The following begins a series critiquing the new "Mass" as it was in 1967 by Patrick Henry Omlar. Keep in mind that the consecration formula was even more mutilated in 1969 after this publication so the latest corruption is not even addressed here:
http://sedevacantist.com/newmass/qtvjmcn.htmFOREWORD
by Rev. Lawrence S. Brey
Was October 22, 1967 the most ominous and frightening day in the two-thousand-year history of the Catholic Church, and certainly in the history of the Church in the United States of America? Did that day see a legalized contradiction of hitherto inviolate decrees and norms guarding the Canon of the Mass? Did it possibly even bring a new era of darkness into the world, the extinguishing of the true sacrificial and sacramental Eucharistic Christ from the majority of our churches?
During the early days of agitation for the introduction of the Vernacular into the Mass, and even during the climax of the movement, when the matter was debated at the First Session of Vatican Council II (1962), Catholics were always assured that even if the vernacular should be introduced, the Canon would remain untouched, in its centuries-old, inviolate Latin form. And rightly so, for the Canon is the heart and center and essence of the Eucharistic Sacrifice. But since the 1963 Liturgy Constitution's granting of permission to employ the vernacular in some parts of the Mass, a literal cascade of subsequent changes and increased vernacularization has now culminated in the introduction of the new, "English Canon," yielding what is, in effect, an all-vernacular Mass, (notwithstanding Article 36 of that same Constitution and the decrees of the Council of Trent). Thus, that which was heretofore and for thirteen centuries considered inviolate has now been touched and disturbingly altered. Something ominously different from the Canon we have always known now occupies the heart and center of our Catholic Worship.
Not since the introduction of the vernacular in parts of the Mass in 1964, has so much protest, with so many intense misgivings, been engendered, as has been by the introduction of this new, English Canon. How, infinitely more thundering this protest would be were it not for the fact that the clergy and the faithful have been gradually "conditioned" by change after change in recent years, - perhaps to the point of expecting change as the order of the day and the "mind of the Church"!
There are three main classes of objections to the new, English Canon: (1) That it contains many omissions, mistranslations and distortions, which offend against Catholic reverence, piety, and the integrity of the Faith. (2) That it is illicit, i.e., in violation of enduring and unrescinded decrees and teachings of previous Councils and Popes. (3) That it is invalid, i.e., that because of some radical mutilation it no longer confects or produces the true Sacrifice and Sacrament of the Eucharist. Such an alleged invalidity is by far the gravest and most crucial of all the objections, though this view is not shared by many or most of the Canon's critics. It is to the question of the validity of the "new Canon" - in the light of a mutilation of the Form of Consecration - that Patrick Henry Omlor devotes this treatise, "Questioning the Validity." We will come back to this shortly.
Regarding the first two objections to the new Canon - the faultiness of its translation and its alleged illicitness - much has been said and written already. A cursory study of the new Canon reveals approximately 50 omissions, 50 vague or inaccurate or distorted translations of phrases, words or clauses; and five or more additions of words or phrases not heretofore in the Canon. In addition, three references to key dogmas (the Divine Maternity of Mary, the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, and the Divinity of Christ) have been deleted from places where they had been explicitly incorporated in the text of the Canon. Other doctrines, too, are deemphasized or bypassed by way of omissions and mistranslations. A highly respected American theologian has stated that he would "never touch" the new Canon, and that "true priests and laymen will feel bound in conscience to continue to use the Latin (Canon), the sure norm of orthodoxy."
Regarding the allegation that the new Canon is in violation of several teachings and anathema-sanctioned canonical decrees of the Council of Trent, and of later docuмents of the Magisterium, much also has been heretofore presented, and the citations have yet to be refuted conclusively. For example: the new Canon embodies violations of Trent's prohibition of an all-vernacular Mass, and of the Canon being said aloud; also an implicit repudiation of Trent's upholding the relevance and piety of the ceremonies and external signs used in the Mass; and the Tridentine doctrine of the Integrity and Perfection of the traditional Roman Canon. "The Catholic Church," declared Trent, "in order that the Holy Sacrifice may be offered . . . in a dignified and reverent way, established the sacred Canon many centuries ago, so pure and free of all error that nothing is contained in it which does not in the greatest way inspire sanctity and certain piety, and raise the mind . . . to God . . . (The Canon consists) of our Lord's very words, and of prayers received from Apostolic tradition or piously ordained by the holy Pontiffs." Adrian Fortescue observed: "The Council of Trent ordered that 'the holy Canon composed many centuries ago' shall be kept pure and unchanged." It was the pure Canon restored by St. Pius V, remaining as it was in the days of St. Gregory I (6th century), and in fact going back far beyond his time into the mists of the Church's first centuries. Further, the new English Canon is in apparent violation of the Bull Quo Primum (1570) of St. Pius V, binding "in perpetuity," as well as in violation of the Apostolic Constitution, Veterum Sapientia (1962) of Pope John XXIII, and Article 36 of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy (1963).
So much for the first two classes of objections to the new English Canon: the gross defects in its translation, and its apparent illicitness. They are weighty and substantiated. But as reprehensible and disturbing as they are, and thoroughly justifying the NON-use of this Canon, they are not nearly so frightening and catastrophic as are the implication of a third objection, namely, that the new English Canon is INVALID. Some have made this charge on the basis of the deletion of certain key dogmas from the Canon, other mistranslations of the text, and the concomitant introduction of a so-called "New Eucharistic Theology," which in effect denies transubstantiation and the sacrificial nature of the Mass. However, given an accurately translated form of Consecration, the invalidity of a Mass using the new English Canon would, in spite of those factors, hinge on a defect of Intention on the part of a given priest-celebrant. If a priest's intent, in consecrating, is contrary to the "intention of the Church," then such a consecration would indeed be invalid. But if, in consecrating, he, has the intention of "doing what the Church does" (in consecrating), then his consecration will be valid - even if personally he be a heretic, or have no true Faith in the Eucharist or the true nature of the Mass. Thus, defect of intention, but not defect of faith, would be the factor invalidating his consecration - even if he used the traditional Latin Canon!
But there is a more clear-cut criterion on which arguments for or against the validity of the "new Canon" can be based, and that is whether the form of the Sacrament as it is rendered in the new "translation" (i.e., the words of Consecration), is valid or invalid. "Matter" and "form" are the essential components of the rite of a sacrament. Improper matter or a defective form does indeed invalidate the Sacrament. In the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist the matter is the bread and the wine, and the form consists of the words of Consecration. Since the new Canon (obviously) does not touch upon the matter, it is to the "new" form that we must look for possible defects and/or mutilations. Even more necessary than the specific matter (the "thing": res) is the specific form (the "words": verba), for the form is the "determining element" of the matter. Thus a change in the verba and their intent and meaning could imply the "determining" of the res in a manner other than that intended by Christ.
"Ideas have consequences!" an American philosopher so sagely observed. And, as words convey ideas, we must look to the words!
To this end, Patrick H. OmIor has contributed his efforts in this present treatise. To date, his is the first such study, to my knowledge, to demonstrate systematically and to docuмent the thesis that the new, English Canon is invalid by reason of defect of form - specifically, by reason of a mutilation in the English rendering of the Form for the Consecration of the Wine. I have thoroughly read and studied his manuscript, and I sincerely feel that, his study is worthy of serious consideration. It may well be crucial in solving the problem of the new English Canon. And by the very fact the question of the validity of the form has been raised, and apparently on genuine grounds, the issue must be thoroughly studied and resolved. For in the Sacraments, and above all in the Mass, nothing less than absolute certainty, or the medium certum, must be the norm governing their rites.
"We must see whether a change of words destroys the essential sense of the words," writes St. Thomas Aquinas, "because then the sacrament is clearly rendered invalid. (Summa Theologica, III, Q. 60. Art. 8). Are there mutilations in the new English form of Consecration, and do they destroy the "essential sense" of the words? The author of this treatise answers these questions affirmatively, in view of the deviations occurring in the "new form" for the consecration of the wine.
The author demonstrates that these mutilations delete the vital concept of the Eucharist's relationship to the Mystical Body of Christ, that they delete the intended efficacy and purpose of the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist, and that they are a falsification of Christ's words of Institution, which falsification distorts His intention and purposes in instituting and confecting the Sacrifice and Sacrament. He demonstrates that, as a necessary consequence, the form has been substantially or essentially mutilated; and that therefore the form has been rendered invalid; and, finally, that therefore any Masses using this new "English Canon" are invalid.
To support his thesis Mr. Omlor draws heavily on the teachings of St. Thomas Aquinas and the docuмents of the Magisterium of the Church, particularly the Council of Trent. Of especial importance are the passages he quotes from "The Catechism of the Council of Trent," a compendium of official Catholic doctrine which enjoys a unique and authoritative status - The Trent Catechism is "guaranteed to be orthodox by the Catholic Church and her supreme head on earth" says Dr. John Hagan of the Irish College in Rome.
St. Thomas Aquinas, as an authority on Eucharistic theology, deserves profound respect. Indeed, the Angelic Doctor received the singular endorsement of Christ Himself: "Bene scripsisti de Me, Thoma!" - "You have written well of Me, Thomas!" - words issuing from the Crucifix on the Altar before which Thomas was praying in Naples, a year before his death. Only shortly before this had he completed his treatise on the Eucharist. St. Thomas Aquinas is in a special way the Theologian of the Eucharist. It was he who was commissioned by the Pope to compose the Office and Mass for the Feast of Corpus Christi. Before appealing to contemporary theologians to "justify" the new, English Form of Consecration, must we not first study most carefully the teachings of the angelic doctor on this most vital of matters? "Bene scripsisti de Me, Thoma!"
The charge of invalidity of the new "English Canon" is a grave charge indeed; one that may not be made lightly or recklessly, and one that must be either totally refuted or totally substantiated. Most reprehensible, most irresponsible, and most harmful to souls would it be to make such a charge, or even raise the question publicly, if there were no reasonable foundation for such a charge or doubt. Likewise reprehensible would it be to ignore the possibility of invalidity if concrete evidence of form mutilation can be produced. As shall be shown, such evidence has been produced. This present treatise is a systematic study of these mutilations and their bearing on the entire form, and therefore on the entire Mass.
In practice, the very raising of questions or doubts about the validity of a given manner of confecting a sacrament - if this question is based on an apparent defect of matter or form - would necessitate the strict abstention from use of that doubtful manner of performing the sacramental act, until the doubts are resolved. In confecting the sacraments, all priests are obliged to follow the "medium certum."
From all appearances, a real mutilation has indeed been incorporated into the form of consecration in the new English Canon, a mutilation that conveys an apparent mutilation of meaning and concept. BUT, THE CHURCH NEVER CONTRADICTS HERSELF! The Church never contradicts herself, as Christ never contradicts Himself. For some ominous reason, present ecclesiastical developments, highlighted by the introduction of the new English Canon, seem to have slipped out of the hands of the Church's Magisterium! Was October 22, 1967, the beginning of an age of new darkness on the earth, and the harbinger of an unprecedented crisis within the Church? Was the Blessed Virgin's indication that the Rosary and Her Immaculate Heart would be our "last and final weapons" a hint that somehow the Holy Mass would at some point become no longer available to most Catholics?
The very fact that a question (let alone a certainty has been raised concerning the validity of the new English Canon and consecration form thoroughly vindicates the Church's traditional, absolute insistence that the essential forms of the sacraments always be pronounced only in the original Latin, as they appear inviolably in the Roman Ritual, Roman Missal, and Roman Pontifical. This insistence was aimed at preventing the very crisis which has now arisen! That is to say, it was aimed at safeguarding absolutely the integrity, essence and intent of the forms from the danger of invalidating mutilations.
Secondly, it vindicates the Church's insistence on the use of the teachings of St. Thomas Aquinas and Scholastic Philosophy, the "ancilla theologiae" (handmaid of Theology).
Thirdly, and above all, it vindicates the Church's insistence on the teachings of the Magisterium in these matters pertaining to the Sacraments, and especially the decrees of the Sacred Council of Trent and the Tridentine Catechism.
Can it be that we are now at last experiencing the ultimate and most fearsome consequences of abandoning these three providential instruments, in favor of vernacularism, muddled thinking and "new theology"? Do we now find in imminent danger of destruction the very heart and essence of our religion, the Holy Mass? With each of the gradual and growing changes and vernacularizations of the Mass since 1963, the proponents of change always assured us: "It's still the Mass!" Has the time now come (or, if not, will it soon be coming?) when, in truth, this can no longer be said?
I have written this Foreword, but what, exactly, is my position? It is not a position of unqualified and precipitous endorsement of Mr. Patrick Omlor's arguments and conclusions. Rather is it a call to intense mutual study of his thesis, and a serious examination of the very real mutilations introduced in the form of Consecration and their bearing on the validity of the Mass. If Mr. Omlor is wrong in his thesis and arguments, let him be refuted beyond the shadow of a doubt! If he is correct, may effective measures be taken immediately to restore the Mass, and place it back into the hands of the Magisterium. Or may God Himself intervene! If the matter remains in doubt, unsolved, then the only course of action is to take the pars tutior, indeed the "medium certum."
While considering the author's request that I write and sign this Foreword, I wavered and prayed and made no immediate decision. What finally decided the matter for me was my recollection of Our Lord's words: "Every one therefore that shall confess me before men, I will also confess him before my Father who is in heaven. But he that shall deny me before men, I will also deny him before my Father who is in heaven." (Matthew: 10,32-3). For the Mass and its integrity and particularly the Consecration and the Most Holy Sacrifice and Sacrament of the Body and Blood of the Lord, form the very heart and center of my priesthood and of the Faith I swore to profess, guard, and defend "to the last breath of my life."
L. S. B.
March 12, 1968
Feast of St. Gregory the Great
Topic: Questioni8203ng the Validity of the New Mass - Foreword (Read 367 times)