We use the term "Vatican 2 church" frequently in Our writings.  But, what is the "Vatican 2 church"?

Although by no means complete, the following presents a few truths about the "Vatican 2 church" and thus helps one to better understand what it is and what it is not.
 Happy reading and God bless you!

Ad Maiorem Dei Gloriam!

---

The VATICAN 2 church

What is

The "Vatican 2" church?

Synod Vatican 2

In their acceptance of the changes made at Synod Vatican 2 and since then, some may say that such changes are legitimate because the church was simply outdated and need to change. Others feel that the church had to become better suited to the times in which we live or that the church needed to be brought into harmony with the modern conscience. For some, there was a desire for a decentralized ecclesiastical government. Above all, there was a burning desire for innovation, evolution, adaptation, reform, and progress of faith. Still others envisioned a church of secular humanism harmonizing itself with existing forms of society; etc. Some have gone to other religions to learn what they felt appealed to them such as a Priest who recently made a guest appearance on a TV program who had gotten a degree in Buddhism! For some Roman Catholic Priests, Bishops, Cardinals and Popes, such actions have gone far beyond merely listening to the teaching of their Protestant masters as had been the case with some of the Clergy around the turn of the last century because certain Priests, Bishops, Cardinals and Popes have become more Protestant than the Protestants themselves!

An infallible Pope has spoken against such things. He has written in part:

"From all that has preceded, it is abundantly clear how great and how eager is the passion of such men for innovation. In all Catholicism there is absolutely nothing on which it does not fasten. They wish philosophy to be reformed, especially in the ecclesiastical seminaries. They wish the scholastic philosophy to be relegated to the history of philosophy and to be classed among absolute systems, and the young men to be taught modern philosophy which alone is true and suited to the times in which we live. They desire the reform of theology: rational theology is to have modern philosophy for its foundation, and positive theology is to be founded on the history of dogma. As for history, it must be written and taught only according to their methods and modern principles. Dogmas and their evolution, they affirm, are to be harmonized with science and history."

"In the Catechism no dogmas are to be inserted except those that have been reformed and are within the capacity of the people. Regarding worship, they say, the number of external devotions is to he reduced, and steps must be taken to prevent their further increase, though, indeed, some of the admirers of symbolism are disposed to be more indulgent on this head."

"They cry out that ecclesiastical government requires to be reformed in all its branches, but especially in its disciplinary and dogmatic departments. They insist that both outwardly and inwardly it must be brought into harmony with the modern conscience which now wholly tends towards democracy; a share in ecclesiastical government should therefore be given to the lower ranks of the clergy and even to the laity and authority which is too much concentrated should be decentralized."

"The Roman Congregations and especially the index and the Holy Office, must be likewise modified The ecclesiastical authority must alter its line of conduct in the social and political world; while keeping outside political organizations it must adapt itself to them in order to penetrate them with its spirit."

"With regard to morals, they adopt the principle of the Americanists, that the active virtues are more important than the passive, and are to be more encouraged in practice. They ask that the clergy should return to their primitive humility and poverty, and that in their ideas and action they should admit the principles of Modernism...What is there left in the Church which is not to be reformed by them and according to their principles?" (Pope St. Pius X, Pascendi Dominici Gregis, ON THE DOCTRINE OF THE MODERNISTS, Sunday, September 8, 1907 A.D., # 38).

First of all they lay down the general principle that in a living religion everything is subject to change, and must in fact be changed. In this way they pass to what is practically their principal doctrine, namely, evolution. To the laws of evolution everything is subject under penalty of death -- dogma [no "infallible" dogmas], Church, worship [note: this includes the Mass], the Books we revere as sacred, even faith itself. The enunciation of this principle will not be a matter of surprise to anyone who bears in mind what the Modernists have had to say about each of these subjects. Having laid down this law of evolution, the Modernists themselves teach us how it operates."

"And first, with regard to faith. The primitive form of faith, they tell us, was rudimentary and common to all men alike, for it had its origin in human nature and human life. Vital evolution brought with it progress, not by the accretion of new and purely adventitious forms from without, but by an increasing perfusion of the religious sense into the conscience. The progress was of two kinds: negative, by the elimination of all extraneous elements, such, for example, as those derived from the family or nationality; and positive, by that intellectual and moral refining of man, by means of which the idea of the divine became fuller and clearer, while the religious sense became more acute. For the progress of faith the same causes are to be assigned as those which are adduced above to explain its origin. But to them must be added those extraordinary men whom we call prophets -- of whom Christ was the greatest -- both because in their lives and their words there was something mysterious which faith attributed to the divinity, and because it fell to their lot to have new and original experiences fully in harmony with the religious needs of their time."

"The progress of dogma is due chiefly to the fact that obstacles to the faith have to be surmounted, enemies have to be vanquished, and objections have to be refuted. Add to this a perpetual striving to penetrate ever more profoundly into those things which are contained in the mysteries of faith. Thus, putting aside other examples, it is found to have happened in the case of Christ: in Him that divine something which faith recognized in Him was slowly and gradually expanded in such a way that He was at last held to be God."

"The chief stimulus of the evolution of worship consists in the need of accommodation to the manners and customs of peoples, as well as the need of availing itself of the value which certain acts have acquired by usage. Finally, evolution in the Church itself is fed by the need of adapting itself to historical conditions and of harmonizing itself with existing forms of society. Such is their view with regard to each. And here, before proceeding further, We wish to draw attention to this whole theory of necessities or needs, for beyond all that we have seen, it is, as it were, the base and foundation of that famous method which they describe as historical."

"Although evolution is urged on by needs or necessities, yet, if controlled by these alone, it would easily overstep the boundaries of tradition, and thus, separated from its primitive vital principle, would make for ruin instead of progress. Hence, by those who study more closely the ideas of the Modernists, evolution is described as a resultant from the conflict of two forces, one of them tending towards progress, the other towards conservation."

"The conserving force exists in the Church and is found in tradition; tradition is represented by religious authority, and this both by right and in fact. By right, for it is in the very nature of authority to protect tradition: and in fact, since authority, raised as it is above the contingencies of life, feels hardly, or not at all, the spurs of progress."

"The progressive force, on the contrary, which responds to the inner needs, lies in the individual consciences and works in them -- especially in such of them as are in more close and intimate contact with life. Already we observe, Venerable Brethren, the introduction of that most pernicious doctrine which would make of the laity the factor of progress in the Church. Now it is by a species of covenant and compromise between these two forces of conservation and progress, that is to say between authority and individual consciences, that changes and advances take place. The individual consciences, or some of them, act on the collective conscience, which brings pressure to bear on the depositories of authority to make terms and to keep to them."

"With all this in mind, one understands how it is that the Modernists express astonishment when they are reprimanded or punished. What is imputed to them as a fault they regard as a sacred duty" (Pope St. Pius X, Pascendi Dominici Gregis, ON THE DOCTRINE OF THE MODERNISTS, Sunday, September 8, 1907 A.D., # 26-27).

See how students in those seminaries who were influenced by such Modernist errors while they were studying for the Holy Priesthood, and who later went on to become Cardinals and Bishops, could have so easily remained silent when the evolutionary changes made in the name of Synod Vatican 2 were made to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, the Seven Sacraments and the infallible dogmas of the UNCHANGEABLE Catholic Faith?!

Nay, how many of these students for the Priesthood in 1907 A.D., after they became Priests, Bishops and Cardinals, actually became the leaders of the Heresy of Modernism and subtly prepared themselves and their fellow Clergy for Synod Vatican 2 with all of its radical changes?

This would explain in part why the Jewish Cardinal Bea, is quoted as saying:  "similarly the last part of the mass needed overhauling, with some kind of common prayer replacing the unsuitable Leonine prayers for the conversion of Russia, which usually follow the mass and are said in the vernacular.*  (* The Holy See has recently [1960] permitted these prayers to be omitted, under certain circumstances. Whether they are omitted or not has come to be regarded as something of a test of the conservativeness of parishes and of their receptiveness to the liturgical movement, in the U.S.A. at least.)"  (From: Xavier Rynee, LETTERS FROM VATICAN CITY, p. 117.)

Is it any wonder, then, that one reads how "[Synod Vatican 2 was] the greatest disaster in recent ecclesiastical history" (Cardinal Siri, Archbishop of Genoa; from PONTIFF, p. 369 - Gordon Thomas/Max Morgan Witts).

A Pope speaks on this subject:

And here we have already some of the artifices employed by Modernists to exploit their wares. What efforts do they not make to win new recruits! They seize upon professorships in the seminaries and universities, and gradually make of them chairs of pestilence. In sermons from the pulpit they disseminate their doctrines, although possibly in utterances which are veiled. In congresses they express their teachings more openly. In their social gatherings they introduce them and commend them to others. Under their own names and under pseudonyms they publish numbers of books, newspapers, reviews, and sometimes one and the same writer adopts a variety of pseudonyms to trap the incautious reader into believing in a multitude of Modernist writers. In short, with feverish activity they leave nothing untried in act, speech, and writing. And with what result? We have to deplore the spectacle of many young men, once full of promise and capable of rendering great services to the Church, now ["Now" was in 1907! It was bad then-but think of what it has become in the present "now", 1997!] gone astray. It is also a subject of grief to Us that many others who, while they certainly do not go so far as the former, have yet been so infected by breathing a poisoned atmosphere, as to think, speak, and write with a degree of laxity which ill becomes a Catholic. They are to be found among the laity, and in the ranks of the clergy, and they are not wanting even in the last place where one might expect to meet them, in religious communities (Pope St. Pius X, Pascendi Dominici Gregis, ON THE DOCTRINE OF THE MODERNISTS, Sunday, September 8, 1907, # 43).

No wonder the lament of a Father at Synod Vatican 2 is so credible. He is quoted as saying that "[Synod Vatican 2 was] a sinister farce acted out by three thousand good-for-nothings, some of whom, despite the gold [pectoral] crosses on their chests, don't even believe in the Trinity or the Virgin!"  (Bishop Antonio Romeo of the Sacred Congregation of Rites in Bob Considine's column ON THE LINE in the NEW YORK JOURNAL AMERICAN of Friday, November 27, 1964 A.D.).

Yet even today there still seems to be a constant reference to Synod Vatican 2, the Popes connected with Synod Vatican 2, the Popes who have succeeded those Popes, the various historical events which have happened since John 23 became Pope and the various documents which have been issued since John 23 became Pope all make it sound as though nothing existed prior to the time of John 23!

In other words, with all of the emphasis on the above time period, it would seem as if the church did NOT actually exist until John 23 became the Pope!

At first sight, this may seem absurd and ridiculous! The Vatican did not just pop out of the clear blue sky one day and suddenly appear on Vatican hill in the city of Rome, totally complete with all of its different buildings, furnishings, gardens, staff, members, etc.! And, Pope John 23 was not the first Pope! Plus, the Vatican world-wide organization consisting of various buildings such as churches, chapels, shrines, schools, convents, monasteries, seminaries, dioceses, hospitals, etc., not to mention all of their respective members, did not just suddenly appear from nowhere, as if by magic, the day John 23 became Pope!

On the other hand, despite all of these things, there is more truth to this than may first appear! How can this be?

Pope Pius XII cites "the well-known and venerable maxim, Legem credendi lex statuat supplicandi" -- let the rule for prayer determine the rule of belief [45]" (Pope Pius XII, Eugenio Pacelli [Thursday, March 2, 1939 - Thursday, October 9, 1958], Encyclical Mediator Dei, On the Sacred Liturgy, # 48, Thursday, November 20, 1947 A.D.). This is sometimes expressed as simply: Lex orandi, lex credendi. The law of praying is the law of believing, i.e. you express by a public, exterior liturgical act of worship the interior beliefs of your faith. Thus, you pray what you believe and you believe what your pray. Or, as Archbishop Fulton Sheen supposedly said, "If you don't behave as you believe, you will end by believing as you behave."

An earlier writer likewise refers to this axiom: "Being fully aware of the necessary connection between faith and worship, between lex orandi, lex credendi [the law of praying is the law of believing], they [the 16th Century Protestants of England] corrupted the Liturgical Order in many ways to suit the errors of the reformers,under the pretext of restoring it to its primitive form. Thus, in the whole Ordinal, not only is there no clear mention of the sacrifice, of consecration, of the priesthood, and of the power of consecrating and offering sacrifice, but, as We have just stated, every trace of these things, which had been in such prayers of the Catholic Rite, as they had not entirely rejected, was deliberately removed and struck out" (Pope Leo XIII, Gioacchino Pecci [Wednesday, February 20, 1878 - Monday, July 20, 1903], Papal Bull Apostolicae Curae, Declaration of the Invalidity of Anglican Orders, # 23, Tuesday, September 15, 1896 A.D.).

Today some of these same observations can be applied to the official public liturgy which is used by the Vatican 2 church!

"(This "objection" is placed within quotation marks [editor's note: to avoid confusion, the "objection" has been put into italics instead] because it comprises the exact words a certain Archbishop wrote to me after I had called to his attention the mutilation: FOR ALL MEN, ETC. in the new consecration "form.") IT IS INTERESTING TO NOTE HERE THAT THE FORM OF CONSECRATION USED IN THE MASS GOES BACK EVEN BEFORE THE GOSPELS TO THE PRIMITIVE LITURGY WHICH WAS USED IN THE CHURCH BEFORE THE GOSPELS AND BEFORE THE EPISTLES OF ST. PAUL WERE WRITTEN."

"This is an old artifice, the Anglican Schismatics having used exactly the same pretext. "They knew only too well," said Pope Leo XIII, "the infinite bond which unites faith with worship, `the law of belief with the law of prayer' (LEX CREDENDI, LEX ORANDI) and so, UNDER THE PRETEXT OF RESTORING IT TO ITS PRIMITIVE FORM, they corrupted the order of the liturgy in many ways, TO ADAPT IT TO THE ERRORS OF THE INNOVATORS." (Bull Apostolicae Curae, emphasis added)"

"189. Elaborating further in the Vindication of the Bull, the English Bishops said, It could not have been, as you seem to suggest, because the Reformers wished to go back to what was primitive, FOR THEY CUT OUT WITH AN UNSPARING HAND the most ancient as well as the most modern portions of the Catholic rite (Emphasis added)" (Patrick Henry Omlor, Questioning the Validty of the Masses Using the New, All-English Canon, Op. Cit.).

This author goes on to say, in part:

"What people already believe is automatically and necessarily mirrored in the very words of the prayers they recite. This truism is one part of the principle: "lex credendi: lex orandi," the law of belief is the law of prayer. This principle works reversely also; that is to say, people can be LED towards certain beliefs by means of the very prayers they are accustomed to saying. And that is why parents teach their small children The Hail Mary, for example, and The Apostles' Creed, even though these little ones do not yet fully understand everything they are praying. Now, whether or not these parents are familiar with the phrase, "lex credendi: lex orandi," they are nevertheless putting this principle into practice, for they are teaching their children to PRAY those things that they will ultimately come to BELIEVE."

"To see how the 16th-century Heretics-Schismatics employed the principle, "lex credendi: lex orandi" in order to "move the simple from the superstitious opinions of the Popish Mass," (Ridley), we need look no farther than the example furnished by their taking up a very good and "pious" word, SPIRITUAL, in order to use it for a most evil purpose. All the quotations which follow immediately below are taken from the writings of these 16th-century "Reformers." In every instance their use of the word "SPIRITUAL" denotes the DENIAL OF THE REAL PRESENCE of Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament; body, blood, soul and divinity. This is because they are using the "good" word SPIRITUAL, and applying it to the SACRIFICE OF THE MASS and to THE EUCHARIST. (The reader is asked to bear with me through these examples which follow, for there is an important point to be made.)"

"(1) Wycliffe: "The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten in the Supper only after an heavenly and SPIRITUAL manner. And the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is faith."

"(2) Ridley: "He left the same in mystery to the faithful in the Supper, to be received after a SPIRITUAL communication, and by grace."

"(3) Coverdale: "(W)e think not our Lord Jesus Christ to be so vile that He may be contained in corruptible elements. Again, lest the force of this most sacred mystery should be diminished, we must think that it is wrought by the secret and wonderful power of God, and that His Spirit is the bond of this partaking, which is for that cause called SPIRITUAL."

"(4) Cranmer: "Although Christ be not corporally in the bread and wine ... He is effectually present, and effectually worketh, not in the bread and wine, but in the godly receivers of them, to whom He giveth His own flesh SPIRITUALLY to feed upon."

"(5) Again Cranmer in replying to Gardiner: "Therefore ... we do not pray absolutely that the bread and wine may be made the body and blood of Christ, but that therewith in spirit and in truth we may be SPIRITUALLY nourished."

"(6) Latimer: "Then we be assured that we feed upon Him SPIRITUALLY."

"(7) The Liturgy, of King Edward VI: "For us He hath not only give His body to death and shed His blood, but also doth vouchsafe in a sacrament and mystery to give us His said body and blood SPIRITUALLY, to feed and drink upon." " ... (F)or then we SPIRITUALLY eat the flesh of Christ and drink His blood, then we dwell in Christ and Christ in us." "He hath left in these holy mysteries as a pledge of His love, and a continual remembrance of the same, His own blessed body and precious blood, for us SPIRITUALLY to feed upon, to our endless comfort and consolation."

"(8) Grindall: "This is the SPIRITUAL, the very true, the only eating of Christ's body."

"(9) Jewell: "Thus, SPIRITUALLY, and with the mouth of faith, we eat the body of Christ and drink his blood." (10) Beacon: "He is also eaten or received SPIRITUALLY when we believe in Christ."

"(11) "The Book of Common Prayer" (1549): "but also doth vouchsafe in a Sacrament and mystery to give us his said body and blood to feed upon them SPIRITUALLY." "Thou hast vouchsafed to feed us in these holy mysteries with the SPIRITUAL food of the most precious body and blood of thy Son." More examples could be given (there is no shortage of them), for indeed it is difficult to find ANY ONE of the 16th-century Heretics who FAILED to use the word "SPIRITUAL," when writing of the Sacrifice of the Mass and The Eucharist. But this very pious-sounding word, "SPIRITUAL" did not fool those who were true, ORTHODOX Catholics. Finally, the Fathers of the Council of Trent condemned for all times the heresy contained in this use of the word "SPIRITUAL": "If anyone says that Christ received in the Eucharist is received SPIRITUALLY only, ... let him be anathema." (Canon 8, Session XIII)"

"THE NEW, ENGLISH CANON OF THE MASS MISTRANSLATES THE PRAYER "QUAM OBLATIONEM" TO IMPLY A SPIRITUAL OFFERING. This prayer, which IMMEDIATELY PRECEDES THE CONSECRATION PRAYERS, should read: "Do thou, O God, deign to bless what we offer, and make it approved, effective, right, and wholly pleasing in every way ..." The bogus, HERETICAL "Canon" now reads instead: "Bless and approve our offering; make it TRULY SPIRITUAL and acceptable." Obviously this is not just a "pious" use of the word SPIRITUAL. For at no time did this particular word EVER appear in "the holy canon, which is so free from error that it contains nothing that does not in the highest degree savor of a certain holiness and piety." (Council of Trent, Ch. 4, Session 22) "Lex credendi: lex orandi." Here is "orandi": "BLESS AND APPROVE OUR OFFERING; MAKE IT TRULY SPIRITUAL." Can "CREDENDI" be far behind? Can it be very long before "the simple people are moved" away from the belief in THE REAL PRESENCE?"

"In the new, English "Canon" we find in two places (that is, prior to the consecrations of both the bread and the wine) the SEEMINGLY uncalled-for insertion of the words: AND PRAISE. The original Latin reads simply, "gratias agens," GIVING THANKS. Why does the new, English "Canon" say, "he gave you thanks AND PRAISE"? It is true that the Mass is a sacrifice of PRAISE, petition, THANKSGIVING, and atonement; but, obviously, that is beside the point here. The simple words, GIVING THANKS, are quite proper and appropriate in this place, for they have their basis in Holy Writ. Four different accounts - to wit, Matt. (26,27); Mark (14,23); Luke (22,19) and I Cor. (11,24) - all have either "He gave thanks" or else "giving thanks." There is a special MEANINGFULNESS in these words, inasmuch as "giving thanks" is in Greek: EUCHARIST. Hence these very words, when recited by the priest just before the two consecrations, remind us of the Sacrament of the EUCHARIST. There is NO Scriptural account that makes mention that Our Lord on the occasion of instituting the Holy Eucharist gave thanks AND PRAISE. So, what is the explanation for this CHANGE made in the Canon of the Mass? Could it be another implementation of "lex CREDENDI: lex ORANDI"? As applied TO A SACRIFICE, this particular phraseology - that is, the words "praise" and "thanksgiving," taken together - did, in fact, convey a SINGULAR AND ESPECIAL SIGNIFICANCE to the 16th-century Heretics-Schismatics. According to the scholarly Canon Estcourt, "Luther led the attack. He DENIED THE CATHOLIC DOCTRINE of the Sacrifice of the Mass in ANY OTHER SENSE than as the sacrifice of PRAISE AND THANKSGIVING." (E. E. Estcourt, The Question of Anglican Ordinations Discussed, p. 281, emphasis added) But let us hear it from the Hieresiarchs themselves. First of all, Luther: "The Mass may be called a sacrifice, IF IT BE UNDERSTOOD as a sacrifice of PRAISE AND THANKSGIVING, not of a work, nor propitiatory." (De Usu Sacram, Euch. salutari, emphasis added) And by Cranmer, Luther's English counterpart, we are informed: "When the old fathers called the mass or supper of the Lord a sacrifice, they meant that it was a sacrifice of LAUDS (i.e., "praise") and THANKSGIVING ... BUT THEY MEANT IN NO WISE THAT IT IS A VERY TRUE SACRIFICE FOR SIN." (Cranmer, On the Lord's Supper, emphasis added) Thus to the Schismatics the Mass was a sacrifice of "PRAISE AND THANKSGIVING" which, in their argot, meant a BARE COMMEMORATION of the Sacrifice of Calvary, or a SPIRITUAL AND SYMBOLIC sacrifice. But NOT A REAL SACRIFICE, nor a sacrifice of PROPITIATION. This point Cranmer made quite clear, "And yet have I denied that it is a sacrifice propitiatory for sin." So well-known and infamous was the connotation the Schismatics had attached to the words "praise and thanksgiving" WHEN APPLIED TO THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS, the Fathers of the Council of Trent ONCE AND FOR ALL TIMES pronounced this solemn curse on this heresy: "If anyone says that the Sacrifice of the Mass is one only of PRAISE AND THANKSGIVING ... let him be anathema." (Canon 3, Session XXII) "Lex credendi: lex orandi." Here is "orandi": He gave you thanks AND PRAISE."

"At the peak of his rebellion, Martin Luther penned the hymn, Ein' feste Burg ist unser Gott. It was "the production," says the historian Ranke, "of the moment in which Luther, engaged in a conflict with a world of foes, sought strength in the consciousness that he was defending a divine (sic) cause which could never perish." "Ein' feste Burg ist unser Gott" was called by Heine "The Marseillaise of the Reformation." This battle-hymn of rebellion AGAINST THE CATHOLIC CHURCH is now appearing on "hymn cards" IN CATHOLIC CHURCHES. (St. Thomas Aquinas Church in Palo Alto, California, for example.) And as CATHOLICS sing this hymn, "A Mighty Fortress Is Our God" do they yet realize that they are echoing the great hieresiarch in his apostasy, his rebellion AGAINST THE ONE, TRUE, HOLY, CATHOLIC, APOSTOLIC ROMAN CHURCH which was founded by the SON OF GOD? "Lex credendi: lex orandi." Here is "orandi": THE MARSEILLAISE OF THE REFORMATION."

"The destruction of the altars was a measure SO DISTINCT IN ITS MEANING that we have NEVER BEEN ABLE TO CONCEIVE HOW THAT MEANING COULD BE MISUNDERSTOOD. The measure meant a bitter hatred of the Mass, and a hatred DIRECTED AGAINST THE MASS ITSELF, not merely against some obscure abuse ... Surely if these reformers HAD DESIRED ONLY TO REMOVE AN ABUSE, but were full of reverence for the great Christian Sacrifice itself, they would not have destroyed and desecrated the altars, AND SUBSTITUTED TABLES IN THEIR PLACE, alleging as their reason, in unqualified terms, that `the form of a table shall more move the simple from the superstitious opinions of the Popish Mass unto the right use of the Lord's Supper. For THE USE OF AN ALTAR IS TO MAKE SACRIFICE ON IT; THE USE OF A TABLE IS TO SERVE MEN TO EAT UPON IT.' (Ridley's Works)." (Emphasis added) The foregoing were the words of the Roman Catholic Bishops of England in 1898. (Source: A Vindication of the Bull `Apostolicae Curae', par. 38, titled "The Destruction of Altars")" (Patrick Henry Omlor, Questioning the Validty of the Masses Using the New, All-English Canon, Op. Cit.).

This should suffice for some examples of Lex Orandi, Lex Credendiin the Vatican 2 Church. The bottom line is that, based upon the principle of lex orandi, lex credendi, the Vatican 2 church uses an updated, synthesized Protestant supper-meal, somewhat similar to the Protestant "suppers" made up in the 16th Century, especially in England and Germany which were condemned by the Council of Trent in Session 22, Monday, September 17, 1562 A.D.

Therefore, based upon the basic, objective principles of Catholic traditional teaching in the areas of theology, church history, liturgy, and church law as explained herein, as well as various dogmatic teachings, the Vatican 2 church can not consider itself, nor call itself, the "Catholic" Church, nor can any of its members in TRUTH call themselves "Catholic", be they Clergy, Religious or Laity!  On the basis of LEX ORANDI, LEX CREDENDI they are all PROTESTANTS, whether they know it or not!!!  Are YOU a member of the PROTESTANT Vatican 2 church?!

Various teachings, doctrines, dogmas, and most especially the liturgy of the Mass and Seven Sacraments which the Vatican 2 church teaches and/or uses are NOT CATHOLIC! Becaue of lex orandi, lex credendi, this ex-Catholic church, which has fallen into heresy, apostasy and schism from the Catholic Church, can only be called what it believes and prays, i.e., those NON-CATHOLIC beliefs and prayers of the Vatican 2 church.

Photograph taken on Friday, April 10, 1970 A.D. and printed in the Pope's official newspaper, L'OSSERVATORE ROMANO, Weekly Edition in English, Third Year, N. 18 (109) - Thursday, APRIL 30, 1970 A.D., page # 3.

Please note: the sequence of the names of the Cardinals given in the next paragraph seems to match the sequence of the Cardinals posing in this photograph.

Among the many members of the Hierarchy present at the audience were Cardinals: Lercaro, Gracias. Giobbe, Confalonieri, Rugambwa, Felici, Gray, Enrique y Tarancon, and Willebrands (Article: COMMISSION HOLDS FINAL MEETING, Pope commends work of "Consilium", L'OSSERVATORE ROMANO, Weekly Edition in English, Third Year, N. 17 (108) - Thursday, APRIL 23, 1970 A.D., page # 1).

But several years before this, in October 1967, the Episcopal Synod called in Rome was requested to pass a judgment on the experimental celebration of a so-called "normative Mass," devised by the Consilium [with its very active 6 Protestant member/experts] for implementing the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy. This Mass aroused the most serious misgivings. The voting showed considerable opposition (43 non placet), very many substantial reservations (62 juxta modum), and 4 abstentions out of 187 voters. The international press spoke of a "refusal" of the proposed "normative Mass" on the part of the Synod. Progressively- inclined papers made no mention of this.

In the Novus Ordo Missae lately promulgated by the Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum [April 6, 1969], we once again find this "normative Mass", identical in substance, nor does it appear that in the intervening period the Episcopal Conferences, at least as such, were ever asked to give their views about it(Roman Theologians, The Critical Study of the New Order of Mass, June 5, 1969, # 1-2).

Why? Since the voting [in October 1967] showed considerable opposition (43 non placet), and very many substantial reservations (62 juxta modum), most probably due in part to the principle of lex orandi, lex credendi, it was obviously foolhardy to let the Bishops vote again!

It seems that Paul 6 understood the problem the Bishops were having. But instead of addressing the concerns of the Bishops, the Pope merely bypassed them! This is why it is so ironic that even Pope Paul 6 admitted this principle of lex orandi, lex credendi in his Speech on Friday, April 10, 1970 A.D. to the members of the Consilium! On this point the Pope said: "...theology should have more influence on the liturgical texts, so that therefore the "lex orandi" might correspond more aptly with the "lex credendi"..." (Article: COMMISSION HOLDS FINAL MEETING, Pope commends work of "Consilium", L'OSSERVATORE ROMANO, Weekly Edition in English, Third Year, N. 17 (108) - Thursday, APRIL 23, 1970 A.D., page # 2).

Therefore, Pope Paul 6, regarding whom it was said that the Novus Ordo Rite of Mass was written under the Holy Father's [Paul 6's] PERSONAL SUPERVISION (Cardinal Heenan, FORWARD to the English translation of the Novus Ordo in November, 1969 A.D.), knew all about lex orandi, lex credendi.

Pope Paul 6 also knew full well that SIX Protestants were actively working on the Consilium! Therefore, when he had his photograph-which is shown below-taken with these SIX Protestants he was NOT surprised to suddenly learn that there were Protestant who had been actively working on the Consilium, busily making up the newly updated, sythensized Protestant supper/meal, aka "mass".

These SIX Protestants were apparently experts on Protestant supper/meal liturgies since Pope Paul 6 said in his Speech on Friday, April 10, 1970 A.D.: Looking at the work accomplished by you in these years, We are impelled to offer you a full measure of thanks for so great and so many labours. For you were prompt and diligent, as well as expert, in dealing with a matter that was complicated and very difficult--and without expecting any reward, but seeking only to be of service to the Church. (Article: COMMISSION HOLDS FINAL MEETING, Pope commends work of "Consilium", L'OSSERVATORE ROMANO, Weekly Edition in English, Third Year, N. 17 (108) - Thursday, APRIL 23, 1970 A.D., page # 1).

This same theme was actually mentioned in the few words of introduction to his Speech by the official publication of the Pope, the Vatican Newspaper L'OSSERVATORE ROMANO: On Friday, April 10, [1970] the Holy Father received in audience the Cardinals, Bishops and Experts [i.e., these 6 Protestants]... of the "Consilium ad exsequendam Constitutionem de sacra Liturgia". The work of this Consilium had heen done in conjunction with the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship, under the presidency of Card. [Cardinal] Benno Gut (Article: COMMISSION HOLDS FINAL MEETING, Pope commends work of "Consilium", L'OSSERVATORE ROMANO, Weekly Edition in English, Third Year, N. 17 (108) - Thursday, APRIL 23, 1970 A.D., page # 1).

As you will note in the photograph below, Paul 6 seems to be beaming with joy and happiness as he stands next to these six Protestants!

In his Speech of Friday, April 10, 1970 A.D., did Pope Paul 6, as the official guardian of the Catholic Faith condemn the members of this Consilium for making up an updated, synthesized Protestant liturgy?

On the contrary, Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani and Antonio Cardinal Bacci had to do the Pope's job for him because the Pope certainly did NOT do his job! Consider their Letter to him in which these two Roman Catholic Cardinals stated that: the Novus Ordo represents, both as a whole and in its details, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session XXII of the Council of Trent. The "canons" of the rite definitively fixed at that time provided an insurmountable barrier to any heresy directed against the integrity of the Mystery (Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani and Antonio Cardinal Bacci, Letter to Pope Paul 6, Thursday, September 25, 1969 A.D.).

In his Speech of  Friday, April 10, 1970 A.D., did Pope Paul 6 finally admit that the Novus Ordo represents, both as a whole and in its details, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session XXII of the Council of Trent. The "canons" of the rite definitively fixed at that time provided an insurmountable barrier to any heresy directed against the integrity of the Mystery?

NO! Not only did Pope Paul 6 stubbornly IGNORE the Letter and its contents, plus its attached Study, which the two Cardinals had sent to him over six months before then, he REFUSED to admit the truth of the Catholic Church that the Novus Ordo represents, both as a whole and in its details, a striking departure from the CATHOLIC theology of the Mass, instead, in his giddy euphoria, Paul 6 proclaimed:

Venerable Brothers and dear [Protestant] sons, We are glad to give you a heartfelt greeting, and to speak to you... Looking at the work accomplished by you in these years, We are impelled to offer you a full measure of thanks for so great and so many labours. For you were prompt and diligent, as well as expert, in dealing with a matter that was complicated and very difficult... This work of yours was indeed arduous; documents had to be drawn up by which that Constitution of the Council [Vatican 2] would be gradually put into effect, the liturgical texts themselves had to be prepared, tried out by long use, then presented in a new way, or else totally new formulations drawn up... let Us note the many Instructions and other documents edited, and books of a subsidiary nature written by some of your members [did this include the six Protestant members?] ; the new [Novus]Ordo Missae; the variations introduced... Since this Consilium of yours comes to its end, after its EXCELLENT activity [no mention here of its activity which deviated dramatically from the INFALLIBLE Catholic dogmatic teachings on the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session XXII of the Council of Trent!] ...with a specially warm love, we impart to each and all of you [including you six Protestants who have made up a liturgy which totally ignores the work of the Council of Trent which "canons" of the rite definitively fixed at that time provided an insurmountable barrier to any heresy-including the Protestant heresy which denies that the Mass is a Sacrifice and the denial of the Catholic dogma of Transubstantiation-directed against the integrity of the Mystery!] the Apostolic Blessing [in other words, I, the infallible Pope, Pope Paul 6, do hereby infallibly totally repudiate the infallible teachings of the Council of Trent which were promulgated by the infallible Pope, Pope Pius IV!] . (Article: COMMISSION HOLDS FINAL MEETING, Pope commends work of "Consilium", L'OSSERVATORE ROMANO, Weekly Edition in English, Third Year, N. 17 (108) - Thursday, APRIL 23, 1970 A.D., pages # 1 - # 2).
Please Note:  The comments on this speech will be found by clicking on this link.  Thank You!

If that was not enough, in his Speech of Friday, April 10, 1970 A.D., Pope Paul 6 clearly ignored the fact he and his buddies who all accept his teachings have been automatically EXCOMMUNICATED!

How so?

Historically, because of such anti-Catholic supper meals, the Council of Trent automatically excommunicated ANYONE who would teach against or change the Catholic Rite of Mass in the future! Ten years AFTER the Second Prayer Book of Edward VI of 1562 A.D. by Protestant Archbishop Thomas Cranmer, the Council of Trent replied to the Protestant heresies concerning the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass which they considered to be a mere memorial meal.

Among other things, the Council decreed:

"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 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 anathema."

"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 anathema."

"CANON VI.--If any one saith, that the Canon of the Mass contains errors, and is therefore to be abrogated [abolished]; 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 [abolished]; 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 anathema. " (Council of Trent, Canons & Decrees, Session 22, Monday, September 17, 1562 A.D.).

But most of those who were connected with Synod Vatican 2, including the Vatican 2 Popes, Cardinals, Bishops, and Priests who accepted Vatican 2 and its aftermath have been automatically excommunicated from the Roman Catholic Church in virtue each of the above Canons which they violated and for which they incurred the automatic censure of anathema.

"ANATHEMA then appears as the more solemn form of pronouncing or declaring excommunication" (Rev. P. Chas. Augustine, O.S.B., D.D., A Commentary on the New Code of Canon Law, Vol. 8, Canons 2255 & 2256, p. 170).

"ANATHEMA: A thing or person struck by God's malediction and intended for ruin. Cf. I Cor. 12:13; Rom. 9:3; Gal. l:8-9. Anathema, in actual Church discipline, is the term used for IPSO FACTO excommunication incurred by those denying a solemnly defined truth, as is concluded principally from the dogmatic canons of the Council of Trent and the Vatican Council, (i.e. Vatican 1)" (Parente, Piolanti, Garofalo, Dictionary of Dogmatic Theology, Anathema).

But there is also yet at least one additional anathema. Here again, most of those who were connected with Synod Vatican 2, including the Vatican 2 Popes, Cardinals, Bishops, and Priests who accepted Vatican 2 and its aftermath have been automatically excommunicated from the Roman Catholic Church in virtue that Infallible Papal Bull which says in part:

"All other churches aforesaid are hereby denied the use of other missals, which are to be wholly and entirely rejected; and by this present Constitution, which shall have the force of law in perpetuity, We order and enjoin under pain of Our displeasure that nothing be added to Our newly published Missal, nothing omitted therefrom, and nothing whatsoever altered therein...We order them...not to presume in celebrating Mass to introduce any ceremonies or recite any prayers other than those contained in this Missal..."

"Furthermore, by these presents and by virtue of Our Apostolic authority We give and grant in perpetuity that for the singing or reading of Mass in any church whatsoever, this Missal must be followed absolutely, without any scruple of conscience or fear of incurring any penalty, judgment or censure, and may be freely and lawfully used..."

"We likewise order and declare that no one whosoever shall be forced or coerced into altering this Missal and that this present Constitution can never be revoked or modified, but shall forever remain valid and have the force of law..."

"Accordingly, no one whosoever is permitted to infringe or rashly contravene this notice of Our permission, statute, ordinance, command, direction, grant, indult, declaration, will, decree and prohibition."

"Should any person venture to do so, let him understand that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul..." (Pope St. Pius V, Papal Bull Quo Primum Tempore, Tuesday, July 14, 1570 A.D.).

The violation of the above Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent and the Papal Bull Quo Primum Tempore, are all self-evident because the years since Synod Vatican 2 prove that these violations have taken place and continue to take place EVERY TIME the Novus Ordo Missae, the so-called "New Mass" is used!

It has been said that a picture is worth a thousand words. Here is the photographic evidence of the Protestant influence and active authorship of the Novus Ordo Rite Mass:

1) Dr. George;

2) Canon Jasper;

3) Dr. Shephard;

4) Dr. Konneth;

5) Dr. Smith; and,

6) Brother Max Thurian (in white), who is standing next to Pope Paul 6 (in white).

These SIX PROTESTANTS represent the following Protestant organizations:

The World Council of Churches;

the Church of England;

the Lutheran Church;

and, the Protestant Community of Taize.

The synthesis of the PROTESTANT Supper-Memorial-Meal, called the Novus Ordo Rite, or New Mass, which is now used in the United States and in many other countries as the "New Mass", was made up in part by these very active SIX PROTESTANT members of the Consilium. The Pope was obviously so proud of their work that he had his photo taken with them on Friday, April 10, 1970 A.D., in the Vatican!

This photo proves in part why the New Mass is a Modern updated PROTESTANT Liturgical SUPPER MEMORIAL MEAL which contains only the mere shadow of the ancient CATHOLIC Rite of Mass because, by their own beliefs, Protestants do NOT believe in the CATHOLIC DOGMA of Transubstantiation!

Consider but one example-the Protestant denial of the Mystery of the Transubstantiation-found in the "Black Rubric" which forbids kneeling to receive Communion!

This is EXACTLY what has been going on in the Vatican 2 Church for some time!!!

Here is the actual wording of the Black Rubric:

"For as concerning the sacramental bread and wine, they remain still in their very natural substances and therefore may not be adored, for that were idolatry to be abhorred of all faithful christians. And as concerning the natural body and blood of our saviour christ, they are in heaven and not here" (Protestant Archbishop Thomas Cranmer, Second Prayer Book of Edward VI, Black Rubric, 1552 A.D..)

So, IF you have ever wondered WHY the Vatican 2 church forbids kneeling, HERE is the reason! Through the Newspeak of praxis (actual practice) the Vatican 2 church uses this 16th Century PROTESTANT rubric of 1562 A.D.!

In realilty, the clergy of the Vatican 2 church are doing everyone a favor! What is this "favor"? The Vatican 2 church clergy are preventing their people from committing the Mortal Sin of idolatry by preventing them from kneeling before a piece of mere bread and a chalice of mere wine, neither of which are Transubstantiated during the supper/meal some Catholics mistakenly think is a "mass"!

Brother Max Thurian (in white), who is standing next to Pope Paul 6 (in white), has allegedly said: "This Novus Ordo Missae [i.e., the "new mass"] is so profoundly Ecumenical thatit is THEOLOGICALLY possible for Protestants to celebrate the Lord's Supper in the SAME WORDS.  [He should know because he helped to piece it together!] The new simplified Offertory does NOT anticipate a sacrificial act [as it does in the Ancient Roman Rite of Mass] and therefore does away with the difficulty which the "old" Offertory [of the Ancient Roman Rite of Mass] presented to Ecumenical efforts."

So here, one of the six active Protestants of the Consilium, shown in the above photograph taken on Friday, April 10, 1970 A.D. in the Vatican, who helped to make up the supper memorial meal for the Vatican 2 church claims that it is THEOLOGICALLY possible for Protestants to celebrate the Lord's Supper in the SAME WORDS of this newly updated, synthesized PROTESTANT supper memorial meal used in the Vatican 2 church. We have been personally told by an Episcopalian Priest that various Priest-friends of his, who are members of the Vatican 2 church, take turns concelebrating together, at the same table, this new supper meal liturgy in their respective churches. This was back in 1971!!!

Put in other words, what this Protestant Priest told Us was that he concelebrates the Novus Ordo, "new mass", with Priests from the Vatican 2 church whom he invites to his church. These priests come into his church, and, together, they concelebrate this new supper memorial meal liturgy some people mistakenly think is still a "mass", and this Protestant Priest, in turn, gets invited over to the various PROTESTANT Vatican 2 churches of his concelebration buddies, to use the same exact new supper memorial meal liturgy ignorant people still call a "mass"! They even use the same brand new three year cycle-at least it was new at that time!

The reason that he and other PROTESTANT priests can use the same exact new supper meal liturgy, which is used in the Vatican 2 church, is because, as Brother Max Thurian, one of its photographed authors of this updated 16th Century PROTESTANT supper memorial meal, says, that the new simplified Offertory does NOT anticipate a sacrificial act! Therefore, there is no danger of accidentally transubstantiating! In other words, there is no danger of accidentally turning this modernized 16th Century PROTESTANT supper memorial meal into a CATHOLIC Mass!

But how do other Protestants view the Novus Ordo Rite of Mass, the "new mass", supper memorial meal used in the Vatican 2 church?

Here is one example: "...nothing in the renewed [i.e., in the supper memorial meal or Novus Ordo - "new "mass" used in the Vatican 2 church] Mass need really trouble the Evangelical Protestant." (M.G. Siegvalt, Protestant Professor of Dogmatic Theology, Strasbourg).

Over the years, may people have wanted to vehemently argue with Us claiming that the New Mass is valid, that it is a Sacrifice, and that those who say it is only a Protestant supper memorial meal are expressing a personal opinion because their church still has the "Mass"!

Such people simply do not know the truth and are victims of wishful thinking!  Not one person, over the years, has not only never read the OFFICIAL DEFINITION of the New Mass, the Novus Ordo Rite, they do not even know that such a thing exists!!!!  Therefore, so that the Truth may set everyone free, it is necessary for you to learn not only that such a thing DOES exist, but also what it actually says.  In other words, WHAT IS THE OFFICIAL DEFINITION of the Novus Ordo Missae - "New Mass" used in the Vatican 2 church?!  It should be self-evident that this OFFICIAL DEFINITION is the ONLY definition which matters, because it is what the Priests, Bishops, Cardinals and Popes of the Vatican 2 church are expected to teach their de facto Protestant Laity!

"The Lord's Supper is the assembly or gathering together of the people of God, with a priest presiding, to celebrate the memorial of the lord. [12]" (THE GENERAL INSTRUCTION AND THE NEW ORDER OF MASS, ICEL-International Committee on English in the Liturgy-Sacred Congregation of Rites Decree, Sunday, April 6, 1969 A.D., Benno Card. Gut, Prefect of the S.R.C., President of the Consilium, Chapter II, # 7.)

Footnote # 12: "12. PRESBYTERORUM ORDINIS, no. 5; CSL, no. 33." (THE GENERAL INSTRUCTION AND THE NEW ORDER OF MASS, ICEL-International Committee on English in the Liturgy- Sacred Congregation of Rites Decree, April 6, 1969, Benno Card. Gut, Prefect of the S.R.C., President of the Consilium, Chapter II, Footnotes; Footnote # 12.)

Footnote # 12 refers one to: 1) PRESBYTERORUM ORDINIS, no. 5 which is the decree of Vatican 2 on the Life and Ministry of Priests. CSL is the Vatican 2 Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy. Since these 2 works are cited as the source of the definition found in THE GENERAL INSTRUCTION AND THE NEW ORDER OF MASS as promulgated by Benno Cardinal Gut who was the President of the Consilium which made up the Novus Ordo Rite, it is necessary to quotes these two references to avoid any possible confusion:

"...through the ministry of the Bishop, God consecrates priests so that they can share by a special title in the priesthood of Christ. Thus, in performing sacred functions they can act as the ministers of Him who in the liturgy continually exercises His priestly office on our behalf by the action of His Spirit...And especially by the celebration of Mass, men offer sacramentally the sacrifice of Christ." (PRESBYTERORUM ORDINIS, # 5.)

"Although the sacred liturgy is above all things the worship of the divine Majesty, it likewise contains much instruction for the faithful. For in the liturgy God speaks to His people and Christ is still proclaiming His gospel. And the people reply to God both by song and prayer."

"Moreover, the prayers addressed to God by the priest who presides over the assembly in the person of Christ are said in the name of the entire holy people and of all present. And the visible signs used by the liturgy to signify invisible divine things have been chosen by Christ or the Church. Thus not only when things are read `which were written for our instruction' (Rom. 15:4), but also when the Church prays or sings or acts, the faith of those taking part is nourished and their minds are raised to God, so that they may offer Him their rational service and more abundantly receive His grace." (Constitution on the Liturgy, # 33.)

It should be clear to everyone that the definition which tells us that the Novus Ordo Rite is "to celebrate the memorial of the Lord" (THE GENERAL INSTRUCTION AND THE NEW ORDER OF MASS, Chapter II, # 7) is NOT the same thing as "the sacrifice of Christ" (as found in PRESBYTERORUM ORDINIS, # 5).

"The Lord's Supper is the assembly or gathering together of the people of God..." (GENERAL INSTRUCTION AND THE NEW ORDER OF MASS, Chapter II, # 7) is NOT the same thing as "...by the celebration of Mass, men offer sacramentally..." (PRESBYTERORUM ORDINIS, # 5).

"The Lord's Supper is the assembly or gathering together of the people of God..." (GENERAL INSTRUCTION AND THE NEW ORDER OF MASS, CHAPTER II, # 7) is NOT the same as "...Although the sacred liturgy is above all things the worship of the divine Majesty..." (Constitution on the Liturgy, # 33).

"....the assembly or gathering together of the people of God..." (GENERAL INSTRUCTION AND THE NEW ORDER OF MASS, CHAPTER II, # 7) is NOT the same as "...the prayers addressed to God by the priest who presides over the assembly..." (CONSTITUTION ON THE LITURGY, # 33).

About the only thing on which both the General Instruction and the Constitution on the Liturgy agree is the "with a priest presiding..." (GENERAL INSTRUCTION AND THE NEW ORDER OF MASS, CHAPTER II, # 7) which is the same as "...by the priest who presides over..." (CONSTITUTION ON THE LITURGY, # 33).

Therefore, as you can see for yourself, there is to be found no CLEAR, OBJECTIVE, LOGICAL reason for saying that "The Lord's Supper is the assembly or gathering together of the people of God, with a priest presiding, to celebrate the memorial of the lord. [12]" (THE GENERAL INSTRUCTION AND THE NEW ORDER OF MASS, Chapter II, # 7.) is based upon either PRESBYTERORUM ORDINIS, # 5 and/or the CONSTITUTION ON THE LITURGY, # 33.

The variances generated by a comparison of the various points of these documents are irreconcilable because not only are these variances illogical-that would be bad enough-but what is of the gravest concern is that these variances are irreconcilable with the Deposit of Faith as it has been preserved by the Catholic Church!

For example, "the memorial of the Lord" as used in the teachings of the Vatican 2 church is ambiguous and equivocal in the extreme! What EXACTLY does it mean? Think about it!

For example, "the memorial of the Lord"could mean: the Stations of the Cross or the 40 Hours Devotion, or Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament, or a statue of Christ, or a picture of Christ, or a Crucifix, etc.; etc.! But "that which signifies many things is an ambiguous sign and consequently occasions deception; this is clearly seen in equivocal words. But all deception should be removed from the Christian religion according to Col. 2:8: `Beware, lest any man cheat you by philosophy and vain deceit.'" (St. Thomas Aquinas, SUMMA THEOLOGICA III, 60, 3, Reply to Objection 1.)

Then, when one considers these ambiguous definitions within the context of Newspeak and praxis, one finds concelebrations with Protestant priests. In addition, historically, theologically, liturgically, dogmatically, one finds that the "new mass" is not "Catholic"!

For example, consider how, in The Ottaviani Intervention, mention is specifically made that "the Novus Ordo represents, both as a whole and in its details, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session XXII of the Council of Trent. The "canons" of the rite definitively fixed at that time provided an insurmountable barrier to any heresy directed against the integrity of the Mystery" (Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani, Antonio Cardinal Bacci, Letter to Pope Paul 6, Thursday, September 25, 1969 A.D.).

9. Let us begin with the definition of the Mass given in No. 7 of the "Institutio Generalis" at the beginning of the second chapter of the Novus Ordo: "De structura Missae":

9.1 "The Lord's Supper is the assembly or gathering together of the People of God, with a priest presiding, to celebrate the memorial of the Lord. For this reason the promise of Christ is particularly true of the local congregation of the Church: 'Where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in their midst'"

11. In the second part of this paragraph 7 it is asserted, aggravating the already serious equivocation, that there holds good, "eminenter," for this assembly Christ's promise that "Ubi sunt duo vel tres congregati in nomine meo; ibi sum in medio eorum". This promise, which refers only to the spiritual presence of Christ with His grace, is thus put on the same qualitative plane, save for the greater intensity, as the substantial and physical reality of the Sacramental Eucharistic Presence.

12. In no.8 a subdivision of the Mass into "liturgy of the word" and Eucharistic liturgy immediately follows, with the affirmation that in the Mass is made ready "the table of God's word" as of "the Body of Christ", so that the faithful "may be built up and refreshed"--an altogether improper assimilation of the two parts of the liturgy, as though between two points of equal symbolic value. More will be said about this point later.

13. The Mass is designated by a great many different expressions, all acceptable relatively, all unacceptable if employed, as they are, separately and in an absolute sense. We cite a few: the Action of Christ and of the People of God; the Lord's Supper or Mass; the Paschal Banquet; the Common participation in the Lord's Table; the memorial of the Lord; the Eucharistic Prayer; the Liturgy of the Word and the Eucharistic Liturgy; etc.

14. As is only too evident, the emphasis is obsessively placed upon the supper and the memorial instead of upon the unbloody renewal of the Sacrifice of Calvary. The formula "the Memorial of the Passion and Resurrection of the Lord" is, besides, inexact, the Mass being the memorial of the Sacrifice alone, in itself redemptive, whilst the Resurrection is the consequent fruit of it.

15. We shall later see how, in the same consecratory formula, and throughout the Novus Ordo, such equivocations are renewed and reiterated (Roman Theologians, The Critical Study of the New Order of Mass, June 5, 1969, # 9 - 15).

On the contrary, Pope St. Pius V, Antonio-Michele Ghislieri [Friday, January 7, 1566 - Monday, May 1, 1572], forbade ANY changes at all in the Ancient Roman Rite of Mass at any time in the future: "...By this Our Decree, to be valid IN PERPETUITY, We determine and order that NEVER shall anything be added to, omitted from, or changed in this Missal [i.e., in the MISSALE ROMANUM-the Missal which contains the Ancient Roman Rite of Mass]..." Quo Primum Tempore Tuesday, July 14, 1570 A.D.) In addition, the Pope added severe penalties for the failure of anyone to obey this Bull.

There is the penalty of immediate and automatic excommunication for anyone-no matter what Office he has in the Church-who would change the Mass for any reason, including the reason that it contains errors:

"CANON VI.--If any one saith, that the Canon of the Mass contains errors, and is therefore to be abrogated [abolished]; 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...;let him be anathema. " (Council of Trent, Canons & Decrees, Session 22, Monday, September 17, 1562 A.D.).

Some would point out that the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is not only a SACRIFICE, it is also a SACRAMENT and hence can be changed at the whim of anyone! This is simply NOT true!

For example, "The Roman Pontiff, regarding the administration of the Sacraments of the Church, can tolerate and even permit different Rites of the Church of Christ...always without violating those things which pertain to the integrity and necessary parts of the Sacraments." (Pope Clement VI, Pierre Roger De Beaufort [Monday, May 7, 1342 - Wednesday, December 6, 1352], SUPER QUIBUSDAM, Wednesday, September 29, 1351 A.D.).

"The power of a Sacrament is from God alone, as We have shown above (A. 1; 62, A 1). Therefore, God alone can institute a Sacrament" (Saint Thomas Aquinas [b. 1225 A.D. in Rocca Secca, Naples, Italy - d. 1274 A.D. in Fossa Nuova, Italy], SUMMA THEOLOGICA, III, 64, 2).

"It is well known that to the Church there belongs no right whatsoever to innovate in anything touching on the substance [i.e., the ontological essence] of the Sacraments" (Pope Saint Pius X, Giuseppe Sarto [Tuesday, August 4, 1903 - Thursday, August 20, 1914], EX QUO NON, Monday, December 26, 1910 A.D.).

"...the Church has no power over the `substance of the Sacraments'..." (Pope Pius XII, Eugenio Pacelli [Thursday, March 2, 1939 - Thursday, October 9, 1958], SACRAMENTUM ORDINIS, Sunday, November 30, 1947 A.D.).

"...in the administration of the Sacraments, their substance being untouched (salva illorum substantia)..." (Roman Catholic Council of Trent, Session 21, Monday, July 16, 1562 A.D., Chapter 2).

"The Apostles and their successors are God's vicars in governing the Church which is built on faith and the Sacraments of faith. Wherefore, just as THEY MAY NOT INSTITUTE ANOTHER CHURCH, so neither may they deliver another faith, NOR INSTITUTE OTHER SACRAMENTS..." (Saint Thomas Aquinas [b. 1225 A.D. in Rocca Secca, Naples, Italy - d. 1274 A.D. in Fossa Nuova, Italy], SUMMA THEOLOGICA, III, 64, 2, Reply to Objection 3).

Returning now to the Mass as a SACRIFICE, historically, the theological truth which is known as Transubstantiation has been attacked by those who are ignorant of God's Holy Truths, but also defended by many, including this example of Papal Infallibility:

"You have asked [indeed] who has added to the form of the words which Christ Himself expressed when He changed the bread and wine into the Body and Blood, that in the Canon of the [Ancient Roman Rite of] Mass which the general [Western] Church uses, which none of the Evangelists is read to have expressed...In the Canon of the [Ancient Roman Rite of] Mass that expression, MYSTERIUM FIDEI, is found interposed among His words...Surely we find many such things omitted from the words as well as from the deeds of the Lord by the Evangelists, which the Apostles are read to have supplied by word or to have expressed by deed...From the expression, moreover, concerning which your brotherhood raised the question, namely MYSTERIUM FIDEI, certain people have thought to draw a protection against error, saying that in the Sacrament of the Altar, the truth of the Body and Blood of Christ does not exist, but only the image and species and figure, inasmuch as Scripture sometimes mentions that what is received at the Altar is Sacrament and Mystery and Example. But such run into a snare of error, by reason of the fact that they neither properly understand the authority of Scripture, nor do they reverently receive the Sacraments of God, equally ignorant of the Scriptures and the power of God (Matthew 22:29)...Yet MYSTERIUM FIDEI is mentioned, since something is believed there other than what is perceived; and something is perceived other than is believed. For the species of bread and wine is perceived there, and the truth of the Body and Blood of Christ is believed and the power of unity and of love... (Pope Innocent III, Lotario Dei Conti Di Segni [Thursday, January 8, 1198 - Saturday, July 16, 1216], Letter, Cum Marthae Circa, to John, the Archbishop of Lyons, Friday, November 29, 1202 A.D.).

Now how about the clergy of the Vatican 2 church who seem to take advantage of the learned ignorance (a.k.a., propaganda) of their own people!

For example, consider these warnings issued under Papal Infallibility by a Roman Catholic Pope:
 

"62. Assuredly it is a wise and most laudable thing to return in spirit and affection to the sources of the sacred liturgy. For research in this field of study, by tracing it back to its origins, contributes valuable assistance towards a more thorough and careful investigation of the significance of feast-days, and of the meaning of the texts and sacred ceremonies employed on their occasion. But it is neither wise nor laudable to reduce everything to antiquity by every possible device. Thus, to cite some instances, one would be straying from the straight path were he to wish the altar restored to its primitive tableform; were he to want black excluded as a color for the liturgical vestments; were he to forbid the use of sacred images and statues in Churches; were he to order the crucifix so designed that the divine Redeemer's body shows no trace of His cruel sufferings; and lastly were he to disdain and reject polyphonic music or singing in parts, even where it conforms to regulations issued by the Holy See" (Pope Pius XII, Eugenio Pacelli [Thursday, March 2, 1939 - Thursday, October 9, 1958], Encyclical Mediator Dei, On the Sacred Liturgy, # 62, Thursday, November 20, 1947 A.D.).

Roman Catholic Pope Pope Pius XII

In fact, the Vatican 2 church has not only restored to its primitive tableform the Altar of Sacrifice, the Vatican 2 church has also ripped out the Altar of Sacrifice in every church and chapel under their control, with, so it seems, but few exceptions.

Why? Because history has repeated itself:

"# 38. THE DESTRUCTION OF ALTARS. The destruction of the altars was a measure so distinct in its meaning that we have never been able to conceive how the meaning could be misunderstood. This measure meant a bitter hatred of the Mass and a hatred directed against the Mass itself, not merely against some obscure abuse...Surely if these reformers had desired only to remove an abuse, but were full of reverence for the great Christian Sacrifice itself, they would not have destroyed and desecrated the altars and substituted tables in their place, alleging as their reason, in unqualified terms, that the form of a table shall more move the simple from the superstitious opinions of the Popish Mass unto the right use of the Lord's Supper. For the use of an altar is to make sacrifice upon it; the use of a table is to serve men to eat upon it"(The Catholic Bishops of England, Vindication of the Bull Apostolicae Curae, # 38, 1898 A.D.; emphasis added.).

So there you have it-the use of an ALTAR is to make sacrifice upon it; the use of a TABLE is to serve men to eat upon it.

Thus, the Protestant influence has caused the Altar of Sacrifice to be removed from most churhces and replaced by a table which emphasizes not the SACRIFICE of the Mass, but the EATING of the supper/meal!

Concerning this use of a supper table in place of the Altar of Sacrifice, the Pope INFALLIBLY declares that one would be straying from the straight path were he to wish the altar restored to its primitive tableform (Pope Pius XII, Eugenio Pacelli [Thursday, March 2, 1939 - Thursday, October 9, 1958], Encyclical Mediator Dei, On the Sacred Liturgy, # 62, Thursday, November 20, 1947 A.D.).

Now either the Pope is the Pope or he is not. Which is it?

Either the Pope is infallible or he is not. Which is it?

IF the Pope is the Pope and IF the Pope is infallible, then no Pope in the future can ever teach or do anything contrary to any of his predecessors. The bottom line is that IF John-Paul 2 is the Pope and is infallible, then he, by the definition of primacy and infallibility, MUST teach EXACTLY the same things he predecessors taught, including Pope Pius XII who taught that one would be straying from the straight path were he to wish the altar restored to its primitive tableform (Pope Pius XII, Eugenio Pacelli [Thursday, March 2, 1939 - Thursday, October 9, 1958], Encyclical Mediator Dei, On the Sacred Liturgy, # 62, Thursday, November 20, 1947).
 

Vatican 2 Pope John-Paul 2

But since Pope John-Paul 2, Karol Wyotya [Monday, October 16, 1978 - present] and his church uses the primitive tableform, this logically means that either Pope Pius XII, Eugenio Pacelli [Thursday, March 2, 1939 - Thursday, October 9, 1958], was not a Pope and not infallible, or that Pope John-Paul 2, Karol Wyotya [Monday, October 16, 1978 - present], is not a Pope and is not infallible because there is a clear contradiction here because, as Saint Thomas Aquinas teaches, "Truth cannot be Truth's contrary"  (Saint Thomas Aquinas [b. 1225 A.D. in Rocca Secca, Naples, Italy - d. 1274 A.D. in Fossa Nuova, Italy], Summa Contra Gentiles, IV,8) and moreover, since one truth cannot contradict another truth, every assertion contrary to the truth of Faith, We define to be altogether false (Fifth Lateran Council, [1512-1517], Session 1, Friday, December 19, 1513 A.D.), one of these two popes is teaching error and one is teaching the truth.

Is it the Roman Catholic Church Pope, Pope Pius XII, Eugenio Pacelli [Thursday,  March 2, 1939 - Thursday, October 9, 1958]?

Or, is it the Vatican 2 church Pope, Pope John-Paul 2, Karol Wyotya [Monday, October 16, 1978 -  present]?

To continue, remember what Pope Pius XII, Eugenio Pacelli [Thursday, March 2, 1939 - Thursday, October 9, 1958], taught under Roman Catholic Papal infallibility, saying in part: "Thus, to cite some instances, one would be straying from the straight path were he to wish the altar restored to its primitive tableform; were he to want black excluded as a color for the liturgical vestments; were he to forbid the use of sacred images and statues in Churches; were he to order the crucifix so designed that the divine Redeemer's body shows no trace of His cruel sufferings; and lastly were he to disdain and reject polyphonic music or singing in parts, even where it conforms to regulations issued by the Holy See" (Pope Pius XII, Eugenio Pacelli [Thursday, March 2, 1939 - Thursday, October 9, 1958], Encyclical Mediator Dei, On the Sacred Liturgy, # 62, Thursday, November 20, 1947 A.D).

Today, it is an establilshed historical truth that the Vatican 2 church has in fact had black excluded as a color for the liturgical vestments. They replaced the black with white to signify an instant canonization of the newly dead!

Why? Because black vestments according to CATHOLIC tradition are used for Masses for the Dead, both on All Souls Day, November 2, each year, but also on the day of death or burial of a person and also on their anniversary, etc. The black was a reminder not only of death itself, but also of the doctrine of Purgatory and also of one's obligation and responsibility to have a Requiem Mass offered for one's loved ones who have died.

Here again one can see yet another Protestant heresy, this one on justification which errors were condemned by the Roman Catholic Council of Trent in the 16th Century!

Once more, you would do well to recall that infallible Papal teaching that one would be straying from the straight path... were he to want black excluded as a color for the liturgical vestments (Pope Pius XII, Eugenio Pacelli [Thursday, March 2, 1939 - Thursday, October 9, 1958], Encyclical Mediator Dei, # 62, Thursday, November 20, 1947 A.D.).

Photo of Vatican 2 church Pope, Pope John-Paul 2 about to kiss a woman.

But since Pope John-Paul 2, John-Paul 2, Karol Wyotya [Monday, October 16, 1978 - present], and his new Vatican 2 church use white and have excluded black as a color for the liturgical vestments, this logically means that either Pope Pius XII, Eugenio Pacelli [Thursday, March 2, 1939 - Thursday, October 9, 1958], was not a Pope and not infallible, or that  Pope John-Paul 2, Karol Wyotya [Monday, October 16, 1978 - present] is not a Pope and is not infallible because there is a clear contradiction here. Why, because, as Saint Thomas Aquinas teaches, "Truth cannot be Truth's contrary" (Saint Thomas Aquinas [b. 1225 A.D. in Rocca Secca, Naples, Italy - d. 1274 A.D. in Fossa Nuova, Italy], Summa Contra Gentiles, IV, 8) and moreover, since one truth cannot contradict another truth, every assertion contrary to the truth of Faith, We define to be altogether false (Fifth Lateran Council, [1512 A.D. - 1517 A.D.], Session 1, Friday, December 19, 1513 A.D.), one of these two popes is teaching error and one is teaching the truth.

Is it the Roman Catholic Church Pope, Pope Pius XII, Eugenio Pacelli [Thursday,  March 2, 1939 - Thursday, October 9, 1958]?

Or, is it the Vatican 2 church Pope, Pope John-Paul 2, Karol Wyotya [Monday, October 16, 1978 -  present]?

Again, citing a Roman Catholic Papal infallible teaching, one would be straying from the straight path were he to... forbid the use of sacred images and statues in Churches (Pope Pius XII, Eugenio Pacelli [Thursday, March 2, 1939 - Thursday, October 9, 1958], Encyclical Mediator Dei, # 62, Thursday, November 20, 1947 A.D.).

Here is but one example of Newspeak and praxis at work!

In fact, it seems that very few Vatican 2 churches have any statues left in them.  We recall many years ago the true story of a Vatican 2 "priest" who had all of the statues in his church buried in the ground on the farm of one of his parishioners!  Shortly thereafter, the Vatican 2 "bishop" of that diocese had that church building bulldozed to the ground!  Why?  Apparently, he was afraid We were going to purchase that church building!  That church building had nothing wrong with it because it was a solid brick structure with a new roof on it and the continual maintainance on it kept it in very good condition!

Historically, the Protestants threw out most, if not all, of the statues in what once had been catholic churches when they took over in England, Germany and other countries!

But, according to Papal Infallibility, one would be straying from the straight path were he to forbid the use of sacred images and statues in Churches (Pope Pius XII, Eugenio Pacelli [Thursday, March 2, 1939 - Thursday, October 9, 1958], Encyclical Mediator Dei, # 62, Thursday, November 20, 1947 A.D.).
 

Vatican 2 Pope John-Paul 2

But since Pope John-Paul 2, Karol Wyotya [Monday, October 16, 1978 - present] and his Vatican 2 church have, by Newspeak and praxis, thrown out most of the sacred images and statues in their churches, this logically means that either Pope Pius XII, Eugenio Pacelli [Thursday, March 2, 1939 - Thursday, October 9, 1958],  was not a Pope and not infallible, or that Pope John-Paul 2, Karol Wyotya [Monday, October 16, 1978 - present]  is not a Pope and is not infallible because there is a clear contradiction here because, as Saint Thomas Aquinas teaches, "Truth cannot be Truth's contrary"  (Saint Thomas Aquinas [b. 1225 A.D. in Rocca Secca, Naples, Italy - d. 1274 A.D. in Fossa Nuova, Italy], Summa Contra Gentiles, IV, 8) and moreover, since one truth cannot contradict another truth, every assertion contrary to the truth of Faith, We define to be altogether false (Fifth Lateran Council, [1512-1517], Session 1, Friday, December 19, 1513 A.D.), one of these two popes is teaching error and one is teaching the truth.

Is it the Roman Catholic Church Pope, Pope Pius XII, Eugenio Pacelli [Thursday,  March 2, 1939 - Thursday, October 9, 1958]?

Or, is it the Vatican 2 church Pope, Pope John-Paul 2, Karol Wyotya [Monday, October 16, 1978 -  present]?

On another point, Roman Catholic Papal Infallibility speaks again: one would be straying from the straight path were he to order the crucifix so designed that the divine Redeemer's body shows no trace of His cruel sufferings (Pope Pius XII, Eugenio Pacelli [Thursday, March 2, 1939 - Thursday, October 9, 1958], Encyclical Mediator Dei, # 62, Thursday, November 20, 1947 A.D.).

The answer is YES because all you need to do is go into almost any Vatican 2 church, with but a few exceptions, and you will see what is called the "risen Christ" which now takes the place not only of the divine Redeemer's body which no longer shows any trace of His cruel sufferings, but in many cases totally replaces the Crucifix itself!

This excessive focus on the glorified state of the risen Christ glosses over the horrible pain, agony, sufferings and death of Christ on the Cross. When looking at a Crucifix, one can receive almost immediate consolation from their trials in this life because Christ's cross was bigger and heavier and more painful than ours. But there is no way to personally identify with this "risen Christ" because none of us in this life have yet to attain to it, whereas, in contradistinction, most people can relate in some way to the sufferings of Christ shown on the Crucifix.

Yet Roman Catholic Papal Infallibility teaches that one would be straying from the straight path were he to order the crucifix so designed that the divine Redeemer's body shows no trace of His cruel sufferings (Pope Pius XII, Eugenio Pacelli [Thursday, March 2, 1939 - Thursday, October 9, 1958], Encyclical Mediator Dei, # 62, Thursday, November 20, 1947).
 

Photo of Vatican 2 church Pope, Pope John-Paul 2 about to kiss a woman.

But since the Pope of the Vatican 2 church, Pope John-Paul 2, Karol Wyotya [Monday, October 16, 1978 - present], and his Vatican 2 churchhave, by Newspeak and praxis, replaced the crucifixes with the "risen Christ" which is so designed that the divine Redeemer's body shows no trace of His cruel sufferings, this logically means that either the Roman Catholic Pope, Pope Pius XII, Eugenio Pacelli [Thursday, March 2, 1939 - Thursday, October 9, 1958], was not a Pope and not infallible, or that the Vatican 2 church Pope, Pope John-Paul 2, Karol Wyotya [Monday, October 16, 1978 - present], is not a Pope and is not infallible because there is a clear contradiction here because, as Saint Thomas Aquinas teaches, "Truth cannot be Truth's contrary" (Saint Thomas Aquinas [b. 1225 A.D. in Rocca Secca, Naples, Italy - d. 1274 A.D. in Fossa Nuova, Italy], Summa Contra Gentiles, IV, 8) and moreover, since one truth cannot contradict another truth, every assertion contrary to the truth of Faith, We define to be altogether false (Fifth Lateran Council, [1512 A.D. - 1517 A.D.], Session 1, Friday, December 19, 1513 A.D.), only one of these two popes is teaching error and only one is teaching the truth!

Is it the Roman Catholic Church Pope, Pope Pius XII, Eugenio Pacelli [Thursday,  March 2, 1939 - Thursday, October 9, 1958]?

Or, is it the Vatican 2 church Pope, Pope John-Paul 2, Karol Wyotya [Monday, October 16, 1978 -  present]?

Finally, what has been applied above to the Altar of Sacrifice, black liturgical vestments, sacred images and statues, and the crucifix, can also be applied, at least it seems in many pleaces, to the issue of music as well.
 

Is it the Roman Catholic Church Pope, Pope Pius XII, Eugenio Pacelli [Thursday,  March 2, 1939 - Thursday, October 9, 1958]?

Or, is it the Vatican 2 church Pope, Pope John-Paul 2, Karol Wyotya [Monday, October 16, 1978 -  present]?

Vatican 2 Pope, Pope Paul 6

For those of you who are sincere Catholics and who would say that you must trust and obey the "pope", just remember this next photograph, the large one found below, of the second "pope" of the Vatican 2 church and one of the two co-founding "popes" of the Vatican 2 church, Paul 6, Giovanni Battista Montini [Friday, June 21, 1963 - Sunday, August 6, 1978].   In the below photo, YOU will see the second "pope" of the Vatican 2 church, an "infallible pope"?, congratulating the six Protestant members of the Consilium which made up an updated, synthesized Protestant ligurgical supper-memorial-meal which is frequently called, by victimized, sincere Catholics, the "new mass", or Novus Ordo Missae, and yet, this same Novus Ordo represents, both as a whole and in its details, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session XXII of the Council of Trent. The "canons" of the rite definitively fixed at that time provided an insurmountable barrier to any heresy directed against the integrity of the Mystery (Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani and Antonio Cardinal Bacci, Letter to Pope Paul 6, Thursday, September 25, 1969 A.D.).

IF you would like to know the source of this photograph, it is from the Pope's official newspaper, the L'OSSERVATORE ROMANO, Weekly Edition in English, Third Year, N. 17 (108) -  Thursday, APRIL 23, 1970 A.D., page # 2.

This photo of Friday, April 10, 1970 A.D. fully shows four of the six Protestants who are, from left to right:

1) Dr. George (shown shaking hands with Pope Paul 6);

2) Canon Jasper;

3) Dr. Shephard;

4) Dr. Konneth (the Pope's head is blocking most of Dr. Konneth although the top of his head is slightly visible);

5) Dr. Smith

Therefore, it should be clear from all of this that real Catholics can NOT go to such non-Catholic updated Protestant supper-memorial-meals, despite the fact that they may be held in what used to be "Roman Catholic" Church buildings!

It is certainly past time for sincere "Catholics" to start praying for the conversion to the CATHOLIC Faith, from the non-Catholic Vatican 2 church, of ALL of the members of the heretical, apostate and schismatic Vatican 2 church.

Please note: The terms "Protestant", "heretical" and "schismatic" are used within what has historically been the unchangeable position of the CATHOLIC Church regarding her official theological, dogmatic, liturgical, legal, etc., teachings, especially on the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and the Seven Sacraments.

Hence the terms "Protestant", "heretical" and "schismatic" are used within the context of objective definitions used historically and traditionally by the CATHOLIC Church in her lawful use of the various objective sciences of theology, liturgy, church history, canon law, philosophy, etc. as proven from the writings of well-respected authors of previous centuries whose legal precedents We simply follow.

Now, therefore, the members of the heretical and schismatic Vatican 2 church, for whom your prayers are requested for their conversion to the Catholic Church, include not only all of the Religous and Laity of the Vatican 2 church, but also all of the Clergy of the Vatican 2 church. The reason is that, while professing themselves to be "Catholic", in terms of at least some of their theological and liturgical beliefs, especially regarding the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, they are de facto PROTESTANTS, just as the 16th century "Catholic" Clergy, Religious and Laity were de facto PROTESTANTS in places like England and Germany! Even today, many of them in these same places are still de facto PROTESTANTS! Among the Vatican 2 church PROTESTANT Clergy, who are hereby included, in virtue of the principle of lex orandi, lex credendi, as "Protestant", are the pope, plus the cardinals, bishops, priests and the lower ranks of the clergy of the Vatican 2 church!

They are all under the censures of automatic excommuncation for their direct, continuous violations of the Canons of the Council of Trent, especially session 22 on the Mass, and the Quo Primum Tempore of Pope St. Pius V!

In other words, IF you say you are a "Catholic" (this applies most especially to Catholic Clergy) you are required thereby to teach, to believe and to practice the Faith of the Catholic Church, including the proper use of the ancient and approved VALID and LAWFUL CATHOLIC liturgical rites for the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and the Seven Sacraments.

What sense does it make for a "Catholic" Priest to use some kind of voodo rite for the Mass and the Sacraments. Catholics have a right to expect that their "Catholic" Priest will use the right Rite! That he will in fact use an ancient, approved VALID and LAWFUL CATHOLIC traditional liturgical Rite for the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and the Seven Sacraments.

Consider, for a moment, how, because of the Council of Trent and Pope St. Pius V, Catholics could peacfully expect that their "Catholic" pastors would in fact use that ancient, approved VALID and LAWFUL CATHOLIC traditional liturgical rite for the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass which both the Council of Trent and Pope St. Pius V have guarded and protected with their anathemas!

Yet the Vatican 2 church has abandoned these integral Catholic defenses! This is why the Roman Theologians have included this subject within their STUDY and concluded with it.

Photo of Cardinal Ottaviani

71. St. Pius V had the Roman Missal drawn up (as the present Apostolic Constitution itself recalls) so that it might be an instrument of unity among Catholics. In conformity with the injunctions of the Council of Trent it was to exclude all danger, in liturgical worship, of errors against the Faith, then threatened by the Protestant Reformation. The gravity of the situation fully justified, and even rendered prophetic, the saintly Pontiff's solemn warning given at the end of the Bull promulgating his Missal: "Should any person venture to do so, let him understand that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul."

72. When the Novus Ordo was presented at the Vatican Press Office, it was asserted with great audacity that the reasons which prompted the Tridentine decrees are no longer valid. Not only do they still apply, but there also exist, as we do not hesitate to affirm, very much more serious ones [i.e., reasons] today. It was precisely in order to ward off the dangers which in every century threaten the purity of the deposit of faith ("depositum custodi, devitans profanas vocum novitates." that the Church has had to erect under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost the defenses of her dogmatic definitions and doctrinal pronouncements. These were immediately reflected in her worship, which became the most complete monument of her faith. To try to bring the Church's worship back at all cost to the ancient practice by refashioning, artificially and with that "unhealthy archeologism" so roundly condemned by Pius XII,what in earlier times had the grace of original spontaneity means--as we see today only too clearly--to dismantle all the theological ramparts erected for the protection of the Rite and to take away all the beauty by which it was enriched over the centuries.

73. And all this at one of the most critical moments--if not the most critical moment--of the Church's history! Today, division and schism are officially acknowledged to exist not only outside of but within the Church. Her unity is not only threatened but already tragically compromised. Errors against the Faith are not merely insinuated but positively imposed by means of liturgical abuses and aberrations which have been equally acknowledged. To abandon a liturgical tradition which for four centuries was both the sign and the pledge of unity of worship(and to replace it with another which cannot but be a sign of division by virtue of the countless liberties implicitly authorized, and which teems with insinuations or manifest errors against the integrity of the Catholic religion) is, we feel in conscience bound to proclaim, an incalculable error.
(Roman Theologians, The Critical Study of the New Order of Mass, June 5, 1969, # 71-73).

Very few Catholics would-and NONE should-expect a "Catholic" Priest to use a voodo rite, or a hindu ritual, or a shaman ritual, or a Protestant supper meal in place of the CATHOLIC traditional liturgical rite for the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass!

If the members of the shinto religon went to a service where their shinto priest used the Ancient Roman Rite of the CATHOLIC Church in place of their shinto rituals, would there not be a riot and such a shinto priest physically thrown out of their place of worship?

How many "catholic priests and bishops" of the Vatican 2 church have been physically thrown out of their churches for using the new Protestant supper-memorial-meal instead of the CATHOLIC traditional liturgical Rite for the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass-the Ancient Roman Rite!?

The sad thing is that it seems that a vast majority of Catholics do NOT know their CATHOLIC Faith as well as they should!  This seems to be one of the reasons why the Vatican 2 church has been so successful?!  It has taken advantage of the ignorance of its own people-victimizing them in this way while infecting them with the heresy of Modernism!

The innocent Catholic people who go to a Vatican 2 church are getting something other than the ancient, approved VALID and LAWFUL CATHOLIC traditional liturgical rite [the Ancient Roman Rite] for the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and the Seven Sacraments - despite denials to the contrary from the clergy of the Vatican 2 church!

Today, it seems as if there is really no substantial or ontologically essential difference between a person going to say the Protestant Anglican - Episcopalian Church, or a Lutheran Church or a Methodist Church, or some other Protestant Church and the Vatican 2 church which seems to have become the official teacher, not of CATHOLICISM, but instead, of MODERNISM!

But in order to be a REAL, ACTUAL member of the Catholic Church, one must properly fulfill their duties of membership. On the contrary, IF a "Catholic" freely chooses NOT to fulfill ALL of his duties of membership in the CATHOLIC Church, that person is no longer a de facto "Catholic"!