which alluded to a certain form of outward penance which was
proper to other periods of the Church's past.
In this way, finally, the liturgical norms of the Council of Trent have certainly been completed and
perfected in many particulars by those of the Second Vatican Council, which has carried into effect
the efforts to bring the faithful closer to the Sacred Liturgy that have been taken up these last four
centuries and especially those of recent times, and above all the attention to the Liturgy promoted by
St. Pius X and his Successors.

[1] Ecumenical Council of Trent, Session XXII, September 17, 1562: Enchiridion Symbolorum, H.
Denzinger and A. Schnmetzer, editors (editio XXXIII, Freiburg: Herder, 1965; hereafter, DenzSchn), nos. 1738-1759.
[2] Second Ecumenical Council of the Vatican, Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Sacrosanctum
Concilium, no. 47; cf. Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen gentium, nos. 3, 28; Decree on
the Ministry and Life of Priests, Presbyterorum ordinis, nos. 2, 4, 5.
[3] Evening Mass of the Lords Supper, Prayer over the Offerings. Cf. Sacramentarium Veronense,
L.C. Mohlberg editor, no. 93.
[4] Cf. Eucharistic Prayer III.
[5] Cf. Eucharistic Prayer IV.
[6] Second Ecumenical Council of the Vatican, Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Sacrosanctum
Concilium, nos. 7, 47; Decree on the Ministry and Life of Priests, Presbyterorum ordinis, nos. 5, 18.
[7] Cf. Pius XII, Encyclical Letter, Humani generis, August 12, 1950: Acta Apostolicae Sedis 42
(1950), pp. 570571; Paul VI, Encyclical Letter, Mysterium fidei, September 3, 1965: Acta Apostolicae
Sedis 57 (1965), pp. 762769; Paul VI, Solemn Profession of Faith, June 30, 1968, nos. 24-26: Acta

Apostolicae Sedis 60 (1968), pp. 442-443; Sacred Congregation of Rites, Instruction, Eucharisticum
mysterium, May 25, 1967, nos. 3f, 9: Acta Apostolicae Sedis 59 (1967), pp. 543, 547.
[8] Cf. Ecumenical Council of Trent, Session XIII, October 11, 1551: Denz-Schn, nos. 1635-1661.
[9] Cf. Second Ecumenical Council of the Vatican, Decree on the Ministry and Life of Priests,
Presbyterorum ordinis, no. 2.
[10] Cf. Second Ecumenical Council of the Vatican, Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium, no. 11.
[11] Second Ecumenical Council of the Vatican, Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Sacrosanctum
Concilium, no. 50
[12] Ecumenical Council of Trent, Session XXII, Doctrina de ss. Missae sacrificio, September 17,
1562, chapter 8: Denz-Schn, no. 1749.
[13] Ecumenical Council of Trent, Session XXII, Doctrina de ss. Missae sacrificio, September 17,
1562, chapter 9: Denz-Schn, no. 1759.
[14] Ecumenical Council of Trent, Session XXII, Doctrina de ss. Missae sacrificio, September 17,
1562, chapter 8: Denz-Schn, no. 1749.
[15] Cf. Second Ecumenical Council of the Vatican, Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium, no. 33.
[16] Cf. Second Ecumenical Council of the Vatican, Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium, no. 36.
[17] Cf. Second Ecumenical Council of the Vatican, Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium, no. 52.
[18] Cf. Second Ecumenical Council of the Vatican, Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium, no. 35, 3.
[19] Second Ecumenical Council of the Vatican, Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Sacrosanctum
Concilium, no. 55.
[20] Ecumenical Council of Trent, Session XXII, Doctrina de ss. Missae sacrificio, September 17,
1562, chapter 6: Denz-Schn, no. 1747.
[21] Cf. Second Ecumenical Council of the Vatican, Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium, no. 55.

(see next page)

(see next page)