Proof the Novus Ordo Missae Is Invalid
(The following article was written by veteran defender of the Faith Hutton Gibson. It is a concise and masterful summary of the most striking reasons why Catholic faithful left their churches in droves in the late 1960s, early 1970s; Catholics who refused to witness the ancient and unalterable Tridentine Rite of the Mass mutilated on makeshift tables placed in front of the magnificent altars on which true Sacrifice once was offered. It demonstrates why Catholics based their exodus on the betrayal of Mass and Sacraments, and only later came to realize the true identity of the same man who brought them the NOM. For Montini also raised up, with the help of his accomplice Roncalli, that throne of “abominable impiety,” the seat of Antichrist and his prophet. And this even before the false Vatican Council was convened, the changes in the Sacramental rites were accomplished and the introduction of the NOM was announced.)
We have recently acquired an English version of Mgr. Luigi Villa’s classic, Paolo Sesto Beato?, written in response to the barefaced attempt to beatify, then canonize, by all odds, the worst antipope in history. From this fantastically researched compilation we present highly pertinent matter on the introduction of the novus ordo missae.
Pius V’s Bull, Quo Primum, still stands with all its weight and authority.
Namely: could Paul VI change the texts of the Mass? He certainly could, as a Pope, had disciplinary questions been at issue, but, because of its dogmatic nature, the faithful fulfillment of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, in keeping with the Will of Jesus Christ and in line with the traditional teaching of many centuries, given us by the Church, Paul VI could not do it, having no right to change as much as a hair of the Depositum Fidei.
Hence Paul VI was free to change some “prayers,” but He could not introduce anything into the Mass that might alter the Catholic doctrine, and, therefore, the traditional Catholic Faith.
Pope Innocent III (1198-1215) had ruled:
“The consecratory formula of the ‘Roman Canon’ has been imposed on the Apostles by Christ directly, and handed down by the Apostles to their successors.”
And the Florentine Council (1442), in its Decree for the Greeks and the Armenians, had solemnly reiterated and confirmed the same dogmatic doctrine of Tradition, as witnessed by Innocent III. Thus the historical fact, incontrovertible, clearly demonstrates that:
The celebration of the Holy Eucharistic Sacrifice of the Mass, and, therefore, even the formulation of the consecration, preceded by at least two decades the appearance of all of the Scriptural texts of the New Testament.
It is consequently censurable that, after the Church had been using for nearly two millennia, continuously (without a single dispute), the formula of the pre-conciliar Roman Canon, it should be necessary to revise and modify it, particularly the formula of the Eucharistic Consecration, willed by Christ… ever since the onset of the Apostolic preaching of the Gospel.
Paul VI, having abolished the Eucharistic consecratory formula of the Roman Canon (which, as Innocent III and the Florentine Council had taught, was instituted by Christ and had always been used by the Roman Catholic Church), replaced it with his own formula (which, therefore, is no longer that instituted by Christ), even making it mandatory, as of November 30, 1969, having introduced it in the Missale Romanum Apostolic Constitution of April 3, 1969.
And yet, St. Pius V, St. Pius X, Pius XII (Pope of the “Mediator Dei”), John XXIII and Paul VI himself, up until November 30, 1969, had consecrated the Blessed Eucharist with the bi-millennial formula of the Roman Canon, with assurance, with compassion, with faith, in the Latin language, with subdued voice, following Canon IX of Session XXIII of the Council of Trent.
Paul VI, with His reform of the Mass, disregarded the teaching of the (1870) Vatican Council, which reads, verbatim:
“The Holy Ghost has promised the successors of Peter, not that they may disclose new doctrine by His revelation, but that they may, with His assistance, preserve conscientiously and expound faithfully the revelation transmitted through the Apostles, the deposit of Faith.” (Pastor Aeternus, July 18, 1870)
In addition: Paul VI, having disregarded the two aforementioned documents of the Supreme Magisterium, went so far as to tamper with the Eucharistic Consecratory Formula, established by Christ in person, insinuating, almost, to the entire Church, that that formula contained something that needed fixing, violating, in this manner, also Canon 6 of the Council of Trent, which sanctioned:
“SI QUIS DIXERIT CANONEM MISSAE CONTINERE ERRORES, IDEOQUE ABROGANDUM ESSE, ANATHEMA SIT.” (If anyone will have said that the Canon of the Mass contains errors, and must therefore be abrogated, let him be anathema.)
Now, having intentionally abolished that Canon’s consecratory formula, replacing it with another, specious and polyvalent, in order to please the Protestants, should Paul VI be comprised, too, under that excommunication of the Council of Trent?
All St. Pius V did was to extend to the entire West the traditional Roman Mass, as a barrier against Protestantism. Paul VI abolished the Traditional Roman Rite since His “pastoral” aims were not for Catholics but for Protestants. His Novus Ordo was but a “remarkable departure from the Catholic theology of the Holy Mass,” (Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci in their “Brief Critical Review”). Even Osservatore Romano (13 October 1967) announced: “The liturgical reform has taken a remarkable step forward (sic) and has come closer to the liturgical forms of the Lutheran Church.”
A liturgical turn that has all the flavor of a betrayal of the Faith! St. Pius V retained the traditional Roman Rite “as surely Catholic.” Paul VI abolished the Traditional Roman Rite precisely because it was Catholic, in order to introduce his new Missal, positively protestantized, as one can easily prove.
We conclude that the Novus Ordo Missae is not a vertical cult, going from man to God, but a horizontal cult, between man and man. The New Church of Paul VI is, as already demonstrated, the religion of man, to the detriment of God’s glory.
Please note that:
(1) in the libera nos of the Novus Ordo Missae no mention is made of the Blessed Virgin Mary or of the Saints. Their intercession, therefore, is no longer invoked, not even at times of peril.
(2) in none of the three new Eucharistic Prayers … is there the tiniest hint of the suffering of the departed, and in none is there the possibility of a special memento; which depletes faith in the propitiatory and redemptive nature of the Sacrifice.
(3) Paul VI’s Novus Ordo Missae is not faithful even to Vatican II’s directives, but rather openly contradicts them, since the texts and rites, according to the Council, had to be arranged “in such a way that would allow the holy realities signified by them to be expressed more clearly.”
On the contrary, the Novus Ordo Missae represents a collection of changes, of deformations, of departures, of simplistic expedients, naïve and harmful or altogether senseless. It ceases to utter – or misreads – numerous truths of the Catholic Faith.
It will suffice to list the principal titles of points of departure and non-observance of the principles set out by Vatican II itself:
– a new definition of the Mass;
– a suppression of the Latreutic element;
– a paucity of “orations of offering”;
– suppression of the Trinitarian formulas;
– elimination of important orations, both of the celebrant and of the faithful;
– abbreviations of Angels and Saints;
– grave dogmatic shortfall of the new “Eucharistic prayers”;
– the weakened position of the celebrant;
– the change of the religious ornaments and of the religious countenance of the faithful;
– the free spaces for the autonomous “creativity” of the celebrant; – etc…
It is impossible, therefore, to adduce as evidence that the form impressed upon the “Ordo Missae” had been based upon the indications of Vatican II. And the fact that the Bishops, after attending that “normative Mass” which Paul VI had had presented to them, rejected it, stands as a further alarm signal.
That “new Mass” is thus entirely Paul VI’s doing. Behind the “Novus Ordo” stands only Paul VI with His “authority.”
It must be said that the Traditional Mass of St. Pius V was never legally abrogated, and remains, to this day [and forever], a true rite of the Catholic Church… [This] because St. Pius V had granted a perpetual indult (never abrogated), valid “for all time” to celebrate the Traditional Mass, freely, legally, without any scruples and without incurring any penalty, conviction, or censure.
Paul VI himself, in promulgating his Novus Ordo Missae, never had any intention of involving Papal infallibility, as He himself stated in His address of 19 November 1969:
“…ritual and rubrics are not per se matter for dogmatic definition; they are susceptible to a theological qualification of a different value..”
Paul VI himself, to the explicit question of the English Cardinal Heenan, whether he had prohibited the Tridentine Mass, had replied:
“It is not my intention to prohibit the Tridentine Mass in any way.”
Since the (1870) Vatican Council (dogmatic) established that:
“The Holy Ghost has promised the successors of Peter, not that they may disclose new doctrine by His revelation, but that they may, with His assistance, preserve conscientiously and expound faithfully the revelation transmitted through the Apostles, the deposit of Faith.” (Pastor Aeternus, July 18, 1870) it must be concluded that Paul VI’s Novus Ordo Missae, having introduced into his New Church a new doctrine – as previously demonstrated -, cannot be matter of obedience (obedience in the service of Faith and not Faith in the service of obedience), hence any faithful is left with a theological duty of obedience to God prior than to man, if he intends to remain inflexible in his profession of the Catholic Faith, according to the infallible doctrine of Tradition.
(End of Mr. Gibson’s article)
Montini’s denial of Our Lord
(Commentary by T. Stanfill Benns)
“Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny Me thrice,” (Matt. 26: 34). Even before Christ uttered these words to St. Peter at the Last Supper, the papal designee who had just been made priest and bishop but was not yet officially Pope, He had reiterated the words of the prophet Zacharias (13:7): “I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock will be dispersed,” (Matt. 26: 31). The commentators specifically define the sheep of the flock as the bishops. For this reason we may believe that already the Apostles had become bishops, because certainly they were dispersed once Christ was arrested, (although the Church has not yet defined exactly when the Apostles became bishops). When the Church was likewise taken captive by first Roncalli, then more visibly Montini; when She was crucified once again by the denial of Her Divine origin, renewing Christ’s Passion in Her Mystical Body, any true bishops — those not appearing or voting at Vatican 2 — were effectively dispersed. They and/or their successors remain in hiding to this day. They resemble Peter in that they have not publicly defended Christ and His Church in this grave hour, but have remained silent, in effect denying their Master.
Then we have Judas and his fellow conspirators, who actively plotted to seize Christ and put Him to death. Roncalli, Montini and their cohorts are among these. Not all are convinced that Montini was Antichrist; but Gibson’s article above proves it more clearly than ever before. In his 1953 work, “The Kingship of Christ and the Conversion of the Jewish Nation,” Rev. Denis Fahey lays down points which are certain or probable concerning the identification of Antichrist. Listed among those points which are certain are that Antichrist will be a real individual, who enjoys worldwide rule, has great success in deceiving others, and also will censure true Christian teaching and proscribe the obligatory teaching of error — all of which Paul 6 did. He will claim to be God and demand adoration, and will attempt to prove he is God. This Montini did by his ceaseless championing of the rights of man, and man’s innate likeness to God, documented by many Catholic writers but most effectively by the late William Strojie. Ultimately, however, Montini’s campaigning for “the glory of man alive” culminated in the demonstration that man was not only equal to God, but was His superior; a demonstration that is nothing less than satanic.
In what did this demonstration consist? It consisted in Paul 6 presuming, as Christ’s own (perceived) representative, to change His words, those very words constituting the most sacrosanct part of Christian worship, celebrated with precisely the same Divine words for nearly two millennia. Only one considering himself to possess powers greater than those of Christ could presume to effect and justify such an action. That he did so with ease tells us that his power of persuasion — his adeptness at deception — was exceptional. John 23 also had presumed to “change” the Canon, indicating by such a change that the Church had been remiss in not included St. Joseph there. This was the softening up, the “trial run,” to see how many red flags went up and where. When nothing happened, Paul 6 was free to later do as he pleased. A mere mortal — a rank apostate even before the denial of His Divinity — he sat in judgment on the Divine teaching of Our Lord, guarded as the deposit of Faith since His death.
One certain and undeniable sign peculiar to Antichrist is not mentioned by Rev. Fahey, but it is such a sign nonetheless. Henry Cardinal Manning writes: “The Holy Fathers who have written upon the subject of Antichrist and the prophecies of Daniel — all of them unanimously — say that in the latter end of the world, during the reign of Antichrist, the Holy Sacrifice of the altar will cease,” (“The Present Crisis of the Holy See”). That the unanimous consent of the Fathers may determine the true interpretation of Holy Scripture is decreed by the Council of Trent, which teaches that “…No one who distorts the Sacred Scripture, according to his own opinions, shall dare to interpret the said Sacred Scriptures contrary to the sense which is held by holy mother Church, whose duty it is to judge regarding the true sense and interpretation of holy Scriptures, or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers…,” (DZ 786). The Vatican Council confirms this teaching, (DZ 1788). The prophet Daniel clearly prophesies and the Fathers affirm that Antichrist is the “little horn” (Dan. 8: 9) that grew, and that to this little horn “strength was given against the continual sacrifice, because of sins; and truth shall be cast down on the ground, and he shall do and prosper,” (Dan. 8: 12).
One of Paul 6’s first “signs and wonders” was to appear to be pope when in actuality he could never be elected owing to his deposition for heresy on many counts. (See “The Mystery of Iniquity” on this board index; also “The Abomination of Desolation and the Cessation of the Continual Sacrifice.”) Another of these signs was to appear to institute a “New Mass,” followed by new “rites of the Sacraments,” all seven of which, we learned as grade school students, were instituted by Christ Himself. Once these “rites” were in place, it was only a matter of time before truly ordained and consecrated priests and bishops expired and were replaced by impotent ministers, devoid of any power. And finally, even those whose powers remained were stripped of the ability to function with the expiration of their jurisdiction and the inability to appeal to a true pope to supply such jurisdiction. Paul 6, Antichrist, had all his bases covered. As Dom Gueranger explains for the Eighth Sunday after Pentecost: “Woe to those times when the dispensers of the Divine word, having themselves nought but halved or false principles, give but weak, shriveled seed to the souls entrusted to them ! The Holy Ghost is not bound to supply their insufficiency; ordinarily speaking He does not supply it, for such is not the way established by Christ for the sanctification of the members of His Church,” (“The Liturgical Year”).
Essentially Montini established the celebration of nothing less than a black mass on once Catholic altars. It is a misunderstanding of the term “black mass” that has prevented Catholics from seeing the Novus Ordo in its true light. Criminologist Henry Rhodes described a true black mass, attributed to the Cathars, as one in which “men said one thing and meant another…It was possible for a priest to introduce prayers and ceremonies into an orthodox rite without any of the congregation except the satanically initiated being aware that anything unusual was taking place.” Other occult authorities agree with Rhodes, noting that a mass said by a priest with a contrary or perverse intention also can be called a black mass. In his “History of Witchcraft,” Montague Summers defined a black mass as a “blasphemous mass in which the words of consecration are omitted.” While a substitution is not the same as an omission, it is still a fact that in substituting new words, the old formula is omitted and the results are the same.
“The abomination of the black mass is performed by some apostate or renegade priest… convinced of the doctrine of Transubstantiation, the totality, permanence and adorableness of the Eucharistic Christ (and) sacrificing priesthood as the most orthodox Catholic,” Summers continues. “Unless this were the case, their result would be empty…” Some of these priests were culled from satanic organizations and doubtless this is still the case today, but this would not be necessary as long as they believed the truth yet failed to convey the intended effect. As the Grand Master Mason Albert Pike taught in the 1880s, the ultimate goal of Freemasonry is to introduce “the pure doctrine of Lucifer” to those once Christian, who then would adore Lucifer in the place of Almighty God. What better way to accomplish this than to succeed in having mere bread adored as God Himself?
In his “Satanism and Witchcraft,” the avowed Satanist Jules Michelet wrote that the abominable “meal” celebrated at these infernal services was “a confareatio, the sharing of bread which has absorbed magic virtue.” Medieval monks taught that child killing and abortion was the entry point for the practice of Satanism by common folk, leaving the blasphemies and insults against God and actual dissemination of error to the ruling magicians. In one paragraph, then, can be linked all the errors of the Novus Ordo and the modern world with worship of the Evil One. This bread “with magic virtue” was not something new to the medieval ages, for it was known even in Old Testament times.
Surprisingly, it is in Scripture that we find the strongest condemnations of “bread idols” and the rites that produce them. In “The Divine Armory,” an extensive cross-reference of Scripture quotations compiled by Rev. Kenelm Vaughan, we find the following under the heading, “Names and Types of the False Christs: “bread idols, the bread of deceit, the bread of lying, bread of wickedness, wheat bringing forth thorns, profitless wheat, the two iniquities [bread and wine], unacceptable holocaust, a sin graven on the horns of the altar, wicked gifts,” and so forth, all with a corresponding Scripture verse. Vaughan even includes as a type of false Christ, (and an unconsecrated host believed to have been consecrated IS a false Christ) the name of Daniel’s unknown God, Maozim.
Here also is listed as connected to this topic the sin of desolation and the abomination of desolation, both mentioned in Daniel. One of the most striking quotes Vaughan cites is the following, taken from Ezech. 13:19: “They violated Me among my people for a piece of bread, telling lies to My people that believe lies,” and this applies to Protestants, Novus Ordo believers and Traditionalists alike. Preceding the section on bread idols is a lengthy treatment of the faithless Israelites led astray by the pastors “who have destroyed My vineyard” and “profaned My sanctuary upon earth,” (Jer. 12:10; Ps. 88:40). Notice that only the John 23 Missal version of the “Tridentine Mass,” its canon already defiled by an antipope, is readmitted for recitation by the fifth antichrist in that same infernal line. To “win back” a semblance of orthodoxy, one must accept the false for the true. Yet another cunning device of the Antichrist, reigning through his successor, to deceive even the elect.