Brother Bugnolo's Theological Critique of The Great Sacrilege is posted Here



IN ANSWER TO BROTHER BUGNOLO

by Fr. James F. Wathen, OSJ

This is a response to the "Critique of the Great Sacrilege" (herein sometimes referred to as TGS), published by Brother Bugnolo on the Internet.

Brother's Critique runs fifty pages, although much of this is website material or blank space. The work is comprised of nineteen numbers of, varyingly, two, three, and four pages. It is not necessary to make a line-by-line answer of his criticism. My intention here is to show the main errors of his work. I am glad for the opportunity to make this response, because Brother's misapprensions are neither original nor uncommon. I would say that his "Critique" articulates the thinking of many Catholics, priests included, about whom it must be said, "They cannot see the forest for the trees," a statement I attempt to prove with this writing.

In section 4, on page 2, Brother writes: "All that is required [for a dogmatic or doctrinal definition] is that the Pope be teaching in matters of faith or morals in such a manner that he intended to teach a dogma or doctine which is to be believed by the faithful as pertaining to Catholic Teaching, in that he do this in his capacity as Roman Pontiff, Shepherd of the entire Church."

On the basis of this statement, Brother contends that Missale Romanum of Pope Paul VI of April 3, 1969, by which he introduced the Novus Ordo Missae, the "New Mass," is an infallible statement which must be accepted as Catholic teaching. "Therefore," he says, (in number 5, page 2) "it is not unreasonable to consider that the Missale Romanum promulgated by Pope Paul VI is protected by the charism of infallibility from containing anything formally heretical or erroneous."

These words go contrary to Paul VI's own words that the matter in question is not subject to infallible definition. I quote from his allocution dated November 30, 1969. It is found in TGS on page 58: "First of all, because ritual and rubrics are not, in themselves, a matter of dogmatic definition."

I remind the reader that the Church, and the Pope as its chief spokesman, have three major offices: those of teaching, governing, and sanctifying. Infallibility inheres only in the teaching office of the Church, not in governing, which incudes its legislation, nor in sanctifying, which includes its sacramental forms and liturgical books. The Novus Ordo Missae cannot be considered as an act of teaching, nor is the Apostolic Constitution, Missale Romanum, which, though it is not a valid or binding law, must be understood as an expression of papal governance. In TGS, I attempt, in chapter 5 (pp. 135-144), to show that the Pope does not establish the New Mass by law.

Finally, if Brother Bugnolo may argue that Missale Romanum is an infallible definition of Pope Paul VI, we may argue that Quo Primum of Pope St. Pius V was also. Were it so, it would be impossible to allow that the former pontifical pronouncement is such, since it contradicts the latter. I quote from Quo Primum: "Therefore, no one whosoever is permitted to alter this letter or heedlessly to venture to go contrary to this notice of Our permission, etc. ... Should anyone, however, presume to commit such an act, he should know that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul." Obviously, Pope Paul VI cannot be making an infallible pronouncement at the same time his is violating a similarly infallible pronouncement of his saintly predecessor.

In number 6, page 3, Brother Bugnolo attempts to prove that there can be nothing heretical, or suggestive of heresy, in the Novus Ordo Missae. He argues that the New Mass cannot contain theological error because it enjoys the "charism of infallibility." Furthermore, "if the Novus Ordo does not contain heresy or error, then consequently no priest who celebrates the Novus Ordo nor layman or religious who attends it can be charged with heresy or accepting error."

I respond that the chief argument of TGS is not based on the notion that Quo Primum is an infallible papal definition, which it cannot be, but on the fact that it is a law, a liturgical legislation, which binds all Catholics of the Roman Rite, including all St. Pius V's successors, in perpetuity.

That the Novus Ordo does contain "heterodox ambiguities," a term I use to describe the dishonesty of the language of the New Mass, is, to no small extent, the reason that, this many years afterward, the vast majority of Catholics of the Roman Rite have little notion of what the Catholic religion is, what the Mass is supposed to be, and little interest in finding out. The dishonesty of the New Mass is in its not saying very clearly what it is, why it exists, and how it differs in its doctrinal content from the True Mass. Its insidiousness is not in its explicit professions, but its its omissions. In this, the New Mass is like Protestantism, which has always denied Catholic doctrines by dropping all mention of them. TGS says that the priests of the Conciliar Establishment "are playing heretics by their effective denial of all those doctrines of the Faith which are given utterance in the 'Tridentine Mass,' but which have been deliberately and undeniably deleted in the 'new formulation' of the Mass. It is they [the priests] who have accepted the corruptions of the Sacred Canon of the Mass, as well as the very possibly invalidating new version of the Consecration Prayer." After thirty plus years, tens of thousands of Catholics laypeople have come to realize this, but very few priests. It is my prayer that Brother Bugnolo come to the same understanding.

The good Brother would have done us a better turn if he had explained how one could not see malice afoot in the contrivance of a liturgy which deliberately drops dozens of prayers wherein are expressed the sacred truths of the Redemptive and Eucharistic mysteries, instead of cloaking all with the penumbra of papal infallibility, which cannot possibly be invoked with respect to the Sacred Liturgy, any more than can be the binding force of the Ember day fast.

In number 9, which deals with St. Pius V's Quo Primum, Brother Bugnolo says (on page 2): "If Pope Paul VI can be blamed for the liturgical renewal, it cannot be strictly speaking because he promulgated a new Missal or abrogated the old, for in the [sic; I think he means 'this'] he has the authority of Christ.

Pope Paul VI had the authority of Christ to make minor and subordinate changes in the liturgy of the Mass: He had the authority to issue a new calendar, which has been done periodically; to institute feasts, to devise new Mass liturgies for new feasts, to change the rank of feasts, etc. He had no authority to institute a liturgy whose theology is more Protestant than Catholic, something which Protestants recognize. He had no such authority because, first of all, such an action is an attack on the Mass and its doctrine; and second, because, contrary to what most priests say, he was forbidden from doing so by the law. Like so many brainwashed Catholics, Brother Bugnolo thinks that the Pope's power and rights are limitless, and is bound by no law. The Pope is the most bound of all Catholics, because it is his duty to protect its truths and traditions, and enforce the laws of his predescessors. How can he enforce the laws of the Church with regard to his subjects, if he does not obey them himself?

Brother Bugnolo says of Pope Paul VI: (in number 19, page 2) "... there is, in the opinion of this author, no evidence in the external forum that Pope Paul VI intended to scandalize the faithful or to rob them of a spiritual treasure. Rather, from his writings and many talks it is clear that he hoped his enactment would bring great good to the Church."

Brother Bugnolo has a particularly advanced case of what in my book, Who Shall Ascend?, I call "popolatry," because he thinks that anything the Pope uses his power to do is guided, inspired, and protected by what he terms the "charism of infallibility," even if it is in direct violation of all the laws, customs, teachings, and traditions of the Church. Brother aspires to be a theologian; his much reading convinces us of this. It is unfortunate that he has not been able to read critically the public pronouncements of Pope Paul VI, to whom we are most indebted for the Novus Ordo Missae. It would be the grossest understatement to say that Pope Paul was a heretic; he was a destroyer, deliberate, determined, and (apparently) unrepentant. Until Brother develops a capacity to look at a man's writings and deeds, in the light of traditional Catholic doctrine, and without any reference to his office or his popular reputation, he will never be said to understand theology.

I am forced to question how carefully the good Brother has read the writings and allocutions of Pope Paul VI, which are a study in Aesopian "doublespeak." I would ask the Brother why Pope Paul wore the ephod, the symbol of the Jєωιѕн priesthood on any number of celebrative occasions, if he were concerned to spare the faithful scandal. The major question is, however, why did the Pope institute the New Mass at all? And when he began to get letters of question, sorrow, and disallusionment, and requests from priests for laicization, and reports of millions of Catholics discontinuing attendance of Mass altogether, why did he "hold the course," as if there were something brave and admirable in the Conciliar Cause? In the effort, Brother might attempt explain to me and everyone else why he feels some obligation to defend the Popes, particularly Pope Paul VI and Pope John Paul II, who carried through this Revolution without ever having made a serious effort to show either its necessity or its inspiration or its justification.

In number 10, Brother Bugnolo treats of "Papal Authority in regard to the Sacraments." These are his words (on page 2): "Hence it is clear that the Church and especially the Pope have authority to change the Mass. And since the excise [sic: exercise] of true authority implies no violation of right, the Pope's chage [sic: change] of the Mass or Missal, whether in large or small measure, cannot be a sacrilege. It is very important to note that whereas the Pope has such authority, which renders any change he enacts licit and legitimate; others who make unauthorized changes commit sin."

For the sake of the argument, if we concede that the pope, any pope, has the legal right, the authority, to change the liturgy of the Mass, we must still deal with the more important question of the morality of what Pope Paul VI actually did. If we grant that any pope has the right to institute a new liturgy, we cannot grant that any pope has the right to institute a liturgy which is not Catholic, a liturgy which differs from the one it replaced exactly in this respect, that the traditional liturgy is totally unacceptable to Protestants, who, in the spirit and tradition of the father of their religion, Martin Luther, abominate the concepts of expiation for sin and an Expiatory Sacrifice. Brother Bugnolo, like other Conciliarists, seems to have a mental block, which has prevented him from examining the Novus Ordo Missae for its theology. The obvious reason for this is that he is a "popolatrist," a word must serve to describe millions of Catholics who think that they may and must accept, defend, and embrace, as their own religion, anything and everything the reigning pope does.

At some future time, the good Brother is going to have to wake up to two facts: First, like the actions of everyone else, the actions of the pope are subject to moral scrutiny, because he is not impeccable. Second, neither is the pope personally infallible, so that it must be understood that if he be a heretic, and he chose to incorporate his false teaching into a "mass," which he wishes to impose on the whole Church -- or the Roman Rite (which is not the whole Church, but by far the largest Rite of the Church) -- he is morally forbidden to do so; and in attempting to do so, he commits a great sacrilege. There is not the slightest doubt that this is exactly what Pope Paul VI intended to do and what he did. Neither is there the slightest doubt that Pope Paul did this for any other reason than to alter the faith of the Catholic people from that which was basically orthodox to that which is basically humanistic. Neither again is there any doubt that Pope Paul did this as a part of a Revolutionary program whose ultimate goal was to adapt the Church and its people to the oncoming One World Government. When I say that there is no doubt about these things, I am not saying that they are generally known; I am saying these things because we know the agenda of the World Conspirators from their own words and writings, and we know from his words and actions that Pope Paul VI was one with these men in mind and in heart. If other of his words and actions are pointed to in an effort to disprove these contentions, we can only respond that such words and actions were very deliberate acts of misdirection, in which Revolutionaries specialize, and in which Pope Paul VI excelled.

Beginning in number 12, Brother Bugnolo attempts to prove that the Novus Ordo Missae is without fault. His fundamental argument is that it must be without fault because it was instituted by a pope, namely, Pope Paul VI. In number 14, He centers his defense around this question (on page 1): "Whether for the essence of the Sacrifice the consecration of each species is required?" Eventually he arrives at number 16, which deals with the question: "What words then are essential and necessary for the Consecration to take place?" He tries to answer this question by quoting various theologians, some of Saints and Doctors. His conclusion is: "for the bread," it is sufficient if the priest says: "This is My Body;" and for the wine, if he says: "This is the chalice of My Blood," or words equivalent to these.

Those who have read The Great Sacrilege know that I wrote that the answer to the question of the validity of the form of the consecration of the bread and the wine, though most important, does not determine whether the New Mass is sacrilegious. It is sacrilegious whether the consecration is valid or not, more sacrilegious if it is than if it is not. In this book, I insisted that the Novus Ordo Missae is a sacrilege because the reason for its having been instituted was and continues to be to replace and therefore destroy the Mass of the Roman Rite.

With regard to the validity of the altered form of the New Mass, I quoted a more reliable reference than any of the theologians whom the good Brother can cite, namely the Missale Romanum itself, which does not refer the priest to the opinions of the theologians, but informs him concerning the matter with the authority of the Church itself. It is the Missal, therefore, that must be taken as the most reliable determinant, because it tells the priests how to say Mass, and stipulates the gravity of deviating from the sacred ritual. The purely theoretical opinions of the theologians, no matter how eminent they may be, is completely irrelevant to this discussion. With regard to the form of the consecration of the wine, the Missal says the following:

"Wherefore the words of the Consecration, which are the Form of this Sacrament, are these: Hoc es enim Corpus meum: and: His est enim Calix Sanquinis mei, novi et eterni testamenti: mysterium fidei: qui pro vobis and pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum. [For this is my Body: and: For this is the Chalic 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.] ... If anyone removes or changes anything in the form of Consecration of the Body and Blood, and by this change of words does not signify the same thing as these words do, he does not confect the Sacrament." (Missale Romanum. Desclee. De Defectibus. Ch. V, Par. 1.)

I conclude this effort by quoting from The Great Sacrilege on this subject:

According to this pronouncement, there is no valid consecration of the wine (and possibly the bread) in these "masses," because, clearly, such a change has been made by mistranslation in the English formula [and other vernacular formulas]. The Pope, the bishops, the theologians, the priests, the people are either going to accept this pronouncement as a certain statement, or they are not. It becomes a question, therefore, of whether Catholics (of whatever station) are willing or concerned enough to accept the authority of the Church in this matter, one over which the Church alone has the authority to make a decision. Those who contradict this position must explain (to themselves first of all) how they can do so, and that, not by quoting the opinions of theologians, reputable, numerous, saintly or otherwise, but by explaining why the authoritative and definitive statement of the Church as of the year 1442 is no longer in effect, and what right they have to differ from it. If they do choose to differ from it, let them hold their tongues concerning us who dare to differ with them about the right of Pope Paul VI to create a Fraud and call it "The Mass" (p. 103).

Brother Bugnolo, for all his good will and much reading, has appointed himself a defender of the Conciliar Establishment, or the Pope, and of all those who are busily carrying forth Conciliar-Masonic Revolution. It is the part of the Catholic, not to defend men, but all precious, divine things under attack, mainly Catholic doctrine, Catholic morality, the Holy Scriptures, and the Sacred Liturgy, in a word, the traditional Church. To try to prove that those who are so active in this Revolution are free of sin, that they have not intended any damage, and they have not broken the law is surely a thankless task and a wrong-headed one. The good Brother has done a lot of work, referring to many books, and no doubt spent dozens of hours on his effort. He puts the grave disorders which have follwed from the Conciliar Revolution down to imperfect discipline in the Church and "abuses by the clergy" (number 19, page 2).