Archive for March, 2018

from Novus Ordo Watch

Idiotic logo meets false theology…

Pokémon at the Vatican:
The Youth Synod’s Preliminary Meeting

One can only face-palm at the aesthetic junk that emanates from the Vatican II Sect, which is a perfect mirror of its disastrous theology. With a logo apparently being needed for every significant event, here is the one they put together for their pre-synod meeting with the youth, which is currently taking place in Rome:

The question that inevitably arises is: What in the world is this? Four Poké Balls decorating a Christmas tree? Billiard balls caught in a ventilator? …Or what?? Like with many other Novus Ordo logos and emblems, this image too is just screaming spiritual maturity and sophisticated theology, isn’t it?

Actually, this pitiful aesthetic travesty actually reflects very well Francis’ idea of “listening to the youth” to know what path his sect must travel. Being enamored with — and therefore always looking for — novelty is one of the hallmarks of Modernism. Paradoxical phrases like “creative tradition” are then used to make the novelty more digestible and give it a veneer of legitimacy; certain biblical concepts are distorted and then adduced in support (a favorite passage of theirs to cite is Mt 13:52, the true meaning of which is explained here). Other biblical passages, on the other hand, are always happily glossed over (e.g. Jer 6:16; Gal 1:6-9; 2 Thess 2:14; 1 Tim 6:20).

In October of this year, it is time again for the biannual ordinary synod of “bishops” in the Vatican, and this time the topic is “Young People, the Faith and Vocational Discernment”, as the official Synod 2018 web site states on its masthead. In the pre-synod meeting now taking place in Rome (Mar. 19-24), roughly 300 men and women between the ages of 16 and 29 are gathered, ostensibly to tell the “bishops” and the “Pope” what they think about it all:

The purpose of the Pre-Synodal Meeting, to take place in Rome from 19 to 24 March 2018, is to provide the opportunity for young people to produce a document, which expresses their view on the state of things, their ideas, their feelings and their recommendations, to be presented to the Synodal Fathers, who will meet in October 2018 to treat the topic: Young People, the Faith and Vocational Discernment. Participating in this meeting will be around 300 young people, representing young people from the 5 continents.


The youths attending this aren’t even all Novus Ordo — some have a different religion or none at all.

Yesterday, Mar. 19, Francis met with the members of the pre-synod at the Maria Mater EcclesiaeInternational “Pontifical” College. Two videos of the occasion have been released (photos available here):

As always, Francis had plenty to say. So far, Vatican News has not provided a full English translation of Francis’ opening address, only of the five questions he was asked and his answers. English summary reports of the “papal” address are available, however, some of which are linked in the paragraphs that follow.

Meeting with youngsters was a welcome opportunity for Francis to once more unleash his infamous Naturalist blather, empty of significant content but rich in buzzwords and metaphors: He spoke about not “putting make-up” on or “anesthetizing” feelings; he wants a “young face” for his church, without “make-up”, lest it be merely “artificially rejuvenated”; he claimed that “without risk a young person grows old, and it also makes the Church grow old” — a gratuitous assertion the ultimate meaning of which is anyone’s guess. Of course his hapless audience also received warnings against that dreaded “terrorism of gossip”, the scourge of “rigidity”, and that “sick mentality” of clericalism, which, ironically, he as the “Dictator Pope” is more guilty of than anyone. Francis even managed to include the word “castrate” in one of his answers, although this time at least he kept his talk free of terminology from the sodomite underworld.

Francis explicitly called the youth to speak their minds “frankly and freely”. From past experience, however, we know that this generous concession is verbal only and merely applies to those things Francis doesn’t mind hearing about. (Case in point: When the youth show an attachment to the Traditional Latin Mass or the real Catholicism of the past, he only has harsh words for them and suddenly no longer cares about what the “Spirit” may be telling him through the youth. Francis only rolls out the “god of surprises” when the surprise is in agreement with his thinking.)

The emptiness of the Vatican II religion was on full display when Francis fielded the question of an unbaptized French lady who was struggling to find the meaning of life and wanted to know where to start looking. Francis’ answer? Essentially: Blah blah discernment… blah blah accompaniment… blah blah many Catholic clerics aren’t any good at this… blah blah find someone [else] to talk to… blah blah ask someone who knows. How’s that for giving spiritual direction and preaching the Gospel! Really, the utter claptrap this man spouts on a daily basis is beyond parody!

Slogans like “the Church is young at heart” make for great headlines but are useless for anything else, because no one knows what they actually mean. Giving speeches rich in words but poor in content is one of Francis’ specialties. Indeed, it is a favorite Modernist tactic to drown the reader/listener in a flood of words, which explains why the Vatican has produced so many endless documents since the council (consider, for example, the excessive length of Gaudium et Spes, Pacem in TerrisPopulorum Progressio, Ut Unum Sint, Fides et Ratio, Evangelii GaudiumLaudato Si’, and Amoris Laetitia).

According to Francis, the Novus Ordo Sect is “in need of young prophets”, and apparently he thinks that the very people who have grown up on YouCatDoCat, and the Novus Ordo Missae (“New Mass”)are going to fill that role. Heaven help us!

But it gets worse: Just today Vatican Media reports that the “Pope” has released yet another interview book, this time, one for the youth: God is Young is its idiotic title, and the content isn’t any better. Some excerpts in English are available here:

The book is filled with such incredibly deep and meaningful statements as, “A young person is something like a prophet, and needs to realize that. He or she needs to be aware of having the wings of a prophet, the attitude of a prophet, the capacity of prophesying, of speaking but also of acting”. The youth are told of “facelifts of the heart” and the “wrinkles of experiences”. We are assured that “the salvation of the elderly is to give the young the memory, this makes the elderly true dreamers of the future; while the salvation of the young is to take this teaching, these dreams, and bear them prophetically into the future.”

Thankfully, the English edition of this profound-sounding but ultimately-useless junk won’t be available until Oct. 2, but the Italian, Spanish, French, German, Portuguese, Polish, Croatian, Slovak, Slovenian, and Czech editions went on sale today.

Let’s be clear about one thing: The youths involved in and affected by all this are victims, not perpetrators. Our criticism is not directed at them. They don’t know any different — their whole lives they’ve known only the Modernist Sect, and to their minds that is the Catholic Church. We must pray for them that they will be able to escape the clutches of the “operation of error” (2 Thess 2:10) set up to eclipse the Catholic Church until the day that God chooses to deliver her.

“By listening to young people, the Church will once again hear the Lord speaking in today’s world,” the 2018 synod’s preparatory document declares. In this telling statement, the Novus Ordo hierarchs once again demonstrate that they are blind and leaders of the blind (cf. Mt 15:14; Lk 9:60). A church that has to learn divine revelation from its youth is not the Catholic Church, because the Catholic Church teaches the youth, and she teaches always “the Way, and the Truth, and the Life” (Jn 14:6), that is, “Jesus Christ [who is] yesterday, and today; and the same for ever” (Heb 13:8). This is because her teaching, like her mission, was given her by God 2,000 years ago:

And as for you, let the unction, which you have received from him [the Holy Ghost], abide in you. And you have no need that any man teach you; but as his unction teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie. And as it hath taught you, abide in him.

(1 Jn 2:27; cf. Jn 16:13)

It is a Modernist idea, not a Catholic one, that divine revelation is to be sought in the lived experience of man. The Modernist Nouvelle Theologie (or “New Theology”, condemned by Pope Pius XII here) has made human experience a theological locus (source) from which to draw data for the science of Sacred Theology. This is why documents like Amoris Laetitia can appeal to the concrete circumstances of life as potentially containing a “divine permission” to transgress the moral law:

Yet conscience can do more than recognize that a given situation does not correspond objectively to the overall demands of the Gospel. It can also recognize with sincerity and honesty what for now is the most generous response which can be given to God, and come to see with a certain moral security that it is what God himself is asking amid the concrete complexity of one’s limits, while yet not fully the objective ideal.

(Antipope Francis, “Apostolic Exhortation” Amoris Laetitia, n. 303)

This staggering blasphemy we have dismantled in our podcast on the topic here.

So, the synod preparatory document has the truth exactly backwards: The Church does not hear the voice of the Lord by listening to young people; rather, young people hear the voice of the Lord by listening to the (true) Church, as Fr. Anthony Cekada pointed out on Twitter a few months ago. In this juxtaposition we see the difference between Modernism and Catholicism: The Modernist begins with man and concludes something about God; the Catholic begins with God and judges all things by His revealed truth. The Modernist goes to man to say something about God; the Catholic goes to God to seek the truth about man.

With that in mind, Novus Ordos should  really take to heart the following divinely inspired quotes about youth:

Remove anger from thy heart, and put away evil from thy flesh. For youth and pleasure are vain. (Ecclesiastes 11:10)

My son, from thy youth up receive instruction, and even to thy grey hairs thou shalt find wisdom. (Ecclesiasticus [Sirach] 6:18)

Young man, scarcely speak in thy own cause. If thou be asked twice, let thy answer be short. In many things be as if thou wert ignorant, and hear in silence and withal seeking. In the company of great men bake not upon thee: and when the ancients are present, speak not much. (Ecclesiasticus [Sirach] 32:10-13)

In like manner, ye young men, be subject to the ancients. And do you all insinuate humility one to another, for God resisteth the proud, but to the humble he giveth grace. (1 Pet 5:5)

The Pokemon synod is scheduled for October of this year. It will be to the youth and vocations what the 2014/2015 synods were to holy matrimony.

Just wait till Francis releases his post-synodal exhortation in the first half of 2019, just in time for World Youth Day in Panama. Although we obviously don’t know the contents yet, we’re going to predict that the title will be Juventutis Gaudium.

If only it were funny.

Image source:
License: Fair use

26 out of 27 of Deadliest Mass Shootings

March 27th, 2018 by Vigilo

by Bishop Sanborn

Of the twenty-seven deadliest mass shootings in the United States, going back to 1966, twenty-six were perpetrated by persons who had fatherless homes. In other words, it is not guns that are the problem. It is divorce which is the problem.

When parents divorce, the big losers are the children. The adults manage to get over their grief as time passes, but the children, in most cases, are permanently damaged. There is something in them that understands that they are the product of the love and union between their parents. When that love and union disappears, they feel cheated and wronged.

This feeling, which they may not even express, leads to a deep-seated anger in them. Obviously not all the children of divorce become shooters, but the statistic is so high with regard to those who do become shooters, that it cannot be ignored.

In order that a young person take out his frustrations with life by shooting up innocent people, he must be very seriously troubled inside. These youths do not come from stable and normal families. Their trouble stems from the home itself.

So instead of banning guns, why not ban divorce?

While these shootings are indeed horrifying, they do not account for the principal cause of the deaths of young people. In 2015, 2,333 teens in the United States ages 16–19 were killed and 235,845 were treated in emergency rooms for injuries suffered in motor vehicle crashes. That means that six teens ages 16–19 died every day from motor vehicle injuries. In that same year there were 2,372 teen suicides.

Statistics vary, but it is clear that the biggest of teens is not the gun but the automobile and their own hand.

If we follow the logic of the “gun-grabbers,” as they are called, it is the automobile that should first be grabbed. For not only do these teens kill themselves in these crashes, but also kill others through reckless, drunken, or distracted driving. The total number of people killed in teen-driver accidents in 2015 was 4,689.

Yet no one ever thinks of taking the keys away from teenagers. The reason for all of the bloodletting among teenage drivers is lack of discipline in the home, the plague of society since the 1960’s.

So mass shootings, from the point of view of teen deaths, takes very much the back seat in regard to teen automobile deaths and suicides. Yet all of these could be prevented by order and discipline in the home.

According to liberal logic, cell phones ought to be grabbed as well, as these are the cause of many accidents.

That responsible citizens be armed is a healthy thing. Indeed many of these slaughters could have been prevented if more people had been carrying guns. I am of the opinion, however, that the semi-automatic weapons should be restricted and sold only to persons who are sane, mature, and law-abiding citizens. To me it is wrong that any eighteen year old could, without previous ascertainment of his mental and moral stability, legally purchase such a gun.

That said, I must add that the problem in admitting any kind of gun control makes an argument for the Liberals to take away all guns. They are fanatical in this regard. By being radical, the Liberals defeat their own goals, since the Right knows that the admission of a single compromise on gun control means opening the door to the confiscation of all guns, owing to the unrelenting mania of the Liberals.

Invalidity of the Novus Ordo Missae

March 23rd, 2018 by Vigilo

from CMRI

A Reply to William Most’s Defense of the Novus Ordo

* This article originally appeared in the Fall 1977 issue (#29) of The Reign of Mary. It was recently reprinted in a special commemorative issue (#100) of the same magazine, along with several other of the most significant articles from the past three decades.


The editor was asked to reply and comment on a series of articles written by William Most, S.J., defending the Novus Ordo Missae against objections. We have taken the liberty to publish portions of the reply in this issue, as it may well serve to answer the questions of many who have doubts on the subject. Most, you see, has for his major premise in his arguments (and he repeats it many times) the assumption that the Teaching Authority of the Church has decided that the Novus Ordo is a valid Mass; as we must obey the Church, he concludes that we must accept the Novus Ordo. All the arguments he adds are merely, by his own admission, to strengthen that just stated and are inconclusive in themselves. Obviously, his arguments are quite strong against the pseudo-conservatives who accept the authority of Paul VI and the heretical bishops who have no authority whatsoever. We, in this publication and in others on our booklist, have shown conclusively that Montini was ineligible for the Papacy due to his earlier heresies. All that remains for us is to refute Most’s backup arguments and, in so doing, to bring up some important proof that the Novus Ordo is invalid.

The Words of Consecration: What is Essential?

Most argues that since the words “for many” are omitted in the accounts of the Last Supper given in the Gospel of St. Luke and in the First Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians, and are also lacking in the writings of some early Church Fathers on the Mass, these words must not be essential in the words of Consecration (the form of the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist). Now, in fact, none of the Gospels, Epistles, or the writings quoted by Most state any intention of giving the precise words of the Consecration (although the fact that St. Matthew and St. Mark do have the words “for many” proves conclusively that Our Lord actually spoke them).

What really matters, though, is the Church’s teaching on the forms of the Sacraments. Put very simply, the Church teaches that both the matter and form of any Sacrament must signify what the Sacrament effects. This doctrine is explained and practically applied in the Bull of Pope Leo XIII, Apostolicae Curae(on the Invalidity of Anglican Orders):

“All know that the sacraments of the New Law, as sensible and efficient signs of invisible grace, ought both to signify the grace they effect, and effect the grace they signify. Although the signification ought to be found in the whole essential rite — that is to say, in the matter and form — it still pertains chiefly to the form… the words which until recently were commonly held by Anglicans to constitute the proper form of priests Ordination — namely, ‘Receive the Holy Ghost,’ certainly do not in the least definitely express the Sacred Order of the Priesthood, or its grace and power… That form consequently cannot be considered apt or sufficient for the sacrament which omits what it ought essentially to signify.”

Actually, the matter was settled long ago when the Church defined, the Decree to the Jacobites (to be quoted later) and in the De Defectibus Decree, that the form of the Holy Eucharist is the full form as given in the Missale Romanum.Concerning the form it states:

“Defects may arise in respect of the form, if anything is wanting to complete the actual words of the consecration. The words of consecration, which are the formative principle of this Sacrament, are as follows: ‘For this is My Body,’ and ‘For this is the Chalice of My Blood of the New and Everlasting Testament; the Mystery of Faith, which shall be shed for you and for many unto the remission of sins.’ If any omission or alteration is made in the formula of consecration of the Body and Blood, involving a change of meaning, the consecration is invalid. An addition made without altering the meaning does not invalidate the consecration, but the celebrant commits a grave sin.”

Thus, to omit the word “for” (enim) does not involve a change of meaning, but this is not the case with other words, and especially, “which shall be shed for you and for many unto the remission of sins.” For these words clearly signify the grace which is conferred. On the contrary, the words, “For this is the Chalice of My Blood,” standing alone, do not signify the conferring of the grace of the Sacrament.

“Many” vs. “All”

That which is really in question in regard to the Novus Ordo is whether the change from “for many” to “for all men” involves a change of meaning or not. Most argues it does not. He reasons that the Greek word “polloi,” used by the Evangelists in the accounts of the Last supper (meaning “for many”), is used in other parts of Scripture to mean “all of a large group” (or “all who are many,” as Most puts it); thus, to translate it “for all” is really the same as “for many.”

But, if we examine the actual usage in the Novus Ordo, we find “for all men” in English. We do not find “for all who are many,” but “for all men,” period. Now by no stretch of the imagination can “for all men” mean the same as “for many” or even “for all who are many.” The last two phrases refer to the members of a large exclusive group; “for all men” is exclusive of no one. “For all men” is the official English translation of the Vatican II church.

The Catechism of the Council of Trent explains why “for many,” i.e., the exclusive group, must be used:

“Looking to the efficacy of the Passion, we believe that the Redeemer shed His Blood for the salvation of all men; but looking to the advantages which mankind derive from its efficacy, we find, at once, that they are not extended to the whole, but to a large proportion of the human race… With great propriety, therefore, were the words, ‘for all,’ not used, because here (in the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist) the fruit of the Passion is alone spoken of, and to the elect only did His Passion bring the fruit of salvation.”

Thus, the “many” are those who actually receive the fruit of the Holy Eucharist and the Mass; for the Mass is the unbloody renewal of Christ’s Sacrifice on Calvary. (We refer the reader to the article, Res Sacramenti, by Patrick Henry Omlor).

Now it becomes even more obvious that “for all men” bears no relation to the effect of the Sacrament; all men’s souls do not receive the fruit of the Passion. Here is a clear illustration from another Sacrament: if a priest were to say, in baptizing an infant, “I baptize all men, in the Name of the Father, etc.,” even though he had the right intention, would the Baptism be valid? Assuredly not, and Most would be the first to say so. This point should be obvious then: in the Novus Ordo, the words “for all men” do not signify those for whom the Holy Eucharist effects grace; thus, for this defect alone, it is invalid.

Intention of the Priest: To Offer Sacrifice

To the editor’s thinking, the most damning evidence against the Novus Ordo is its official definition: “The Lord’s Supper or Mass is a sacred meeting or assembly of the People of God, met together under the presidency of the priest, to celebrate the memorial of the Lord (No. 7, Institution Generalis, c. 2: De Structura Missae).”

Most claims that he can show us the references to sacrifice in the Novus Ordo, few though they may be. But in the Critical Study of the Novus Ordo Missae(submitted by Cardinal Ottaviani to Paul VI as a protest against the New Mass), there is asked, “Which sacrifice is referred to? Who is the offerer?” No answer is given to either of these questions.

Let us examine these few references to the “Eucharistic Prayers.” In Prayer I (called the “Roman canon” because it is the least heretical), there are about a half dozen references to sacrifice of some sort. But what sort of sacrifice is it one of propitiation for sins, which the true Mass must be? Assuredly not; there is not one mention of the remission of sins. In Eucharistic Prayer II there is only, “… we offer you, Father, this life-giving bread, this saving cup.” In Eucharistic Prayer III, which sounds like a Baptist service, the “offering” has already “reconciled” us to the Father. It has already “made our peace” with God. Is this a sacrifice of propitiation? It is not; it is a Protestant “salvation rally.” Eucharistic Prayer IV is even worse; now, the “sacrifice” brings “salvation to the whole world” (to “all men”).

If a priest intends to offer a “memorial” instead of a Sacrifice of propitiation, his intention is invalid. In Apostolicae Curae, Pope Leo XIII taught:

“…if the rite [in this case, of the Mass and Holy Eucharist] be changed, with the manifest intention of introducing another rite not approved by the Church and of rejecting what the Church does, and what by institution of Christ belongs to the nature of the Sacrament, then it is clear that not only is the necessary intention wanting to the sacrament, but that the intention is adverse to and destructive of the Sacrament.”

Pope Eugene IV

Most states that Pope Eugene IV “ordered the words ‘pro multis’ inserted in the words of consecration.” He reasons that they must have been frequently omitted before, but asks, “Did Christ so desert His Church as to let many Masses be invalid before the 15th century and Pope Eugene?” This is a clever bit of sophistry. For Eugene IV did not order these words inserted in the Catholic Mass, but rather issued these decrees in union with the Council of Florence, to the schismatic Greeks, Armenians and Jacobites. These decrees (particularly those to the Jacobites) demand that these schismatics be questioned as to their orthodoxy in a number of areas before they could be reconciled to the true Church. In fact, the Decree to the Jacobites defined:

“In the consecration of the Body of the Lord is used this form of words: ‘For this is My Body’; but for the Blood: ‘For this is the chalice of My Blood, of the New and Everlasting Testament; the Mystery of Faith, which shall be shed for you and for many unto the remission of sins.’”

from CMRI

From the Catechism of the Council of Trent

Constituent Parts of the Eucharist

It is particularly incumbent on pastors to know the matter of this Sacrament, in order that they themselves may rightly consecrate it, and also that they may be able to instruct the faithful as to its significance, inflaming them with an earnest desire of that which it signifies.

The first element of the Eucharist is bread.

The matter of this Sacrament is twofold. The first element is wheaten bread, of which we shall now speak. Of the second we shall treat hereafter. As the Evangelists, Matthew, Mark and Luke testify, Christ the Lord took bread into His hands, blessed, and broke, saying: This is My body (Matt. 26:26; Mark 14:22; Luke 22:19); and, according to John, the same Savior called Himself bread in these words: I am the living bread, that came down from heaven (John 6:41).

The sacramental bread must be wheaten.

There are, however, various sorts of bread, either because they consist of different materials — such as wheat, barley, pulse and other products of the earth; or because they possess different qualities — some being leavened, others altogether without leaven. It is to be observed that, with regard to the former kinds, the words of the Savior show that the bread should be wheaten; for, according to the common usage, when we simply say bread, we are sufficiently understood to mean wheaten bread. This is also declared by a figure in the Old Testament, because the Lord commanded that the loaves of proposition, which signified this Sacrament, should be made of fine flour.1

The sacramental bread should be unleavened.

But as wheaten bread alone is to be considered the proper matter for this Sacrament — a doctrine which has been handed down by Apostolic tradition and confirmed by the authority of the Catholic Church — so it may be easily inferred from the doings of Christ the Lord that this bread should be unleavened. It was consecrated and instituted by Him on the first day of unleavened bread, on which it was not lawful for the Jews to have anything leavened in their houses (Matt. 26:17; Mark 14:12; Luke 22:7).

Should the authority of John the Evangelist (John 13:1), who says that all this was done before the feast of the Passover, be objected to, the argument is one of easy solution. For by the day before the pasch John understands the same day which the other Evangelists designate the first day of unleavened bread. He wished particularly to mark the natural day, which commences at sunrise; whereas they wanted to point out that our Lord celebrated the Pasch on Thursday evening just when the days of the unleavened bread were beginning. Hence St. Chrysostom2 also understands the first day of unleavened bread to be the day on the evening of which unleavened bread was to be eaten.3

The peculiar suitableness of the consecration of unleavened bread to express that integrity and purity of mind which the faithful should bring to this Sacrament we learn from these words of the Apostle: Purge out the old leaven, that you may be a new paste, as you are unleavened. For Christ our Passover is sacrificed. Therefore, let us feast, not with the old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth (1 Cor. 5:7).

Unleavened bread not essential.

This quality of the bread, however, is not to be deemed so essential that, if it be wanting, the Sacrament cannot exist; for both kinds are called by the one name and have the true and proper nature of bread. No one, however, is at liberty on his own private authority, or rather presumption, to transgress the laudable rite of his Church. And such departure is the less warrantable in priests of the Latin Church, expressly obliged as they are by the Supreme Pontiffs, to consecrate the sacred mysteries with unleavened bread only.

Quantity of the bread.

With regard to the first matter of this Sacrament, let this exposition suffice. It is, however, to be observed, that the quantity of the matter to be consecrated is not defined, since we cannot define the exact number of those who can or ought to receive the sacred mysteries.4

The second element of the eucharistic wine.

It remains for us to treat of the other matter and element of this Sacrament, which is wine pressed from the fruit of the vine, with which is mingled a little water.

That in the institution of this Sacrament our Lord and Savior made use of wine has been at all times the doctrine of the Catholic Church, for He Himself said: I will not drink from henceforth of this fruit of the vine until that day (Matt. 26:29; Mark 14:25). On this passage Chrysostom5 observes: He says, “Of the fruit of the vine,” which certainly produced wine not water; as if he had it in view, even at so early a period, to uproot the heresy which asserted that in these mysteries water alone is to be used.

Water should be mixed with the wine.

With the wine, however, the Church of God has always mingled water. First, because Christ the Lord did so, as is proved by the authority of the Councils and the testimony of St. Cyprian;6 next, because by this mixture is renewed the recollection of the blood and water that issued from His side. Water, also, as we read in the Apocalypse (17:15), signify the people; and hence, water mixed with the wine signifies the union of the faithful with Christ their Head. This rite, derived as it is from Apostolic tradition, the Catholic Church has always observed.

But although there are reasons so grave for mingling it in small quantity, for, in the opinion and judgment of ecclesiastical writers, that water is changed into wine. Hence these words of Pope Honorius7 on the subject: A pernicious abuse has prevailed in your district of using in the sacrifice a greater quantity of water than of wine; whereas, according to the rational practice of the universal Church, the wine should be used in much greater quantity than the water.8

No other elements pertain to this Sacrament.

These, then, are the only two elements of this Sacrament, and with reason has it been enacted by many decrees that, although there have been those who were not afraid to do so, it is unlawful to offer anything but bread and wine.

Peculiar fitness of bread and wine.

We have now to consider the aptitude of these two symbols of bread and wine to represent those things of which we believe and confess they are the sensible signs.

In the first place, then, they signify to us Christ, as the true life of men; for our Lord Himself says: My flesh is meat indeed, and My blood is drink indeed (John 6:55). As, then, the Body of Christ the Lord furnishes nourishment unto eternal life to those who receive this Sacrament with purity and holiness, rightly is the matter composed chiefly of those elements by which our present life is sustained, in order that the faithful may easily understand that the mind and soul are satisfied by the Communion of the precious Body and Blood of Christ.

These very elements serve also somewhat to suggest to men the truth of the Real Presence of the Body and Blood of the Lord in the Sacrament. Observing, as we do, that bread and wine are every day changed by the power of nature into human flesh and blood, we are led the more easily by this analogy to believe that the substance of the bread and wine is changed, by the heavenly benediction, into the real Flesh and real Blood of Christ.

This admirable change of the elements also helps to shadow forth what takes place in the soul. Although no change of the bread and wine appears externally, yet their substance is truly changed into the flesh and blood of Christ; so, in like manner, although in us nothing appears changed, yet we are renewed inwardly unto life, when we receive in the Sacrament of the Eucharist the true life.

Moreover, the body of the Church, which is one, consists of many members, and of this union nothing is more strikingly illustrative than the elements of bread and wine; for bread is made from many grains and wine is pressed from many clusters of grapes. Thus they signify that we, though many, are most closely bound together, by the bond of this divine mystery and made, as it were, one body.9


The form to be used in the consecration of the bread is next to be treated of, not, however, in order that the faithful should be taught these mysteries, unless necessity require it; for this knowledge is not needful for those who have not received Holy Orders. The purpose (of this section) is to guard against most shameful mistakes on the part of priests, at the time of the consecration, due to ignorance of the form.

Form to be used in the Consecration of the bread.

We are then taught by the holy Evangelists, Matthew and Luke, and also by the Apostle, that the form consists of these words: This is my body; for it is written: Whilst they were at supper, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and broke, and gave to his disciples, and said: Take and eat, This is My Body (Matt. 26:26; Mark 14:23; Luke 22:10; 1 Cor. 11:24).

This form of consecration having been observed by Christ the Lord has been always used by the Catholic Church. The testimonies of the Fathers, the enumeration of which would be endless, and also the decree of the Council of Florence, which is well known and accessible to all, must here be omitted, especially as the knowledge which they convey may be obtained from these words of the Savior: Do this for a commemoration of Me (Luke 22:19). For what the Lord enjoined was not only what He had done, but also what He had said; and especially is this true, since the words were uttered not only to signify, but also to accomplish.

That these words constitute the form is easily proved from reason also. The form is that which signifies what is accomplished in the Sacrament; but as the preceding words signify and declare what takes place in the Eucharist, that is, the conversion of the bread into the true Body of our Lord, it therefore follows that these very words constitute the form. In this sense may be understood the words of the Evangelist: He blessed; for they seem equivalent to this: Taking bread, He blessed it, saying: “This is My Body” (Matt. 26:26).

Not all the words used are essential.

Although in the Evangelist the words, Take and eat, precede the words (This is My body), they evidently express the use only, not the consecration, of the matter. Wherefore, while they are not necessary to the consecration of the Sacrament, they are by all means to be pronounced by the priest, as is also the conjunction for in the consecration of the Body and Blood. But they are not necessary to the validity of the Sacrament, otherwise it would follow that if this Sacrament were not administered to anyone, it should not, or indeed could not, be consecrated; whereas, no one can lawfully doubt that the priest, by pronouncing the words of our Lord according to the institution and practice of the Church, truly consecrates the proper matter of the bread, even though it should afterwards never be administered.

Form to be used in the Consecration of the wine.

With regard to the consecration of the wine, which is the other element of this Sacrament, the priest, for the reason we have already assigned, ought of necessity to be well acquainted with, and well understand its form. We are then firmly to believe that it consists in 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, to the remission of sins.10 Of these words, the greater part are taken from Scripture; but some have been preserved in the Church from apostolic tradition.

Thus the words, this is the chalice, are found in St. Luke and in the Apostle (Luke 12:20; 1 Cor. 11:25); but the words that immediately follow, of My Blood, or my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for you and for many to the remission of sins, are found partly in St. Luke and partly in St. Matthew (Luke 22:20; Matt. 26:28). But the words, eternal, and the mystery of faith, have been taught us by holy tradition, the interpreter and keeper of Catholic truth.

Concerning this form no one can doubt, if he here also attend in what has been already said about the form used in the consecration of the bread. The form to be used (in the consecration) of this element evidently consists of those words which signify that the substance of the wine is changed into the Blood of our Lord. Since, therefore, the words already cited clearly declare this, it is plain that no other words constitute the form.

They moreover express certain admirable fruits of the Blood shed in the Passion of our Lord, fruits which pertain in a most special manner to this Sacrament. Of these, one is access to the eternal inheritance, which has come to us by right of the new and everlasting testament. Another is access to righteousness by the mystery of faith; for God hath set forth Jesus to be a propitiator through faith in His Blood, that He Himself may be just, and the justifier of him, who is of the faith of Jesus Christ” (Rom. 3:25). A third effect is the remission of sins.

Explanation of the form used in the Consecration of the wine.

Since these very words of consecration are replete with mysteries and most appropriately suitable to the subject, they demand a more minute consideration.

The words: This is the chalice of My Blood, are to be understood to mean. This is My Blood, which is contained in this chalice. The mention of the chalice made at the consecration of the Blood is right and appropriate, inasmuch as the Blood is the drink of the faithful, and this would not be sufficiently signified if it were not contained in some drinking vessel.

Next follow the words: Of the new testament. These have been added that we might understand the Blood of Christ the Lord to be given not under a figure, as was done in the Old Law, of which we read in the Epistle to the Hebrews (9:18) that without blood a testament is not dedicated; but to be given to men in truth and in reality, as becomes the New Testament.11 Hence the Apostle says: Christ therefore is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of His death, they who are called may receive the promise of eternal inheritance (Heb. 9:15).

The word eternal refers to the eternal inheritance, the right to which we acquire by the death of Christ the Lord, the eternal testator.

The words mystery of faith, which are subjoined, do not exclude the reality, but signify that what lies hidden and concealed and far removed from the perception of the eye, is to be believed with firm faith. In this passage, however, these words bear a meaning different from that which they have when applied also to Baptism. Here the mystery of faith consists in seeing by faith the Blood of Christ veiled under the species of wine; but Baptism is justly called by us the Sacrament of faith, by the Greeks, the mystery of faith, because it embraces the entire profession of the Christian faith.

Another reason why we call the Blood of the Lord the mystery of faith is that human reason is particularly beset with difficulty and embarrassment when faith proposes to our belief that Christ the Lord, the true Son of God, at once God and man, suffered death for us, and this death is designated by the Sacrament of His Blood.

Here, therefore, rather than at the consecration of His Body, is appropriately commemorated the Passion of our Lord, by the words which shall be shed for the remission of sins. For the Blood, separately consecrated, serves to place before the eyes of all, in a more forcible manner, the Passion of our Lord, His death, and the nature of His sufferings.

The additional words for you and for many, are taken, some from Matthew, some from Luke (Matt. 26:28; 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 from 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 from 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 purport of the Apostle (Heb. 9:28) when he says: Christ was offered once to exhaust the sins of many; and also of the words of our Lord in John: I pray for them; I pray not for the world, but for them whom thou hast given me, because they are thine (John 17:9).

Beneath the words of this consecration lie hid many other mysteries, which by frequent mediation and study of sacred things, pastors will find it easy, with the divine assistance, to discover for themselves.

1The loaves of proposition, or shew-breads, were twelve loaves of unleavened bread placed in the Holy of Holies and renewed every Saturday. Their purpose was to show forth the gratitude of the twelve tribes to the Lord, their sustenance and strength.
2In Matt. Hom. lxxxi. n.1
3For an explanation of the time when our Lord kept His last Pasch and instituted the Holy Eucharist see Callan, The Four Gospels, pages 167-171.
4On the bread used for the Eucharist see Summa Theol. 3a, lxxiv. 1-4
5In Matt. Hom. lxxxii, n.2
6Ep. lxxii.
7Decret. lib. iii, 41. c. 12
8On the wine used for the Eucharist see Summa Theol. 32, lxxiv. 5-8
9On the necessity and fitness of the matter of the Eucharist, see Summa Theol. 34. lxxiv. I; on the matter of the Eucharist see St. Alphonsus, Theol. Mor. vi. 194-219; Code of Canon Law, canons 814-817.
10Decret. bb. iii. tit. 41. c 6.
11Christ is present in the Eucharist not merely in sign or in figure, but in truth and in reality (Council of Trent, Sess. xiii, cap. 1)

from Novus Ordo Watch

From Protestant Pastor to Sedevacantist:
One Man’s Journey of Faith

Mr. Andrew Emmans at the Fatima Conference 2017 in Spokane, Washington

Do not think for a minute that with all the chaos and confusion we have to endure in these bizarre and wicked times, God’s grace is not plentifully available or fruitfully at work. Today no less than at any time past, God “will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth” (1 Tim 2:4); and “where sin abounded, grace did more abound” (Rom 5:20).

This divinely revealed truth is beautifully illustrated in the conversion story of Mr. Andrew Emmans, who set out as an Evangelical Protestant and, motivated by a sincere desire to know and do God’s holy will no matter the consequences, eventually found his way home to the true Roman Catholic Church after a detour through the conservative wing of the Vatican II Sect.

During last year’s Fatima Conference sponsored by the Congregation of Mary Immaculate Queen(CMRI) in Spokane, Washington, Drew Emmans, pictured above, presented in an entertaining way his beautiful conversion story, demonstrating that divine grace can help us overcome every obstacle.

With the kind permission of Mr. Emmans, we are making the audio of his talk available to you. Listen to his exciting 1-hour presentation and be sure to share it with friends and family:

A Family’s Journey of Faith
by Drew Emmans (Oct. 14, 2017)

(Alternate download link: click here)

A transcript of Mr. Emmans’ talk was printed in two parts in recent issues of The Four Marks.

For more talks from this conference, or to purchase them on CD, and to view photos of the gathering, please see the following links:

Pray much for the conversion of sinners, especially the Holy Rosary, as Our Lady of Fatima instructed us. Yes, even in these dark times, conversions are possible because grace is never lacking. We have put together a few helpful guides for prospective converts and Catholics looking for assistance while the Church is in eclipse:

Never doubt the goodness, love, and providence of God. He who made you has made you for Eternal Bliss, and He will not abandon you if you cooperate with the graces He so freely and lavishly bestows upon you: “And of his fulness we all have received, and grace for grace” (Jn 1:16).

We therefore have every reason to be “confident of this very thing, that he, who hath begun a good work in you, will perfect it unto the day of Christ Jesus” (Phil 1:6).

Quo Primum | Pope St. Pius V

March 13th, 2018 by Vigilo

Decree of Pope St. Pius V on the Roman Missal


July 14, 1570

At the very beginning when We had been raised to the summit of the Apostolate [elected Pope], We earnestly bent Our attention and Our energies, and directed Our thoughts to those matters that pertained to the maintenance of the purity of the Church’s worship and to provide these, and with God’s help, We have striven with all possible diligence to produce them.

And since among other decrees of the Sacred Council of Trent decisive measures were to be taken by Us for the publishing and improving the sacred books, the Catechism, the Missal and the Breviary; now that the Catechism has already been edited with God’s help, for the instruction of the people, and since the Breviary has been amended for pure praise to God, it is by all means right and proper that the Missal correspond to the Breviary, since it is most fitting that in the Church there be unity in the manner of singing [the praises] of God and the ritual for the celebration of Mass, it naturally seemed necessary to Us that in regard to that which still remained of this project that We direct Our thoughts as soon as possible to produce and publish the very Missal itself.

Therefore We deemed that this laborious task was to be entrusted to select men of erudition; these men did indeed diligently compare everything with the ancient [documents] of our Vatican library and with other [documents, historical evidences, etc.] codices that had been amended and were incorrupt and that they had sought out on all sides; moreover, after they had consulted the writings of the ancients and of approved authors who have handed down to us memorials of the sacred institution and of the rites that they used, they restored the Missal itself and the ritual to the pristine [original] norm of the Holy Fathers.

We examined this critically [authenticated it, certified it] and amended it. Then after mature deliberation in order that from this project, after the task had been started, all may derive benefit, We have ordered that it be printed in Rome as soon as possible, and after it is printed that it be issued. This has been done so that the priests may understand, know what prayers to use, what ritual, what ceremonies they are to retain in the celebration of Mass in the future.

But in order that what has been handed down by the most holy Roman Church, the Mother and Teacher of the rest of the churches, may be accepted and observed by all everywhere, We forbid [translation of We] that henceforth for all future times in all the patriarchal [churches] of the provinces of the entire Christian world, in all cathedrals, in all secular collegiate and parish churches, and in the churches of any orders, in the churches of monasteries of both men and women, and also regulars of military orders, and both chapels and churches without any care of souls, in which the conventual Mass is sung aloud with the choir or is said silently and is said regularly or is required to be said according to the rite of the Roman Church, [We forbid] that Mass be sung or recited in any other way than according to the formula of the Missal issued by Us; [this prohibition holds] even though these churches are exempt in any way whatever, whether by an apostolic indult, by custom, by privilege, also [if exempt] by oath, by apostolic confirmation or if they are protected by other faculties of any kind whatesoever; unless [this faculty or exemption] was approved by the Apostolic See from the very beginning of the institution, either by custom, or which very institution of celebrating Mass has been faithfully observed in the same churches for more than two hundred years; from these We in no way, by no means, take away the constitution or custom of celebrating as in the above-mentioned constitution. We make this provision so that if this Missal which We have had issued should please these more, they could with the consent of the Bishop, or of their Prelate, or of a General Chapter, all things to the contrary notwithstanding, celebrate Mass according to this Missal; this We permit. But from all other churches above mentioned We remove [condemn] the use of their Missals, and wholly and entirely reject them, and We decree under penalty of Our indignation that never at any time is anything to be added, subtracted or changed; this We determine and ordain to hold in perpetuity by virtue of this constitution. We strictly command, and We issue this command by virtue of holy obedience, that they set aside wholly and entirely in the future all other observances [rationibus] and rites and Missals, no matter how ancient they may be that they have been accustomed to use, that they reject them entirely, and that they sing and read Mass according to the rite, the mode and the norm of this Missal which is now being issued by Us; and let them not presume to add or recite other ceremonies and prayers in the celebration of Mass than those that are contained in this Missal.

And in perpetuity We grant and permit that they may by all means use this Missal in singing or reciting Mass in any church whatsoever without any scruple of conscience, without incurring any penalties, sentences, or censures; in order that they may be able to do this and be able to use this Missal freely and lawfully, We by virtue of Our Apostolic Office, and by virtue of this present document, We grant and permit this forever.

No one may be required to offer Holy Mass in another way than has been determined by Us; no one, neither Pastors [Praesules], Administrators, Canons, Chaplains, and other secular priests of whatever Order; and We likewise determine and declare [i.e. officially command] that no one be compelled or pressured by anyone to change this Missal, or that this letter should ever be recalled or its effectiveness be restrained [moderari] but that it may always stand firm and strong in all its vigor [in suo existant robore].

All this holds notwithstanding previous Apostolic constitutions and regulations, also notwithstanding the general and special constitutions issued by Provincial and Synodal Councils, notwithstanding also the regulations made by these and the use made by the above-mentioned churches, and sanctioned by very long and immemorial custom [praescriptione] unless they be sanctioned by more than two hundred years custom; by whatever contrary statue or custom [they may have been introduced].

Now We will and decree by virtue of the same authority that after the issue of this constitution and Missal that the priests who are present in the Roman Curia be bound to sing and say Mass according to it after a month; those on this side of the mountain [Cismontani] will be bound after three months; those beyond the mountains [Ultramontani] will be bound after six months.

In order that this may remain unchanged and free from corrections and errors, We forbid under pain of penalties that a Missal be printed and issued without Our permission or the special permission of the commission to be set up for this [issuance of the Missal] in those places by Us [where Missals are to be issued]; by the same commission the exemplar [copy] of the Missal is to be given to the printer and this exemplar the printer is to use as a guide for other printings; this Missal is to be compared with and made to conform with the Missal printed in Rome, according to its grant printing; it must be ascertained first that it in no way disagrees with this [Roman exemplar]. By virtue of Our Apostolic Authority and by virtue of the present letter, We forbide that anyone dare or presume to print, offer to others or receive a Missal [when these prescriptions had been violated]. Penalties for those mediately or immediately under the dominion of the S.R.M. Holy Roman Church are confiscation of the books and 200 gold ducats to be paid to the Apostolic treasure, by the very fact [of violating this requirement]; the penalty for others living in other parts of the world is excommunication [latae sententiae; i.e. the sentence is already passed], the other penalties according to Our discretion. The purpose of this is that no Missal be printed and issued without Our permission or that of the Commission to be set up in various parts of the world.

[Here a few measures are stated to be taken for the communication of the decree. Wherever this letter is published it must be signed and sealed by due authority so that it carries with it the same weight of authority as this letter in Rome.]

No one is allowed to go contrary to this letter [paginam] which expresses Our permission, statute, regulation, mandate, precept, grant, indult declaration, or will and Our decree and prohibition; no one is allowed to act against it with rashness or temerity. But if anyone would presume to attempt this, let him know that he will incur the wrath [indignation] of Almighty God and of Saints Peter and Paul, His Apostles.

Given at St. Peter’s, Rome, in the year of Our Lord’s Incarnation one thousand five hundred and seventy, on the fourteenth day of July in the fifth year of Our Pontificate.

Pius PP. V