Expert: Mr.Leal, Traditional Catholic - 7/4/2007

Question
QUESTION: Dear Mr. Leal:

I was confused by the reference you gave me from the "Priest you admire."  I would like to see some of that criticism of what he calls the "novus ordo service" referenced and substantiated.
Let's see what the General Instruction of the Roman Missal (post 1969) says in defining the Eucharistic Celebration of the Mass:
Par. 27 - At Mass - thatis, the Lord's Supper - the People of God is called together, with a priest presiding and acting in the person of Christ, to celebrate the memorial of the Lord, the Eucharistic Sacrifice.  For this reason Christ's promise applies in an outstanding way to such a local gathering of the holy Church: "Where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in their midst" (Mt 18:20).  For in the celebration of Mass, in which the Sacrifice of the Cross is perpetuated, Christ is really present in the very liturgical assembly gathered in his name, in the person of the minister, in his word, and indeed substantially and continuously under the Eucharistic species.

In the unreformed "Tridentine" Altar Missals, as you surely know, there is no "General Instruction."  What is contained in the introductory pages, among letters and decrees of past Popes, is the "Rubricae Generales" and the "Ritus Servandus."  Both are descriptions (very good and thorough at that) of "what to do, and how to carry out the rites" in the celebration of Mass.  Unlike the GIRM, there had not been traditionally an attempt in the Missal itself to "define" the Mass - in fact, it is so multi-faceted that it is really difficult to fit into even a one paragraph attempt at definition, as was done in the GIRM.  It is a great Mystery, the Holy Eucharist, and in many ways, our abilities fail miserably to define absolutely, completely, and perfectly.
But I call your attention to the use of the term "Mass" and "Sacrifice of the Cross" in the "New" Altar Missal, and evern the doctrine of Transubstantiation.

Fr. Timothy Johnson

ANSWER: Dear Father,

The Catechism of the Council of Trent tells us that "a Catholic sins against the faith by participating in non-Catholic worship." The New Mass is not Catholic worship, even if it has retained the name "Catholic," as did the Anglican liturgy until recently.


St. Alphonsus Liguori explains that "The devil has always attempted, by means of the heretics, to deprive the world of the Mass, making them precursors of the Anti-Christ, who, before anything else, will try to abolish and will actually abolish the Holy Sacrament of the altar, as a punishment for the sins of men, according to the prediction of Daniel: 'And strength was given him against the continual sacrifice' (Dan. 8:12)."

The question then becomes: Does the New Mass teach the Catholic Faith? No, say both Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci: "It is clear that the Novus Ordo no longer intends to present the Faith as taught by the Council of Trent."


When you place the prayers and ceremonies of the traditional Latin Mass side by side with those of the New Mass, you can easily see to what degree the Church's traditional doctrine has been "edited out." And the "editing" always seems to have been done on those parts of the Mass expressing some Catholic doctrine which Protestants find "offensive." Here are some examples:

Common Penitential Rite: The traditional Mass begins with the priest reciting personal prayers of reparation to God called "The Prayers at the Foot of the Altar." The New Mass begins instead with a "Penitential Rite" which the priest and people recite together. Who were the first to introduce a common penitential rite? The 16th century Protestants, who wanted to promote their teaching that the priest is no different from the layman.

The Offertory: The Offertory prayers of the traditional Mass clearly express a number of Catholic teachings, as that the Mass is offered to God to satisfy for sin and that the saints are to be honored. The Protestants rejected these teachings and so abolished the Offertory prayers. "That abomination called the Offertory," said Luther, "and from this point almost everything stinks of oblation!" In the New Mass as well, the Offertory is gone -- it has been replaced with a ceremony called "The Preparation of the Gifts." The prayers "offensive" to Protestants have also been removed. In their place is the prayer "Blessed are you, Lord God of all creation," based on a Jewish grace before meals.

The "Eucharistic Prayer": The traditional Mass has only one "Eucharistic Prayer," the ancient Roman Canon. The Canon was always a favorite target of Lutheran and other Protestant attacks. Instead of just one Canon, the New Mass now has a number of "Eucharistic Prayers," only one of which we will mention here. Eucharistic Prayer No. 1 is an "edited" version of the Roman Canon. The lists of Catholic saints, so despised by Protestants, are now optional, and hence rarely used. The translators did some further "editing." Among other things, the idea that Christ the Victim is offered at Mass (a notion Luther condemned) has disappeared. All the Eucharistic Prayers now incorporate some typical Protestant practice. They are recited in a loud voice instead of silently, and they have an "Institution Narrative" instead of a Consecration. (According to Protestant beliefs, their ministers do not consecrate the Eucharist like Catholic priests do; they just narrate the story of the Last Supper.) The various signs of respect toward Our Lord present in the Blessed Sacrament (genuflections, signs of the cross, bells, incense, etc.) have been reduced, made optional, or eliminated.

Communion in the Hand: The 16th century Protestant Martin Bucer condemned the Church's practice of placing the Host on the tongue of the communicant as something introduced out of "a double superstition: first, the false honor they wish to show to this sacrament, and secondly, the wicked arrogance of priests claiming greater holiness than that of the people of Christ, by virtue of the oil of consecration." The practice in Protestant churches of "communion in the hand" is thus based upon their rejection of Christ's Real Presence and the priesthood. At the New Mass, just as at a Protestant service, there is Communion in the hand. But the men who created the New Mass went even further, for a layman may not only receive Communion in the hand -- he is also permitted to distribute it, even on a moment's notice. Meanwhile, St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) states that "The body of Christ must not be touched by anyone, other than a consecrated priest. No other person has the right to touch it, except in case of extreme necessity" (III, 82 a.3).

Veneration of the Saints: The prayers of the traditional Mass frequently invoke the saints by name and beg their intercession. The Church's veneration of the saints in her worship was another practice which Protestants dismissed as "superstition." The New Order of the Mass dropped most invocations of the saints by name, or made them optional. In the new Missal, moreover, the weekday prayers for saints' feast days (most of which are also optional) have been rewritten for the benefit of Protestants -- allusions to miracles, the defense of the Catholic Faith, or to the Catholic Church as the one, true Church have disappeared.

False Translations: Lastly, there is the matter of the false official English translations of the New Mass. A whole book could be written on the errors and distortions they contain. Here we will mention briefly only the official translations of the prayers for the 34 "Sundays in Ordinary Time." The following are some of the ideas which the English translation suppresses: God's wrath, our unworthiness, error, sins which "burden our consciences," God's majesty, obedience to His commandments, supplication, humility, eternity, heaven -- the list could go on and on. Perhaps the most serious omission is the word "grace." It appears 11 times in the Latin original. It does not appear even once in the official English "translation"!

This is just touching the surface.




---------- FOLLOW-UP ----------

QUESTION: You did not touch upon the GIRM that clearly refers to the "Eucharistic Sacrifice", the celebration of "Mass", the "Sacrifice of the Cross", and the "substantial and continuous presence of Christ in the Eucharistic species.
Could you answer this on its own merits?
The prayers at the Foot of the Altar must not be integral to the Mass (though I think they're great), because at one time they were prayers of preparation of the Priest with the Sacred Ministers and Servers prior to Mass;
"Blessed are You, Lord God, etc." probably comes from the description of the celebration of the Holy Eucharist in the Didache, a second century document.  You are not anti-semitic, I hope.  Christianity developed out of the Jewish religion, fulfilled in Jesus Christ.
Did you know that the "Offertory Prayers" of the Dominican Rite are VERY different, and both bread and wine are offered together at the same time, at the beginning of the Mass?  Until this rite was sadly abandoned, it existed right along with the Roman Rite.
Just because words are said out-loud or in a quiet whisper makes the difference between validity versus invalidity?  Your Sacramental Theology is not very good.
The GIRM calls this the CONSECRATION.
While I don't think Communion in the hand is so great, even what St. Thomas was stating was of a disciplinary nature.
Did you know that "Ordinary Time" comes from the Latin phrase: "Per Annum"?  This is in the Tridentine Latin Rite Calendar, too.
Keep studying.

Fr. Timothy Johnson
ANSWER: IT BECOMING QUITE CLEAR YOUR PURSUIT OF DEFENDING AGAINST MY TERMS OF BEING A TRADITIONAL CATHOLIC IS BASED ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT I'M AN EASY TARGET SAFE FROM A MORE POWERFUL PROSPECT. I ASSURE YOU I'M NO PUSH OVER. IS IT TRUE TO LEARN SOMETHING NEW EVERYDAY, YES. BUT WHEN IT COMES TO THE BASICS THERE IS NO COMPROMISE. WITH OUT PICKING UP A BOOK IT CLEAR AS DAY THAT WHEN ENTERING INTO THE LOCAL CATHOLIC CHURCH IT JUST ISN'T CATHOLIC.

HAVE YOU EVER BEEN TO A PROTESTANT GATHERING  CALLED CHURCH. I HAVE. I THOUGHT I WAS IN A CATHOLIC CHURCH. THEN VISE VERSA. SO THINK FOR ONE MINUTE YOU CAN PUT ME UN AT EASE. YOU CAN'T. YOU'RE A MODENIST AND YOU DON'T MAKE ME NERVOUS.

NOW IF YOU WANT TO KEEP NIT PICKING, GO AHEAD. ALL THAT HE SAID SHE SAID STUFF DON'T MATTER... ALTHOUGH I'M FAR FROM CLUELESS I KEEP THINGS SIMPLE.

EVERYBODY LOVES ST PADRE PIO, HIS STIGMATA, MYSTIC ABILITIES, HIS HOLINESS, YET HE REFUSED TO CELEBRATE THE SAME MASS YOUR DEFENDING. IS HE ALL THE SUDDEN WRONG NOW TO SUPPORT YOUR MODERNIST VIEWS.

HAVE YOU EVER BEEN TO A PROTESTANT GATHERING  CALLED CHURCH. I HAVE. I THOUGHT I WAS IN A CATHOLIC CHURCH. THEN VISE VERSA. SO THINK FOR ONE MINUTE YOU CAN PUT ME UN AT EASE. YOU CAN'T.  

Keep studying WHAT?
The term Ordinary Time was first used with the liturgical reforms which followed the Second Vatican Council. The reformed liturgical calendar took effect on the first Sunday of Advent in 1969 (before this there were two distinct seasons known as the season after Epiphany and the season after Pentecost respectively). Since then, many Protestant churches have also adopted the concept, along with the Revised Common Lectionary which is based on the Catholic liturgical reforms of the late 1960's.

Rubricae Generales - The term does not apply to the Novus Order service of 1969, which instead used the new term "Instructio Generalis Missalis Romani," by which time the Novus Ordo service became a completely Protestantized product, invalid according to the Sacramental principles of the Papal Bull "Apostolicae Curae."

In the original version of Missale Romanum, signed by Pope Paul VI, no mention was made either of anyone’s being obliged to use the Novus Ordo Missae or when such an obligation might begin.

Translators of the constitution mistranslated cogere et efficere (i.e., to sum up and draw a conclusion) as to give force of law.

The version in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis (which records all official texts of the Papacy) has an added paragraph “enjoining” the New Missal, but it is in the wrong tense, the past, and reads praescripsimus (i.e.., which we have ordered) thereby referring to a past obligation, and nothing, moreover, in Missale Romanum prescribes, but at most permits the use of the “New Rite" (The Angelus, March 1997, p. 35).

It is known moreover, that Pope Paul VI signed the Institutio Generalis without reading it and without ensuring that it had been previously confirmed by the Holy Office.

Papal Authority is only infalable if it is in the best Interest in the Church.

Anglican and Eastern Orthodox claim to have the real presence too. Now are those Masses valid? No!

To elaborate more on how to refute your probing I must refer you to Ottavani Intervention.






---------- FOLLOW-UP ----------

QUESTION: Hi, again, Mr. Leal:

I will use normal typing, not all caps.  I am not trying to yell at you.  Wow - I was surprised in your answer that you would actually say that Eastern Orthodox Sacraments are invalid.  They are of the Catholic Tradition, only schismatic in regards to their acceptance of the full authority of the Pope. (Hmmmm...I hate to say it, but kind of like you.)
Honestly, I had to go back to your profile to double check that you have in fact made the claim that you are attend a Society of Pius X Chapel.  Since I do not have your direct email address, I cannot forward to you the exact saved email I have from FR. SCOTT GARDENER of the Society of St. Pius X; but I am cutting and pasting the content below.
I always wondered when it might come in handy to save it way back from OCT 2004.
One last question: "Are you sedevacantist?"  I mean, I really have to wonder.

From: "Fr. Scott Gardner" <frsgardner@sspx.org>  Add to Address Book  Add Mobile Alert  
To: timothydaj@yahoo.com
Subject: Questions about the "invalidity" of the New Rite of Ordination
Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2004 14:13:32 -0500
   Dear Fr. Johnson,
Your e-mail was forwarded to me, since I am the priest in charge of answering such questions as yours.
I am terribly sorry that your correspondent has sent you such theological hogwash.  Whether he attends Mass at our Sacramento chapel or not, his views do not represent the position of the Society of Saint Pius X vis a vis the New Rite of Ordination.  As anyone with any formation in Catholic theology should be aware, the only things necessary for the validity of a sacrament are 1) the sufficient form joined to 2) the sufficient matter by 3) a valid minister who has 4) the intention of "doing what the Church does."  As long as these facts are verified, there can be no doubt about the validity of a sacrament, however much we may dispute the surrounding ceremonies (or lack thereof).  Your correspondent makes the common mistake of "enlarging the form," i.e., he includes things in the necessary form which are not necessary for the validity of the sacrament.
Bitter zeal is often at the root of such mistakes, unfortunately.  I have known people in my own chapels who felt this way, and I have taken pains to convince them of the true Catholic position.  I have never yet met with success in this endeavor.  Eventually, such people must be expelled from our chapels if they persist in spreading such ideas publicly.  It is a hard position for me to take, but the common good requires it in some cases.  We cannot afford to answer the modernist charicature of the Faith with an opposite charicature!
Let me set your mind at ease about our own priests' distribution of such material.  It is unthinkable.  Rather, we fight to keep such material out of circulation.  I personally have spent (wasted) a good many hours arguing with such people.  As you may be aware, some of them even doubt the validity of the SSPX ordinations, on the ground that Archbishop Lefebvre was ordained by a suspected Freemason!  They know exactly enough to be dangerous -- to themselves and to others.
In conclusion, I would suggest that you "shake the dust off your feet" and abandon any attempt to communicate with the person.  I will remember this communication in case I get (yet another) phone call from someone wanting to argue this point.  It may be that the next call will be from him. . . .
If there is any way I can be of assistance to you, Father, please do not hesitate to contact me.

In Christ the High Priest,
Fr. Gardner

PS:  I DO congratulate you on your ordination, since it must have been a long, hard track indeed.  Persevere!        DeleteReplyForwardSpamMove...
Previous | Next | Back to Messages Save Message Text | Full Headers

Thanks, and prayers!  God bless you!

Fr. Timothy Johnson
ANSWER: Father,
Actually I could have added this, this morning. It is understood the Eastern Orthodox Church has a valid Mass by way of a safe unbroken Apostolic succesion and slight litrugical differences. However, this Mass is invalid for a Roman Catholic to attend because it is not under the Authority of the Pope.   

Good morning Father,

In lue of typing in all caps, this a little habit I have for typing faster when pressed for time, etc... Although a little snippy.

- No, I'm not a sedevacantist?" However is it possible to argue we are living in the era of the end of Catholic times, if one were to do so. I am familiar with the prophecies of St. Malachi, Anne Catherine Emmerich, the writings of Malachi Martin, etc... While I feel recent Popes have heavily veered off I find myself consumed to with just living a good Catholic life to concern myself too much. (If my father were to be an abusive Father, He is still my Father and I must honor that.)

In light of the dispute of hogwash you compare mewith (although I think it is cute) is out of context and incomplete in regards to our dicussion (which I'm pleased to have) based on how we've corresponded. If my overtones have gave the impression other wise, hopefully I can clear things right now.

This is an excerpt from the SSPX web page - regarding the validity of the Mass.

  The defective theology and meaning of the rites, eliminating as they do every reference to the principal propitiatory end of sacrifice, do not necessarily invalidate the Mass. The intention of doing what the Church does, even if the priest understands it imperfectly, is sufficient for validity.

The changes in the words of the form in the Latin original, although certainly illicit and unprecedented in the history of the Church, do not alter the substance of its meaning, and consequently do not invalidate the Mass

However, we all know that such a New Mass celebrated in Latin is an oddity, doomed to extinction by the very fact of the reform. The validity of the New Masses that are actually celebrated in todays parishes more than 30 years later is a quite different question...

Most importantly, however, is the fact that the intention of the Church of offering up a true sacrifice in propitiation for the sins of the living and the dead has been obliterated for 30 years.

The traditional Mass expresses the true intention of the Church in a clear and unambiguous manner, so that everyone can be certain of the priests intention, the New Mass does no such thing. Consequently, the doubt of invalidity for lack of intention, especially in the case of manifestly modernist priests, cannot be easily lifted or removed.

It is not permissible to knowingly receive doubtful sacraments. Consequently nobody has the obligation to satisfy his Sunday obligation by attending the New Mass, even if there is no other alternative.

However, even if we could be certain of the validity of the Novus Ordo Masses celebrated in todays Conciliar churches, it does not follow that they are pleasing to God. Much to the contrary, they are objectively sacrilegious, even if those who assist at them are not aware of it.

Consequently, it is not permissible for a traditional Catholic, who understands that the New Mass is insulting to Our Divine Savior, to assist at the New Mass, and this even if there is no danger of scandal to others or of the perversion of one’s own Faith (as in an older person, for example), and even if it is the only Mass available.

As for as Eastern Orthodox validity, let's explore this another time please.

Mr. Leal




---------- FOLLOW-UP ----------

QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. Leal.
I see how you were using the term "invalid" as it pertains to a Roman Catholic attending an Eastern Orthodox, in as much as your understanding that such attendance would not fulfill a Catholic's obligation to assist at Mass.
I guess that I have a hard time reconciling your reference to the Authority of the Pope, as in many many ways it just does not seem to me that you really, truly and fully put yourself under his Authority with religious submission.
It seems strange to me how you envision a Pope of the Catholic Church that would offer a "Protestant Novus Ordo Sect" worship service, etc.  And, if I understand correctly, you would even claim that such a "service" would most certainly be invalid when it is celebrated in the vernacular.  Of course we know that the Pope offers Masses both in Latin, and in the vernacular.
I don't know, Mr. Leal - it just seems that so much of the basis of your arguments about validity vs. validity reduces down to a matter of quantity of text, variations and alterations of anything but the Tridentine Rite as preserved and promoted by the Council of Trent.  It just seems to me that, based upon the "quantitative"/"alteration & variation" model, you could just as well call into question the radical Holy Week Revisions of 1955, and the radical revisions of the Roman Divine Office by Pope St. Pius X in the early 1900s.
I hope that you understand and realize that I have in no way spoken against or bashed the Tridentine Rite in all of my writings.
I am just trying at the psychological level, anyway, imagine your particular take on what and who the Pope is, and when his Authority would suit you?
I am with the Holy Father Pope Benedict XVI, and I just want to state directly that I am not a modernist, because you called me a modernist in one of your replies.
I just think that a lot of your zeal is bitter, hateful, and acrimonious.  Seriously, it is almost as if you are in pain, literally.
Anyway, thank you for the exchanges.

Fr. Timothy Johnson

Answer
Father, I have a little time on my hands and would like to add to  my answer.

In discussion it has been uncertain of my position of believe the Pope is not a valid Pope. I am part of the Church, I do believe in the Church.

Nevertheless, it is preposterous to say, as the sedevacantists do, that there has not been any Pope for more than 40 years, for this would destroy the visibility of the Church, and the very possibility of a canonical election of a future Pope.

The traditional Code of Canon Law (canon 1325, §2) defines a schismatic as one who refuses to submit to the authority of the Sovereign Pontiff. However, given the present confusion of the Church and the fact that we are obliged by our Faith to refuse so many of the liberal, ecumenical statements of Pope John Paul II, it is not necessarily obvious that a sedevacantist actually refuses to submit to the authority of the Sovereign Pontiff, and that he is consequently a schismatic.

However, he is not the only factor of unity. This is the misconception shared by both modernists and sedevacantists alike. They say that nothing matters but the Pope and become modernist like him, or they say that nothing matters but the Pope, and he is destroying the Church, so therefore there is no Pope (These views are in lue of Pope John Paul II.)

The real problem of the present crisis in the Church is that the Pope is no longer acting as principle of unity, as he ought, for he is no longer adequately promoting the unity of Faith, sacraments and the Mass that has always characterized the Catholic Church.

Sedevacantists are a real plague to the traditional movement here in the United States. Such people have no sense of obedience or submission, and often commit rash judgment. They do not feel at home in the Society’s chapels where the Church’s Faith, sacraments, doctrines and Mass are preached together with the interior life of charity and self-sacrifice as the means for restoring all things in Christ.

Father, I as a Father would never allow my family to disrespect the Holy Trinity, Our Blessed Mother, our Holy Angels and Saints in our home, in public and especially in our LORD'S HOUSE through their dress, speech and piety.
The opposite would be a modernistic, worldly view against the teachings of christ.

Now putting all things aside, if a Cardinal, Bishop, Priest allows this behavior to occur in their parish, how could I be with out doubt towards their intentions especially when holding up a host. Ultimately anyone who defends this whether a priest or laity is a modernist.  

Saint Padre Pio would literally throw these people out of his confessional especially those improperly dressed. After putting things into perspective I understand his disassociation with the changes in Vatican II and the new Mass.

I have also been to Diocine run Traditional venues and have found the offenses although under a traditional guise.

Therefore by attending a SSPX Chapel or a strictly a private Traditional venue I am completely at ease free of all doubt knowing I am in God's House .