Re Novus Ordo Mass.

I do not want in any way to appear to be speaking for Father Stephen Somerville, but I can certainly understand why he feels he cannot comply with Cardinal Ambrozic's demands to "affirm the authenticity of the teaching of Vatican II" and "affirm the validity of the Eucharist celebrated according to all the Canons approved by the Church" (Catholic Insight, September, 2004).

What has the teaching of Vatican II really brought about in the Catholic Church over the past forty odd years? Where there was once certainty of doctrine and teaching, we now have a seemingly endless parade of novelties being presented to Catholics from the highest levels' of the Church. In 1999 for example, a number of Catholic news services reported that John Paul II when given a copy of the Koran in front of witnesses, kissed this Muslim "bible" which amongst other nefarious things denies the existence of the Holy Trinity and demeans the Mother of God. Has any prior pontiff in the history of the Church established by Christ, ever done such a thing?

In the January 18, 2002 edition of the New York Times, the Vatican's official spokesman, Joaquin Navarro-Valls, declared that "it would be wrong for a Catholic to wait for the Messiah, but not for a Jew." When has the true Church ever taught that Jews can be saved without embracing the true Messiah, Who is and forever will be, Jesus Christ, the Son of God? Is it any wonder that some Catholics now believe that Vatican II presented a false ecumenism to the world that has led from orthodoxy to heterodoxy?

As regards the validity of the Novus Ordo Mass promulgated by Paul VI in 1969, every liturgist knows that the words of the Sacred Canon were gradually changed after Vatican II from what they had been for almost two thousand years. Amongst other things, the words "mystery of faith" were dropped, and "for all" was substituted for "for many" in the Consecration of the Wine.

Are such changes so significant that they make the Novus Ordo Mass invalid? I believe they most certainly do. Here is what Pope Saint Pius V declared in Part V of De Defectibus in Celebratione Missarum Occurrentibus, which was incorporated into the official rubrics of the Roman Missal to be used "in perpetuity" as described in the 1570 Bull Quo Primum Tempore:

"The words of the Consecration, which are the form of this Sacrament, are these: 'For this is my Body, And: For this is the Chalice of my Blood, of the new and eternal testament: the mystery of faith, which shall be shed for you and for many unto the remission of sins.' Now if one were to omit, or to change anything in the form of the consecration of the Body and Blood. and in that very change of the words the {new} wording would fail to mean the same thing, he would not consecrate the Sacrament. If in fact he were to add something that did not change the meaning, it is true he would consecrate, but he would sin most gravely."

The Catechism of the Council of Trent leaves no ambiguity that changing "for many" to "for all" would be a significant alteration that would change the meaning of the consecration of the wine. On page 227 the Catechism states: "The additional words 'for you and for many', are taken, some from Matthew, some from Luke, but were joined together by the Catholic Church under the guidance of the Spirit of God". The Catechism further states: "With reason, therefore, were the words 'for all' not used, as in this place the fruits of the Passion are alone spoken of, and to the elect only did His Passion bring the fruit of salvation."

How Paul VI could have promulgated the Novus Ordo Missae when he promised with his Papal Coronation to "change nothing of the received tradition" is difficult to understand unless one questions his entire papacy. What comes to my mind are the terrible words of prophecy to be be found in Daniel 12:11 "... the continual sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination unto desolation shall be set up ..." (For those who may not be aware, the Haydock Commentary on the Douay-Rheims Bible interprets this passage as follows: "the abolishing of the Mass as much as possible, and the practice of heresy and abomination, unto the end of antichrist's persecution ...")

I think it is time for those who feel they must defend Vatican II and the New Mass to stop attempting to marginalize or dismiss anti-modernist priests like Father Somerville and answer some simple and direct questions. These questions appear in point form below:

1) How could John Paul II kiss the Muslim Koran, which denies the Trinity and demeans the Mother of God?

2) How could John Paul II allow his chief spokesman to publicly state that the Jews are justified in waiting for the Messiah?

3) How could Paul VI promulgate a "New Mass" that contains a Consecration of the Wine that Pope Saint Plus V would most certainly have declared invalid?

Kanata, ON

Editor replies:

These are valid questions.

As for question one. the Holy Father is reaching out to the one and a half billion Muslims who inhabit this earth. Should he begin this long process by throwing the Koran--considered holy by Muslims--out of the window, or, as a first gesture of welcome, kiss it as a book which also contains good thoughts? If one interprets the papal kiss as approving everything in the book as orthodox, then the Holy Father is a heretic: if we interpret it as a gesture of goodwill, then the road to future discussions has been opened.

Question two needs documentation and background before a proper answer is possible. But, yes in the dialogue process with Judaism. it is possible to find the occasional misstep. But dialogue is not the same as Magisterial doctrinal pronouncements.

As for Question three, about "for many" and "for all" in the Mass, it requires a substantial analysis which we will provide in the December edition.