But what about the Mass?

© Copyright 2012, T. Stanfill Benns (All emphasis within quotes added by the author)

Summary

The following proofs have been collected from several different sources, all of which confirm the same truth. Among those quoted below include those early commentators on the invalidity of the Novus Ordo Missae, among them Patrick Henry Omlor, Hutton Gibson and Dr. Cyril Andrade, to which we have added comments of our own. Knowing the actual words of Our Lord, and after reading what the Popes and Councils define concerning those words, it will be clear — if we irrevocably assent to what they teach — that the Latin Mass was invalidated the moment the consecration of the wine was changed from “for many” to “for all.” But before beginning, some preliminary statements are in order.

1. No one, not even a true pope, could change any part of the Canon of the Mass, especially the Consecration; because this is Divine Revelation determining the form of the Sacrament as decreed by Christ Himself. J. A. Jungmann, S. J., writes in his “The Mass of the Roman Rite,” Vol. II, (1955): “It is in the very nature of the Christian Liturgy of the Mass that the account of the institution of the Blessed Sacrament should not be recited as a merely historical record, as are the other portions of the Gospels. Indeed, the words of the account are spoken over the bread and a chalice, and, in accord with our Lord’s word, are uttered precisely in order to repeat Christ’s action.”
2. A host of condemnations can be pointed to in support of this statement, especially the teachings of the Vatican Council that the Church never changes Her teachings, (DZ 1797, 1800, 2145).
3. There also are the following anathemas issued by the popes and particularly the Council of Trent concerning the unchangeable form of the Eucharist: DZ 414, 424, 698, 715, 876, 932, 938. Under Rev. Cartechini’s “Theological Notes…” mentioned in section D on the true nature of heresy, only those articles of Divine faith not certainly proposed for belief by the Church qualify as not resulting in a loss of Church membership when denied. Clearly the words for many have been proposed for belief by the Church as the form of the Sacrament, so to deny this is true would be to a) deny a truth of Divine faith, b) proposed by an ecumenical council of the Church c) as revealed by God. This is heresy pure and simple, involving ipso facto excommunication and automatic forfeiture of Church membership.
4. In DZ 424, we read that no one but a priest ordained by a “visible and perceptible” bishop, who has established him “for that office,” may offer the Holy Sacrifice. Since no certainly valid bishops exist today and even Traditionalists will admit they possess no office in the Church, they cannot offer the Holy Sacrifice.
5. DZ 876 and 932 tell us that the Body of Christ is confected both under the form of bread as well as wine; receiving under either form qualifies one as having received the Sacrament. But this will not suffice for those who say that even if the Consecration of the wine is invalid, one still receives valid Communion during the Novus Ordo Missae because the Consecration of the bread has not been changed.
6. As will be shown below, Pope St. Pius V decreed that “If anyone were to omit or change anything in the form of the consecration of the Body and Blood, and in this change of words, the words do not mean the same thing, he would not produce the Sacrament.” St. Thomas Aquinas teaches the same. The Consecration, of course, is ONE ACT, although it is effected by two separate formulas. For the priest extends his hand over both the chalice and the host, and prior to this asks God to bless, approve, prefect, and render it well-pleasing to Himself, THAT it might be changed into His Body and Blood. Can any true Catholic really be so lacking in faith as to believe that our Lord would actually bless, approve and perfect a deliberate LIE?! Is there any doubt that seeing the defect in the words He Himself used, He would certainly refuse to so change the wine and the host into His Body and Blood, as Pope St. Pius V so states? How else would He fulfill His promise to bind what His vicars bind, and loose what they loose?
7. Furthermore, under DZ 953, we read that anyone who says that the Canon of the Mass contains errors and should be abrogated (or changed, which infers the same thing), “let him be anathema,” or excommunicated for heresy. Heresy can be explicit or implicit, and in this case it is implicit.
8. And finally, when the words “for all” are added to the Novus Ordo Missae, this is the expression of a proposition condemned by Pope Pius II: “That all Christians are to be saved,” (DZ 717b).
9. The Catechism of the Council of Trent clearly states that “for many” was added under Divine inspiration to the Consecration of the wine.
10. This same Catechism further states that there is a specific reason “for all” was not used in the Canon.

General comments on the Mass

“The Western Mass, like all Liturgies, begins, of course, with the Last Supper. What Christ then did, repeated as he commanded in memory of Him, is the nucleus of the Mass…Christ determined what special graces were to be conferred by means of external rites: for some Sacraments (e.g. Baptism, the Eucharist), He determined minutely (in specie) the matter and form: for others He determined only in a general way (in genere) that there should be an external ceremony, by which special graces were to be conferred, leaving to the Apostles or to the Church the power to determine what He had not determined; e.g., to prescribe the matter and form of the Sacraments of Confirmation and Holy Orders.” (the Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. XIII, the Mass). So as noted above we have first the testimony of Divine Faith, i.e., Christ’s own words, in the Gospels of the Douay Rheims New Testament. And as will be seen below in the numerous papal decrees and definitions, also those of the councils, the truth of the invalidity of the addition “for all” is a matter confirmed by Divine and Catholic Faith.

For 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. From that decree we read: “The words of the Savior by which He instituted this Sacrament [the Eucharist] are the form of this Sacrament,” (Pope Eugenius IV; DZ 698). “The form of words, which in the consecration of the Body and Blood of the Lord the Holy Roman Church confirmed by the teaching and authority of the Apostles, had always been accustomed to use [is], …In the consecration of the blood, “For this is the chalice of My blood…which will be poured forth for you and many…” (Council of Florence, Pope Nicholas V, DZ 715).And this error of John Wycliffe, condemned by Pope Martin V, must also be considered: “It is not established in the Gospel; that Christ arranged the Mass,” (DZ 585). For it could easily be said that using “for all” is not contrary to faith, if one held this particular error.

Pope St. Pius V (1570), in his “De Defectibus”(defects in the celebration of the Mass) printed in the front of the Roman Missal: “The words of 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 will be shed for you and for many unto the remission of sins’. If anyone were to omit or change anything in the form of the consecration of the Body and Blood, and in this change of words, the words do not mean the same thing, he would not produce the Sacrament.If he were to add anything which did not change the meaning, he would indeed consecrate but he would sin most grievously.”

On page 151 of the “Catechism of the Council of Trent,”under the heading, “The Sacraments in General,” we read: “In this the Sacraments of the New Law excel those of the Old Law that, as far as we know, there was no definite form of administering the latter and hence they were uncertain and obscure. In our sacraments, on the contrary, the form is so definite that any, even a casual deviation from it, renders the Sacrament null. Hence the form is expressed in the clearest terms, such as exclude the possibility of doubt…In our Sacraments, the form is so definite that any, even a casual deviation from it, renders the Sacrament NULL.”Concerning the sacramental form for the Holy Eucharist (the Consecration of the wine at Mass) this same Catechism clearly states:“We are firmly to believe that it consists of the following words:’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.’”

Proceeding to the specific subject of the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist in this same Catechism we find: “The additional words, “for you and for many” are taken, some from Matthew (26: 28), some from Luke (22:20) but were joined together by the Catholic Church under the guidance of the Spirit of God. They serve to declare the fruit and advantage of His Passion. For if we look to its value, we must confess that the Redeemer shed His blood for the salvation of all; but if we look to the fruit which mankind has received from it, we shall easily find that it pertains not unto all, but to many of the human race. When therefore (our Lord) said: For you, He meant either those who were present or those chosen among the Jewish people, such as were, with the exception of Judas, the disciples with whom He was speaking. When He added, And for many, He wished to be understood to mean the remainder of the elect form among the Jews or Gentiles. 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. And this is the purpose of the Apostle when he says: Christ was offered once to exhaust the sins of many (Heb. 9:28); and also of the words of our Lord in John: ‘I pray not for the world, but for them who Thou has given me because they are Thine,’ (Jn. 18:9);” (Trent Sess. 6, Ch. 3). So much for these words not being “necessary” for the validity of the Consecration.

Aquinas on the Sacraments

Thomas Aquinas (Saint, Doctor of the Church, the leading theologian on the Eucharist and probably the greatest mind the Church has ever had), says in his monumental, erudite, theological treatise, Summa Theologica: “We must see whether a change of words destroys the essential sense of the words, because then the Sacrament is clearly invalid.” (Summa Theologica, III ,Q. 60, Art.8).  It should be obvious that in the Novus Ordo consecration formula for the wine, the words “for all men”, signifying the sufficiency aspect of Christ’s Sacrifice (i.e., it was sufficient for redemption of all mankind) destroys the essential meaning of the words “for many” which appear in the traditional consecration formula and signifies the efficiency aspect of Christ’s Passion and death. For, as a Decree of the Council of Trent says: “But though He died for all, yet all do not receive the benefit of His death, but only unto whom the merit of His passion is communicated,” (Session VI; Ch. 3).

Pope Benedict XIV, commenting on the explicit refutation by St. Thomas of the argument that the words “for all men” ought to be used instead of “for many”, says:

“Therefore We say that the blood of Christ was shed for all; however, as regards sufficiency, and for the elect only, as regards efficacy, as Doctor Thomas explains correctly: ‘The blood of Christ’s Passion has its efficacy not merely in the elect among the Jews, but also in the Gentiles’… And therefore he says expressly, for you the Jews and for many, namely the Gentiles.” (Book II, Ch. XV, para. 11: De Sacrosancto Missae Sacrificio) In explaining that these words “for many” refer to the elect only, and not to all men, the Trent Catechism explicitly affirms: “With reason, therefore were the words ‘for ALL (men)’ NOT used, as in this place the fruit of the Passion are alone spoken of, and to the elect only did His Passion bring the fruit of salvation.”

In the letter “Super quibusdam,” (Sept.29, 1351), Pope Clement VI taught: “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.”

In his Bull, “Apostolica Curae”, Pope Leo XIII lays down an important distinction: “In the rite for the performance and administration of any Sacrament, a distinction is justly made between its ‘ceremonial’ and its ‘essential’ part, the latter usually called its ‘matter and form’,” for every sacrament consists in its ceremonial and essential part.

Pope St. Pius X states in the letter, Ex quo nono(Dec. 26, 1910): “It is well known that to the Church there belongs no right whatsoever to innovate anything touching on the substance of the Sacraments.”

On November 30, 1947, Pope Pius XII issued the apostolic constitution, “Sacramentum Ordinis,”which reiterates and clarifies the same principle. “As the Council of Trent teaches, the seven Sacraments of the New Law have been instituted by Jesus Christ, Our Lord, and the Church has no power over the substance of the Sacraments; i.e., over those things which, with the sources of divine revelation as witnesses, Christ the Lord Himself decreed to be preserved in a sacramental sign.” This is emphasized further in Mediator Dei, where this same pope wrote:

“The entire liturgy has the Catholic Faith for its content…it bears public witness to the faith of the Church. For this reason whenever there was a question of defining a truth revealed by God, the Sovereign Pontiff and the Councils, in their recourse to ‘theological sources,’ as they are called, have not seldom drawn many an argument from this sacred science of the Liturgy…The rule for prayer determines the rule for belief.’ [However] The Sacred Liturgy does not decide or determine independently and of itself what is of Catholic Faith…If one desires to differentiate and described the relationship between faith and the Sacred Liturgy in absolute and general terms, it is perfectly correct to say…‘let the rule of belief determine the rule of prayer.’” 

And so Catholic doctrine stands outside and above the liturgy. Here we see that Pope Pius XII deliberately reversed the “Lex orandi, lex credendi” touted by the liturgists to prove a point. And he did so because people like Roncalli and his associates were already using this rule to advocate and facilitate actual changes. And yet even Traditionalists reject this clear teaching of the ordinary magisterium as false and injurious to the Church today. This is proven by the many “opinions” concerning the validity of the NOM, the lawfulness of attending an NOM, of using priests ordained in NO rites and other matters. And yet Pope Pius taught in this same encyclical that:

“The Sacred Liturgy does include Divine as well as human elements. The former, instituted as they have been by God, cannot be changed in any way by men…The Sovereign Pontiff alone enjoys the right to recognize and establish any practice touching the worship of God, to introduce and approve new rites, as also to modify those he judges to require modification…No private person has any authority to regulate external practices of this kind, which are intimately bound up with Church discipline and with the order, unity and concord of the Mystical Body, and frequently even with the integrity of Catholic faith itself.” Christ’s very words, therefore, were beyond the scope of any human decision in the matter. These words were a Divine element of the Canon of the Mass that could never be touched.

Addis and Arnold’s “Catholic Dictionary”says:

“The Council of Trent defines that though the Church may change rites and ceremonies, it cannot alter the ‘substance’ of the Sacraments. This follows from the nature of a Sacrament. The matter and form have no power in themselves to give grace. This power depends solely on the will of God Who made the graces promised depend on the use of certain things and words, so that if these are altered in their essence, the Sacrament is altogether absent.”

As pointed out by Omlor in his “The Sky Grows Darker Yet”:

“At one point during this ‘for all men’ controversy in the United States, Bishop Sylvester Treinen of Boise, Idaho, had a letter published in the “Homiletic and Pastoral Review”, a magazine widely read by the clergy. Bishop Treinen pointed out that there is no Scriptural basis whatever for this change. In the accounts of the Institution of the Holy Eucharist, both St. Matthew and St. Mark record in their Gospels that Our Lord said ‘for many,’ and not ‘for all men.’

“Moreover the Bishop enumerated many Bible editions — Catholic and Protestant, very old, editions as well as the newest versions — and he claimed that there isn’t now nor has there ever been a single edition of the New Testament that has those words “for all men” in this place. He might have added that this holds true not only in English, but in all the Greek texts, ancient and modern, in the Peshito Bible translated into the Syriac language in the Fifth Century, in the Latin Vulgate, and without doubt in all the Bibles ever printed in any language.” No better illustration of the lengths the NO church was prepared to go to in order to deceive Catholics can be offered here.

St. Teresa of Avila wrote:

“The Holy Ghost never inspires anything that is not conformable to Holy Writ. If there were the slightest divergence, that alone by itself would prove so evidently the work of the Evil One, that were the whole world to assure me it was the Holy Ghost, I would never believe it.”

It was Tertullian (one of the Fathers of the Church in the second century) who said, “Innovation is error.” Given all the above, it is now necessary to examine whether or not using “for all” in the consecration is heretical in and of itself, since so many have either denied that it is or have pretended that this mutilated formula is able to confect a valid Sacrament. We have above the testimony of the popes and councils that Christ’s words were “for many” not “for all.” We have next the proofs that the popes and councils have infallibly sealed the form of these words. This is proof that this truth is of Divine and Catholic Faith. From the works of Revs. McHugh and Callan, (see “The True Nature of Heresy” in this series) we have learned that: “Heresy is particularly opposed to Divine and Catholic faith (#826b). Divine and Catholic faith is belief in a revealed truth that has been proposed as such by the Church either solemnly or ordinarily, including dogmas contained in the Creeds and definitions of the Popes and Councils, (#755b).” There is no doubt that this error was assented to by those “who had sincerely embraced the faith of Christ,” (meaning only catechumens and the baptized, who after baptism have retained the name of Christian – Can. 1325 §; McHugh and Callan #826, 827).  Nor can anyone deny “its external and manifest nature, manifestation to a large number of people joined with apostasy and adhesion to an heretical sect… (#832b&c).”

So we have formal certitude from the mouths of the Pontiffs and the Council of Trent  that this change was heretical. And as St. Thomas Aquinas says: “when it is manifest, and especially if the Church has decided that consequences follow against faith, then the error cannot be free from heresy.” And if it cannot be free from heresy, how could it possibly be a valid consecration? We have the guarantee of Pope St. Pius V above in his “De Defectibus” that in no way could the Sacrament be produced if the alteration of the form actually changed the meaning of Christ’s very words. As St. Thomas Aquinas teaches: “Some heretics in conferring sacraments do not observe the form prescribed by the Church: and these confer neither the sacrament nor the reality of the sacrament…We must see whether a change of words destroys the essential sense of the words, because then the Sacrament is clearly invalid.”  We have the assurance of the popes; formal certitude exists for us and we need nothing else.What we must do from here is determine if this discovery actually means that we are witnessing the cessation of the Holy Sacrifice. Please go to /articles/a-catholics-course-of-study/mass-and-sacraments/cessation-of-the-continual-sacrifice/ and /articles/a-catholics-course-of-study/mass-and-sacraments/the-church-in-apocalyptic-time/ for proofs this event indeed has occurred.

In the era following Vatican 2, many books were written attesting to the validity or invalidity of the Novus Ordo Missae (NOM), using a variety of arguments to prove the case. Michael Davies’ writings come to mind, among others. Most of those desperately attempting to prove the invalidity of this sacrilegious service did not rely primarily on the decrees of the Roman Pontiffs and the Council of Trent, although Mr. Omlor and Mr. Gibson are an exception to this rule. The controversy on the Mass lasted many years, but it did not need to. The fact that the Roman Pontiffs had spoken clearly and the Councils had anathematized was all any Catholic would ever need, but those debating this subject never insisted on the absolute observance of papal and conciliar condemnations. Because the authority of the Roman Pontiff was so effectively minimized in this matter, the waters were muddied to such an extent that many were unable to gain certitude and therefore continued in their errors. This was largely due to the Traditionalist stance that the ordinary magisterium either is not infallible (SSPX, others) or that it does not bind irrevocably, since only ex cathedra pronouncements are truly infallible, (other Traditionalist sects). Without a true Pope the Church cannot exist, and neither can the Mass, at least publicly. The two go hand in hand, since Christ’s Vicar is supreme in jurisdiction, and the Mass presumes valid absolution for the valid reception of Holy Communion, (DZ 880, 893; Can. 856). Only by obeying Christ’s Vicar on earth, and the past decrees of those same Vicars, can we be certain of our salvation.

Other considerations

Even if what was said above would not be sufficient enough to convince a reasonable man, the Sacrament of the Eucharist was not the only Sacrament changed by the false church. The changes made by Paul 6 to the Sacrament of Holy Orders left that church without valid priests or bishops, so even if the NOM could be accepted as valid (and it cannot) without a valid priesthood and episcopacy none of the Sacraments administered by those ordained and consecrated in the new rite after 1968 could ever be considered valid. The reason for this statement can be seen below in the changes to priestly ordination and episcopal consecration.

HOLY ORDERS (Priest) – Old Form: “Give we beseech thee, Almighty Father, the dignity of priesthood on these thy servants; renew in their hearts the spirit of sanctity, so that they may hold this office of the second order (second rank), which they have received from Thee and by the example of their life impart a worthy criterion of conduct.”

New Form: “Almighty Father, grant to these of yours the dignity of the priesthood. Renew within them the Spirit of holiness. As CO-WORKERS with the order of bishops, may they be faithful to the ministry that they receive from you, Lord God, and be to others a model of right conduct.”

HOLY ORDERS (Bishop) – Old Form: “Fill up in Thy priest the perfection of Thy ministry, and sanctify him with the dew of Thy heavenly ornaments of all beauty.”

New Form: “So now pour out upon this chosen one that power which is from you the governing spirit when you gave to your beloved Son, Jesus Christ, the Spirit given by him to the holy apostles, who founded the Church in every place to be your temple for the unceasing glory and praise of your name.”

Commentary — Although Pope Pius XII determined that the MATTER of sacred ordination was the imposition of hands, never was the prayer said at the conveying of the paten and chalice to the ordinand excluded. In the new rite of ordina­tion, this prayer is nowhere mentioned, and has been excluded altogether. This prayer reads (in the old rite): “Receive the power to offer sacrifice to God and to celebrate Mass, both for the living and the dead, in the name of the Lord, Amen.” In the new rite this prayer has been replaced with the following: “Accept the gifts from the people to be offered to God; be conscious of what you are doing, be as holy as the actions you perform, and model your life after the mystery of the Lord’s Cross.”

Following the release of Pope Leo XIII’s Bull, Apostolica Curae, which declared Anglican orders invalid, the English bishops issued a work entitled Catholic Doctrine of the Priest­hood, applying the teachings of the Bull to their Anglican brethren. We quote this work as follows: “If an ordination rite implies the EXCLUSION of the POWER TO OFFER SAC­RIFICE, then it is necessarily NULL, even though it may include express mention of the word PRIEST.” How can “gifts from the people” be offered to God, when the Body and Blood of Christ alone is offered on Catholic altars? There is no doubt that in condemning Anglican Orders as invalid, Pope Leo intended to define a certain matter, so this decree is infallible. The new Vatican 2 ordination rite, therefore, cannot be valid. To settle all doubt in this matter, Pope Leo proclaimed that if the rite is modified with the manifest object of introducing ANOTHER, not admitted by the [Apostolic] Church and rejecting the one which She uses, then not only is the necessary intention for the sacrament DEFECTIVE, but there is also an intention contrary and opposed to the sacra­ment. The striking similarity of Vatican 2 arguments and excuses to those of the Reformers is further mirrored in the words of the Catholic bishops of England to their Anglican brethren.

Concerning one of the reasons given by the Angli­cans for abandoning the true rite of ordination, they write: “It could not have been… because the Reformers wished to go back to what was primitive… . It could not have been for no REASON AT ALL… the only and sufficient reason …is that they disliked the notion of a sacrificing priesthood …and desired to DISASSOCIATE … from all connection with it.” In ordaining priests, Montinian bishops yet impose hands, but they do so in vain. The imposition of hands and the recitation of the words contained in the preface are the bare minimum required for validity. The form does not convey the power to offer sacri­fice or to forgive sins, and as Pope Leo so shrewdly observed, for this reason the entire intention to convey the sacrament is lacking. It is not to be wondered at that no longer are the thumbs and forefingers of the candidates for the priesthood anointed; for no longer is it necessary to anoint them. A man who never becomes priest owing to a rite that is null and void never consecrates the Body and Blood of Christ.

As to episcopal consecration, if men never become priests they can never be made valid bishops. Moreover, the same can be said of the consecration rite as was said of the rite of ordination; it is conspicuous for its omis­sions. The new rite gives bishops the power to “…forgive sins, …assign ministries… and to loose every bond.” (Notice the power to bind is not given; only the power to loose. All manner of things may be undone, but nothing strengthened!) Nowhere is any mention made of conveying power to ordain priests, confirm the faithful, and consecrate other bishops! As the English bishops said, this could not have been for “…no reason at all.” What is the sense in making “bishops” if they have no POWER to do what bishops have always done? As Pope Leo wrote in his Bull: “…since the sacrament of orders­…have been utterly thrust out of the Anglican rite … by no means can the episcopacy be truly and validly conferred… defect of form is joined with the defect of intention … We pronounce and declare that ordinations enacted according to the Anglican rite are invalid and entirely void.” (DZ 1966.)

So great is the “love” of this new chruch for its “peopleof God” that they would deprive them of a true and Holy Sacrifice, valid sacraments and most importantly, valid hierarchy truly descended from the apostles. The impli­cations of such a cunning, deadly, and SUCCESSFUL campaign to eradicate the Church of Christ from the face of the earth leave one weak-kneed and in search of a chair. No wonder one Bd. Anna Maria Taigi confided to a friend that she had observed souls falling in to hell like snowflakes! Yet the only thing that keeps these imposters in business is the shameful ignorance and naiveté of their congregations, which is nothing more, nothing less, than the willful blindness prophesied by Isaias.

Even Tridentine Masses celebrated by those ordained and consecrated in the new rites would be invalid, as would the Sacraments they administer. Novus Ordo masses are invalid in and of themselves owing to the alteration of Christ’s words in the consecration of the wine. Traditionalists cannot celebrate the Mass because their ordinations are doubtfully valid. For all intents and purposes, Catacomb Catholics believe that the Sacrifice has ceased as predicted in Daniel and confirmed by the unanimous opinion of the Fathers. It is a very short stretch from here to the conclusion that if the Mass has ceased, then the one who abrogated it can only be the Man of Sin, the abomination of desolation standing in the Holy Place, the See of Peter. To view the wealth of proofs that this is indeed the case, go to /articles/a-catholics-course-of-study/lay-elections-and-false-popes/the-mystery-of-iniquity-paul-6-lawless-one-pdf/ .