"Faithful to tradition, the Sacred Council declares that Holy Mother Church holds all legitimately recognised rites in equal right and honour, and that she wishes them to be kept and fostered unreservedly for the future. The Council desires that, where there may be need, they should be carefully and thoroughly revised in accordance with sound tradition and endowed with a new vigour to suit the needs and circumstances of the present day." (No. 4) 

"In order that the Christian people may the more surely gain an abundance of graces in the sacred liturgy, the Church, their loving Mother, desires to apply herself with due care to a general reform of the liturgy, for the liturgy consists of a part that is unchangeable because it is divinely instituted and of parts that can be changed. These latter can, and indeed must, vary with the passage of time, if ever they come to contain things not altogether consonant with the real nature of the liturgy as such, or things that are no longer appropriate." (No. 21) 

(But rest assured) "The supervision and general ordering of the sacred liturgy are vested solely in the authority of the Church. This authority resides in the Apostolic See [a common euphemism for the Pope and the apparent basis used by Father Barbara for his use of the term "Authority"], and, according to the terms of the law, in the bishop." (No. 22 § 1) 

"Wherefore, no one else at all, not even a priest, may, of his own authority, add to, take from, or modify anything in the liturgy." (No. 22 § 3) 

" ...innovations should not be made unless when a real and definite advantage will accrue to the Church, and when due care has been taken to ensure that the new forms shall, as it were, grow out organically from those already existing." (No. 23) 

With regard to the exorcisms, the new rite contains none at all, in spite of any "doctrinal explanations" to the contrary in certain vernacular versions. For we cannot call the prayer which concludes the part entitled "celebration of the Word of God" an exorcism, since at no point is to be found the imperative form which commands Satan to leave the soul: "Leave this child, impure spirit" or "I adjure thee, impure spirit, in the name of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, to come out of this creature of God". Thus, there is no exorcism. The introduction into the Church is retained. If the two are compared, that of Paul VI is worse than that of the 1549 Reform. 

Moreover, the sacramental formula has been changed. It is no longer that which Holy Church has always used and which should therefore be preserved (see I Timothy VI, 20), but is a new form. Finally, this anointing is no longer conferred with the triple sign of the Cross, in the name of the Most Holy Trinity. The changes are such that the validity of the rite is at the least doubtful. Indeed, we must not forget that if certain external acts seem to be those of the past, the totality of the ceremonies has been disturbed to such a degree that the intention which they express appears no longer to be that of the Church: namely, to impress an indelible character, which gives the Christian boldness to confess his Faith before the world. 

As "Sovereign Pontiff", it was impossible for him to declare it to be optional; his design to ruin Catholicism would have been evident to all the faithful and would have failed. So, very cleverly, auricular confession was praised by him, at the same time as he "permitted" general absolutions. Little by little these will supplant auricular confession. While the servants of the Husbandman slept, the cockle was surreptitiously sown. No more is needed than to let it grow. Unless the Lord intervenes, the days of auricular confession are numbered. 

These suppressions, without parallel, infallibly proclaim the spirit of Luther, of heresy.

The spirit of the Reformation is easily recognizable here. Luther said: "That abominable Canon is a confluence of puddles of slimy water, which have made of the Mass a sacrifice. Offertories have been added. The Mass is not a sacrifice. It is not the act of a sacrificing priest. Together with the Canon, we discard all that implies an oblation." 

This double process has facilitated the stealthy introduction of the reform desired by the innovators, in eliminating to the greatest possible degree "everything which suggests the idea of oblation" (Luther), of the victim; that is, the renewal of the propitiatory sacrifice. 

Three new eucharistic prayers, as neutral as anyone could wish, made up by specialists in heresy, to supplant the Canon known as "Roman", which is still intolerable to the Protestants, in spite of the falsifications introduced, complete the plan which, of its very nature, tends to destroy the Catholic Mass.

These suppressions, effected by various artifices, and with the help of "false translations" are innumerable. 

Let us point out a few of them: 

1) An almost entire elimination of the signs of the Cross, intended to demonstrate visibly that the Victim is the same as the Victim on Calvary:

Thus, for example, in the prayer "Unde et memores", which follows the consecration of the Chalice, when he recited the words "offerimus praeclarae Majestatis tuae", the priest used to make five signs of the Cross, which were not blessings but demonstrative signs. Each of them indicated, with precision, "the pure +Victim", "the holy +Victim", "the spotless + Victim", "the sacred + Bread and the Chalice of + everlasting salvation", present there upon the altar. Why have all these signs, so rich in meaning, been suppressed in the new "Ordo"? Could it be that there is no longer belief in the mysterious Reality brought about by Transubstantiation? 

Of more than thirty signs of the Cross contained in the traditional rite, that of Paul VI preserves but one, and this one signifies no more than a simple blessing. 

2) The same remark applies to the genuflexions (which is logical, if one wishes to promote the belief that there is only a virtual presence): two are preserved instead of ten. In this matter, the most significant suppression is of that which follows each of the two consecrations. By tolerating the suppression of the act of adoration which immediately followed each of the consecrations accomplished by the priest, the rite of Paul VI gives credence to the protestant heresy which denies the efficacy of the consecration (see below, No. 37). 

3) All the words which mark the sacrificial Oblation have been suppressed or falsely translated; for example, "adscriptam, ratam, rationabilem", are removed; the word "hostiam", which means "victim" and which designates precisely Our Saviour Jesus Christ sacrificed anew on the altar, is not faithfully translated. This manner of being silent on a point of faith when it should be affirmed surely conceals a denial.

Apparently, for the new reformers as for the old ones, the Mass is not the "real and true Sacrifice of the New Covenant" but a mere memorial of it. The French "New Missal for Sundays", in particular, clearly states that at Mass there "is simply a question of calling to mind the one Sacrifice already accomplished" (1972 edition, p. 332; 1973 edition, p. 383.)

On the other hand, for the Communion, the words in the new rite are only: "The Body of Christ". It is briefer, and above all "the soul" and "eternal life" are thus suppressed; the new reformers thus show themselves to be more heretical than the old. 

When, however, they were afraid of rousing the opposition of Catholics, and even of some of the "reformed", they had recourse to a degree of reticence to imprecise and ambiguous formulas, which each person could interpret as he wished - knowing full well that time would do the rest.

It was a piece of trickery.

Example : The falsified "translation" of the Roman Canon, instead of "we offer (Thee) ... a pure Victim, a holy Victim, a spotless Victim... hostiam puram, hostiam sanctam, hostiam immaculatam", makes the priest say: "We offer to you ...this holy and perfect sacrifice ..."(ICEL translation). 

Thus, not only is the Latin text of the Canon betrayed by mistranslations, but a cunning ambiguity is introduced: For Catholics will think, in accordance with Catholic doctrine, that the "holy and perfect sacrifice" in question is that effected on the altar. At the same time, however, Protestants will think, in accordance with their own doctrine, that this "holy and perfect sacrifice" here referred to, is that of Calvary, made once for all in 33 A.D., which the minister is now recalling, simply making a Memorial and not a Renewal. This heretical doctrine, moreover, is that which is fully spelt out in the French "New Missal for Sundays", as noted above in paragraph 16. 

We have just spoken of the betrayal of the Latin text in the translations, and in this we had in mind particularly the French translation; but the English one presents similar ambiguities, and this fact leads us to think that there is question of premeditated connivance.

We will give but two proofs of this statement: 

a) Though they are aware of this betrayal, the authorities accept it and shield it by their silence. Now "he who remains silent is judged to consent". Indeed, what is the reason for this silence on their part, if it be not that they recognize in such translations what it is intended, in practice, to teach? 

b) In general, similar infidelities to the Latin text are to be found in various vernacular versions -- English, German, Spanish, etc. How can it be claimed that this uniformity in betraying the text is not intended, even ordered? So we have here a further piece of knavery: that of having drawn up a passable Latin text, behind which, when attacked, Authority [an obvious euphemism by Father Barbara for the Pope], will always be able to entrench itself, to escape the accusation of heresy, allowing this to fall on the translators; whilst faithful traditional believers are soothed by the thought that, after all, the Latin text is the official one, and it is acceptable - refusing to see that by its persistent silence Authority [an obvious euphemism by Father Barbara for the Pope], is responsible for the circulation of faulty translations, which in practice do the work of heresy by changing the belief of the faithful on these points. In other words, the new "reformers" still give expression to doctrine, but in texts which, in practice, are hardly in use (Except for a small number of places, the Latin text is not used by those who have adopted the new liturgy.), whilst putting at the disposal of the faithful faulty translations which convey error and, by their use, change and consequently destroy the content of the Faith. 

The similarity between Cranmer's reform and that of Paul VI extends to details which clearly show that they are inspired by the same spirit, which is far from being the Holy Ghost. Like Cranmer's work, Paul VI's reform is a work of trickery, and even more hypocritical.

No violence appears to be needed, however, by the "reformers" of our day, as their work goes ahead in "cope and tiara", "with Cross and Banner".

Despite these precautions, the heretical hatred of the altar of sacrifice appears also in the new "reformers", who have crept into the highest places in the Church. In the same way as before, the altars have been replaced by tables, with the aim of destroying in the minds of Catholics the idea of sacrifice.

It is a measure which squares well with the new "Ordo" which, by means of suppressions and omissions, destroys the whole doctrine of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, reducing it to a simple commemorative meal, with only a spiritual Presence, such as any meeting for prayer could have: "Where there are two or three gathered together in My name, there am I in the midst of them." (Math. XVIII, 20)

And, setting an example himself, on the night of 11 June 1550, he had the altar of Saint Paul's Cathedral destroyed, and replaced it by a table at the foot of the steps leading to the choir. Some months later, a royal decree charged the bishops to destroy all remaining altars and replace them by tables. 

"As long as altars remain", preached Hooker, "ignorant people and illiterate priests will always dream of sacrifice." 

Here it would seem to be important to recall a point clearly made by Cranmer. It will help us to understand that orthodox expressions retained by the reformers do not necessarily retain a Catholic meaning. 

In his new "Prayer Book", Cranmer had in several places kept the word "altar". This is how he explained the matter: "The table at which the holy communion is given may be called an ALTAR because on it is offered OUR sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving." 

Not a single cathedral (in France) has preserved the use of its altar, and most parish churches and chapels in religious houses have destroyed or relegated theirs. 

Everywhere, at the entrance to the choir, as in Protestant churches, a simple table banishes the idea of the Sacrifice.

In Germany the Capuchins of Witenberg continued to celebrate the Mass, so Luther obtained from the Elector of Saxony an edict forbidding them to celebrate in public. So, if they retained the Mass, they had to say it alone, without a single person present. 

Similarly, if any priest (parish priest, curate, chaplain or preacher) ventures to retain the traditional rite, which the Fathers of Vatican II solemnly promised should "be kept and fostered unreservedly" (De Sacra Liturgia, No. 4), or if he teaches the traditional catechism, he is considered an "obstacle to the new pastoral theology", to be "replaced by a zealous partisan of the new religion" and reduced to destitution.

The rubric "without saying anything", repeated again and again, is very revealing: here are signs which no longer signify anything because of the suppression of the formula on which their meaning depended. 

This is typical modernist guile: to preserve the outward appearance of signs, but to do away with the Catholic formula and thus to empty them of all meaning.

Did not Lenin, whom they remember in their new calendar, lay down as an effective means of fighting against religion: "Keep the shell but empty it of its substance." 

However, we must stress the fact that the Innovators prefer their name because it permits them to make the heretical Protestant doctrine prevail, which asserts that this rite is for all the sick, whether in danger of death or not, over the Catholic doctrine, which reserves this sacrament for those whom sickness or great age place in danger of death (hence the name Extreme Unction). The erroneous idea is seen in practice everywhere, above all in places of pilgrimage, with ceremonies for the collective administration of the Anointing of the Sick. 

Here again, the form and above all the matter have been changed. Under the pretext that "olive oil is scarce or is very difficult to obtain in some regions" (has the Pope forgotten that we are in the era of "Concord"?), any oil, blessed by any priest on any day may, henceforth, be used, "in cases of real necessity", of course: appearances must be preserved!

Whilst just as profound as those made by the Protestants, the changes effected by the neo-reformers are much more carefully disguised. Applying the recommendation of Lenin, they retain the shell, but emptied of its contents. Thus we see them sometimes changing the content, or the sense of the traditional expressions which they retain, sometimes suppressing gestures with the purpose of suppressing the doctrine which these gestures expressed. 

The words, "that they may become for us the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ", expressed in the Catholic Tradition the efficacy of the words of Consecration pronounced by the priest; they expressed the mystery of Transubstantiation and the reality of the substantial Presence of Christ Who will be there on the altar, in the state of Victim, sacrificed and offered under the sacramental forms, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity. 

For the fabricators of the new Ordo Missae these words can have a different meaning: "That they may become for us", implies by faith, and not through the ministry of the priest, and "the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ", only a virtual or spiritual Presence, for, to the new reformers, as for their predecessors, it seems plain that there is no change of substance, no miracle.

The bread remains bread and the wine, wine. Only a virtual, spiritual presence is added to them, effected by the faith alone of the faithful gathered together in the name of Jesus Christ, according to His promise: "Where there are two or three gathered together in My name, there am I in the midst of them." 

It is with this same care not to profess the traditional doctrine, that the authors of the Novus Ordo have done away with the genuflexions made by the priest immediately after he had pronounced the words of Consecration. 

These acts of adoration, demanded by Faith in the real corporal Presence effected by the words of Consecration, demonstrated the efficacy of the Catholic rite: its suppression affirms, in its own way (disguised but effective) that the words of Consecration have brought about no change. 

The bread presented by the President would appear to be no more than bread, and in the chalice which he raises, there would appear still to be nothing but wine.

Thus, this new rite is indeed heretical, but in the modernist manner, hypocritically, by calculated omission. Catholics should become aware of this, and not deny the evidence.

WE RECALL TO THE ATTENTION OF TIMOROUS CATHOLICS, WHO ARE PARALYSED BY THE MERE THOUGHT THAT ALL THESE CHANGES ARE PROMULGATED BY THE POPE, THAT BEFORE SEEKING TO SAFEGUARD THE REPUTATION OF A MAN -- EVEN THOUGH HE BE POPE -- WE MUST SAFEGUARD THE HONOUR OF JESUS CHRIST AND THE DEPOSIT OF FAITH. FOR THIS, EACH ONE IN HIS OWN STATION IN LIFE WILL HAVE TO GIVE ACCOUNT ON THE DAY OF JUDGEMENT.

To be convinced of this, it is necessary only to read the definition of the Mass given in the famous Article 7 of the General Instruction to the new rite: which "represents, as a whole and in detail, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Holy Mass as it was formulated in Session XXII of the Council of Trent ". (Cardinals Bacci and Ottaviani in their letter to the Pope of 3 September 1969, accompanying the Roman Theolologians' "Brief Critical Study" of the "Novus Ordo Missae".)

It is in order to make clear this same heretical spirit, which denies the sacrificial character of the Mass, that the authors of the new rite have introduced two further changes. 

1) After the offering of the bread and wine, the priest, with the paten and the chalice, used to trace a broad sign of the Cross. This rite, this cross, which recalled so clearly the immolation of the Victim, has been suppressed. 

2) Having traced the sign of the Cross with the paten, the priest did not leave the bread on the paten; he placed it upon the corporal, which symbolised the shroud in which the Body of Jesus was wrapped. 

Henceforth, the President is to leave the host on the paten and not place it on the corporal, for this might keep in his mind what it is desired to banish from it: the reality of the Body of the Lord. Corporal = which receives the body.

These tactics of ambiguity and camouflage, which lull Catholics and paralyse their resistance, make the new "reforms" more perverse than those of 1549.

Communion is also often received in the hand, and no longer in the mouth. 

Priestly vestments have not yet entirely disappeared, but the matter is under consideration. (Letter of the Congregation of Divine Worship, 21 May 1972.) However, it must not be forgotten that heresy can adapt itself to the use of sacerdotal vestments. Elizabeth I of England, to win over Catholics to the Protestant Reformation, ordered the re-introduction of certain items. 

[HTML Editor's Note: From what We have observed and from the reports which have come from reliable witnesses to various "events" held in the Vatican 2 church , the following have either totally disappeared or are used by only a few:

1) biretta; 
2) cassock; 
3) amice; 
4) cincture; 
5) maniple; 
6) Roman style chasuble; 
7) humeral veil; 
8) burse; 
9) chalice veil; 
10) cope; 
11) the use of Roman purple as a color for the rabat and biretta worn by Bishops of whatever rank of ecclesiastical jurisdiction-the Cardinals and Bishops appearing on TV over the last years all wear black, but, prior to Synod Vatican 2, black was reserved for Priests and Clerics, not Bishops; 
12) bugia; 
13) buskins; 
14) etc. 

How many of the young people especially who are part of the Vatican 2 church have ever seen any of these things or even know what they are?]

"The bearing", declared Hooker, "and the gestures of the communicant should exclude all appearance, or tendency towards idolatry.Now kneeling is a mark and external sign of honour and of worship, and, up to the present, adoration of the Sacrament has constituted a grave and damnable idolatry. I would desire, therefore, that the Authorities should order communicants to stand or to sit. To remain seated would in my opinion be best." 

The struggle against the reception of Holy Communion kneeling was, as Philip Hughes said, "the last stone to be piled on to the mound beneath which lay buried the ancient belief in the Holy Eucharist." 

An example: An archbishop in the south of France, giving Holy Communion, and holding in his hands the ciborium which held the Body of the Lord, kicked a kneeling old lady in the knees, in this way urging her to stand up. Clearly, it is more than probable that that archbishop no longer believed in transubstantiation, and that for him "communion" was a mere commemorative symbol, and no longer our Holy Communion. Once again, heresy is concealed by using a word in a sense other than its true one.

The bishops are responsible for the universal imposition of new catechisms for children, often against the wishes of parish priests, catechists and parents. 

Let us, then, turn to God and pray that there may quickly arise a new Saint Bruno, Saint Hugh and Saint Godfrey, who, by arising against Pope Pascal II and threatening no longer to recognise him as the legitimate Pope, compelled him to condemn the heretical doctrine which he had conceded to the Emperor in the matter of the investiture of bishops. 

No longer believing in Transubstantiation they no longer had the intention of effecting it, and therefore did not do so. They merely recited a narrative, a memorial. 

However, as in the case of the formula introduced by the English Protestant Reformers, the rite of Paul VI tends to do away with the consecration. It causes the words of Institution: "This is My Body ... this is the chalice of My Blood ..." to be said in a recitative tone, as if it wished the priest to do no more than read a narrative, a memorial.

This change, despite its harmless appearance, is an extremely grave matter. By replacing the tone of one performing a personal action, which made clear the priest's intention to consecrate, by a recitative manner which no longer manifests this intention, but even expresses a contrary one - that of merely recalling a fact - this change reveals the will of the neo-reformers to change the Church's intention, substituting for it one which is heretical and Protestant. 

This heretical will of the reformers is evident in the "new missals". In these the "new Mass" is in no sense the Mass, since it is not the renewal of the Sacrifice of Calvary, but a mere Memorial of it (see paragraph 16 above). In the intention of its producers it is, thus, no more than the Protestant Communion service. It is merely a commemoration of the one Sacrifice once offered and not, as Catholic doctrine teaches, a true renewal of the Sacrifice. 

Those Catholics who insist on ignoring all this and who venture to claim that the "Novus Ordo Missae" is still a Catholic Mass are pitifully blind. That is their affair. 

But their sentimental protestations will not change the reality of things: in fact, as in the intention of its authors, the new rite is no longer the Mass, but a mere memorial which no longer accomplishes our adorable Sacrifice.

[HTML Editor's Note: These words seem very harsh at first sight. But upon further reflection, the frustration and exasperation of Father Babara (whom I understand was recently consecrated a Bishop) is understandable. The idea that the Pope can do no wrong, i.e., that every Pope is impeccable, not capable of committing sin, is simply false. Not all Popes are saints! Some have been murderers, rapists, thieves, and one, Pope John XXIII, had even been a pirate! 

Here is another one of but many examples: According to research, Pope Alexander VI, Rodrigo Borgia, [Thursday, August 11, 1492 - Tuesday, August 18, 1503] had many, many children and was the "Papa" (Italian word for "Pope" and also for "father") of many in Rome in the biological sense as well as in the spiritual sense! 

Research also indicates that, according to some, Pope Alexander VI and one of his illegitimate sons, Cardinal Cesare Borgia, would poison the newly created Cardinals at a special banquet in their honor, who had just paid Alexander VI large sums of gold to be made a Cardinal, so that Pope Alexander VI and Cardinal Cesare could sell the newly emptied offices of Cardinal again, and then poison the next crop of newly created Cardinals at a special banquet, and repeat this process over and over, again and again! 

Lucrezia Borgia, one of his illegitimate daughters, had at least one child which is considered by some to be the biological son of the Pope-thus adding incest to the other crimes of Pope, Papa, Alexander VI! 

The point is, today, so it seems, too many people in the Vatican 2 church have a stronger fear of the truth (Christ IS the Way, THE TRUTH, and the Life!) than they do of error! Perhaps this is because the Vatican 2 church seems to discourage the administration of the Sacrament of Confirmation? The irony is, however, that according to research, ALL of the Sacraments of the Vatican 2 church are invalid and this includes Confimation! Thus, there are fewer and fewer of the pre-Vatican 2 confirmed soliders of Jesus Christ left in the Vatican 2 church to fight against such abominal errors and heresies, not to mention its per se invalid and illicit liturgical rites for the Mass and the Seven Sacraments, even in their Latin versions!]

But in that case, if the "president" conforms to the new rite and to the intention of its authors, there is no corporal Presence, and without this there is no Sacrifice and no sacramental communion. Of itself, the new rite thus clearly tends towards being a rite which is utterly null and void. 

Here a remark is necessary, to anticipate objections: Unlike the heretics of 1549, who left the Church, those of today are resolved to remain within her. They occupy key positions "right up to the highest summit of the hierarchy" [i.e., the Pope himself!], thus giving the appearance of regular authority: the wolves [including the Popes of the Vatican 2 church] retain the appearance of sheep.

Hence the all too easy deception of priests and people with regard to the Mass. Unable to believe in the perfidious intentions of the destroyers, they reassure themselves that, as long as the Novus Ordo Missae is used with the intention of doing what the traditional Church intends to do, that is, to effect a true transubstantiation and a true propitiatory sacrifice, the Mass is valid in spite of the rite. 

True, their Masses may possibly be valid, for though the ambiguity of the present subversion destroys the Mass, it still gives the unwary the impression of not destroying it. 

[HTML Editor's Note: Father Barbara has forgotten about the ontological essence of the Mass as instituted by Christ. Since the ontological essence of the Novus Ordo Rite of Mass is totally defective on every point of the ontological essence, it is IMPOSSIBLE for the Novus Ordo Rite of Mass to ever be valid, even in its Latin version! 

In other words, one may intend all they desire to eat a steak but if what a person has before them is only a bowl of cereal, that person can only pretend that the contents, namely the cereal, is a steak! 

Thus, the ontological essence of cereal can no more become a full pound, char-broiled juicy steack, smothered in onions, mushrooms and steak sauce, steaming its savory delights to the closest nostrils, than can the Novus Ordo Rite of Mass, which is nothing more that a recently synthesized Protestant supper-meal which is a non-Catholic ceremony which is by ontological essence only a very ambiguous historical and testimonial memorial of the Lord, just as the Our Father, or the Stations of the Cross, or the Forty Hours Devotion, or a Crucifix, or a picture of Christ is the memorial of the Lord, become a valid Catholic liturgical rite of Mass. 

On the contrary, while the victimized members of the the Vatican 2 church may be trying their best to intend to imagine they are eating the steak of a valid Catholic rite of Mass, the horrendous reality is that the Novus Ordo Rite of Mass is instead a stench-filled, filth-laden mass of rotting garbage which the experts of mass hypnosis, or propaganda, have the audacity to call a "mass" and which God Himself calls the Abomination of Desolation!] 

We must realize that the modernist heresy is not typical of classical heresies, frankly and clearly expressed; it is a heresy which disguises itself under forms which may be understood in [either] a[n] heretical or in a Catholic sense. 

This hypocritical method gives an advantage to error (that of transforming the Mass into a Protestant communion service without arousing the definite suspicions of the faithful, and without causing too much resistance), but it also involves a risk (that of still maintaining the validity of the Mass through those who say it with Catholic intentions). 

[HTML Editor's Note: Once again, the Novus Ordo Rite of Mass is per se invalid, irregardless all the Catholic intentions in the world!] 

This risk is inseparable from the method employed, that of ambiguity; but modernists are prepared to take it because for them, who do not believe in transubstantiation, the question of validity does not arise; moreover, they well know that, with the traditional doctrine no longer being taught (new catechisms, new theology), the Mass will in time be destroyed. 

[HTML Editor's Note: Once again, the Novus Ordo Rite of Mass is per se invalid! Therefore, it is not a question that the (ancient Roman Rite of the Catholic) Mass will in time be destroyed in the Vatican 2 church but that in fact it does NOT exist per se in the Vatican 2 church at this time!] 

Hence it is evident what a terrible responsibility is assumed by those who use the Novus Ordo Missae, even though they have the intention of celebrating validly [HTML Editor's Note: Much more than a valid intention is required for the ontological essence of the Mass as instituted by Christ!], since by doing so they play a part in the establishment of a rite which tends to replace the Catholic Mass by a Protestant communion service. 

Thus the new reform of the Mass entered, in this way, into a direct line of descent from the Reformation of 1549.

Here is the official list for the period, of the Blessed and the Venerables of the Church in England: Between 1535 and 1544, fifty martyrs; from 1545 to 1558, no deaths; from 1559 to 1663, one hundred and eighty eight martyrs. From 1604 to 1680, there were seventy five martyrs. There were also forty three deferred cases, in which martyrdom has not been proclaimed, for lack of evidence. 

Of all these martyrs, two were canonized in 1933: Saint Thomas More (a layman) and [Cardinal] Saint John Fisher (a bishop). Forty others were canonised in 1970. Most of these were priests, but there were also lay people, men and women. 

Besides those officially recognised as martyrs and the forty three deferred cases, there were many others, of whom a great number died in prison. 

Among these hundreds and hundreds of prisoners must be numbered most of the Catholic bishops who were in office when Elizabeth I ascended the throne; these remained in prisons of various kinds, in conditions more or less severe, until their deaths. The last of these bishops died in 1584, after twenty five years of detention. 

It was only under Henry VIII that the bishops -- with the exception of Saint John Fisher - were cowardly; under Elizabeth I, they were courageous, and only one of them apostatized. During the reign of Elizabeth I the prisons were always full, and many new ones were built to receive those who rejected the Reformation. 

English Catholics have something to be proud of in the resistance of their ancestors to the Reformation, and in their courage in defending the Faith!

We know of only two: Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, titular Archbishop of Synnada in Phrygia [he died a number of years ago], and founder of the Society of St. Pius X (at Econe in Switzerland), and Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer [he is now either very old or has also died?], Bishop of Campos in Brazil. May God bless and sustain them! 

[HTML Editor's Note: This was written by Father Barbara many years before he himself was consecrated a Bishop. Father Barbara also seems to have been unware that other Bishops were in fact publicly speaking out, except that much, if not most, of the public media seems to have ignored them.] 

On the other hand, there are many priests who reject the new Mass and retain the traditional one, and some of them -- they are to be found in all countries -- fight against the new rite and denounce the heretical malice of the false reformers. 

For the most part we must note that Catholics have adopted an attitude of resignation with regard to the whole reform undertaken by Paul VI. 

At heart, many people greatly miss the age-old liturgy, which has come down to us from the Apostles, but the great majority, for a multitude of reasons - culpable ignorance, misplaced obedience, inertia, lukewarmness, love of a "quiet life" - have not the courage to resist the ruin of Catholicism, which is taking place before their very eyes. 

On acceding to the crown, on the pretext of considering all shades of opinion, she introduced into her Council men already won over to the new ideas, while at the same time retaining certain Catholic members from the time of Mary Tudor.

Latin was made to disappear at the same time that the new "translations" of the prayers of the Mass (new - that is to say, falsified) appeared. 

The faithful, already much displeased by this massacre of their Mass, were much more so when a further innovation appeared and spread widely: Holy Communion standing. This manner of receiving Holy Communion, so contrary to the Catholic spirit, met with resistance from many of the faithful whose convictions were outraged. To succeed in doing away with this homage given to the Real, substantial Presence of Our Lord, certain brain-washed clergy were not afraid to exalt the virtues of obedience and sacrifice, in this way cunningly causing those who persisted in the act of adoration due to God to have a bad conscience about it. The ignorant, bewildered flock ended by yielding to the voices of such priests. A very small number would have none of it: public ridicule awaited them. 

As the months passed, even from one week to the next, the "novelties" multiplied: one priest did away with the prayers at the foot of the altar, another suppressed the signs of the Cross in the Canon, another ceased to adore the Host after the words of Consecration, etc., etc. People were shocked and, in conversation cried shame on all these "disobedient" priests, whereas, in fact, these were obeying secret orders, designed to accustom the faithful to changes yet to come: namely, to the "New Mass", in which there appeared, as a whole and in detail, all the "disobediences" of the priests who were in the know. The deception had been complete! 

And he has himself been insistent that there would be no more penalties: We are going to have a period of greater liberty in the life of the Church, and hence for each of her sons ... Formal discipline will be reduced, all arbitrary judgment will be abolished, as well as all intolerance and absolutism. (9 July 1969)

In the mind of Elizabeth I, the Anglican religion, thus established upon a compromise, ought to have been readily accepted by all her subjects. She was mistaken. 

Anglicanism was far from pleasing everybody: it satisfied neither the Catholics, who retained their attachment to the teaching of Holy Church, nor the radical Calvinists, who found the reforms adopted to be insufficient. 

In the first stage, making false use of the prayer of Our Lord "that they may be one", Catholics and Protestants were urged, in the name of a false unity, to merge. With this end in view Catholics were no longer spoken of, but only "Christians".

In the second stage the union of "Christians" with Jews, Muslims, etc., is extolled. 

From this time, let us note, the use of the word "believers" has been preferred; this makes it possible to include all religions under this name [Here is the one world religion of the one world government!], no matter whether they profess belief in Jesus Christ, Mahomet or Buddha: this is the famous unity decreed by Paul VI and his Second Vatican Council -- alas, at the cost of the Truth.