THE UNCHANGED SACRIFICE OF THE MASS

MAINTAINING THE COMPLETELY UNCHANGED LATIN ROMAN CATHOLIC MASS DECREE QUO PRIMUM, ST. PIUS V, JULY 19, 1570

"What's so special about that decree of July 19, 1570? Very special indeed, it was. Because those of us who are familar with the history of the Roman Catholic Church know that very rare, very rare indeed, are the occasions where a Pope clearly stating that he is using his full apostolic authority comes up with a decree which again by his full apostolic authority he declares never to be touched in the future. One such rare occasion was that July 19, 1570 when Pope Pius V seeing the ravage that had been done to the mystical body of Christ, His Church, the damage done by the Protestant reformation and realizing that only a saintly Pope could, that the very heart of the true religion was the Sacrifice of the Mass also realizing the attacks that were being made by those Protestant reformers upon the Mass, he decided that once and for all he would place a protective wall around that Sacrifice of the Mass so that no one in the future could ever touch or attack it. Does that mean that Pope Pius V on that day gave us a new Mass? No, he didn't. What he did, he gave us back the old Mass. This decree which has been provided to us with the dogmatic, the moral, and the canonical foundations upon which to base our refusal to accept any other Mass than the one contained in that Mass book".

"If anyone in the future would ever dare to change that Mass, let him know, so the Pope continues that not only will he be automatically excommunicated from the Church, but that the very vengence, the curse of Almighty God will rest upon them and their work.".

QUOTED FROM FATHER DE PAUW'S SERMONS
JULY 14, 1991 and JULY 19, 1992

"The words of Consecration, which are the form of this sacrament, are these; 'For this is my Body; for this is the chalice of my Blood, of the new and eternal Testament, the mystery of faith, which shall be shed for you and for many unto the remission of sins.' If anyone omits or changes anything in the form of the Consecration of the Body and Blood, and in this change of words the words do not mean the same thing, then he does not effect the Sacrament. If words are added which do not alter the meaning, then the Sacrament is valid, but the celebrant commits a mortal sin in making such an addition." Missale Romanum, De Defectibus, V.

"We are firmly to believe that the form of Consecration of the wine consists in the following words: For this is the chalice of my Blood, of the new and eternal Testament, the mystery of faith, which shall be shed for you and for many unto the remission of sins. Of these words the greater part is taken from Scripture; but some have been preserved in the Church from Apostolic tradition. Thus, the words, "This is the chalice," are contained in St. Luke (Luke, XXII, 20), and in the Apostle (1 Cor. XI, 25); but what follows, "Of My Blood," or, "My Blood of the new Testament, which shall be shed for you and for many unto the remission of sins," are found partly in St. Luke (Luke, XXII, 20), and partly in St. Matthew (Matt. XXVI, 28). But the words "Eternal" and "The mystery of faith" have been taught us by holy tradition, the interpreter and guardian of Catholic truth. But of this form no one can doubt, if he here also attend to what has been already said of the form used in the Consecration of the bread. For the form to be used in the Consecration of this element, evidently consists of these words, which signify that the substance of the wine is changed into the Blood of the Lord. Wherefore, as the words already cited clearly declare this, it is plain that NO OTHER FORM IS TO BE CONSTITUTED." - Catechism of the Council of Trent, Part II, Chapter IV, Questions XXI & XXII.

"Two OFFICIAL documents, one of them categorically stating that "NO OTHER FORM IS TO BE CONSTITUTED," and the other one showing that the Church for centuries called it a MORTAL SIN to make even minor changes, EVEN MINOR CHANGES WHICH DO NOT ALTER THE MEANING OF THE WORDS. Is it any wonder that some of us find it harder and harder to charitably continue believing in the good faith of those who know these documents, - and every priest held at least one of them in his hands each morning all these years! - and still question the fact that the pre-Vatican II Church consistently considered EVERY WORD of the Consecration form as being of "THE SUBSTANCE OF THE SACRAMENT."

TAKEN FROM THE NEW MASS WARNING
BY FATHER GOMMAR A. DE PAUW

THE PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS
ARE THE FOLLOWING:

"It has been the constant teaching of ALL POPES and ECUMENICAL COUNCILS, ever since the Church was founded nineteen centuries ago, that not even the CHURCH - NEITHER POPE NOR BISHOP - has the right or the power to touch THE SUBSTANCE OF THE SACRAMENTS instituted by Jesus Christ. No one could possibly misunderstand, or even differently interpret, the clear pronouncements made to that effect, by all popes, and especially by two of the twentieth century."

"It is well known that the Church has no right whatsoever to innovate anything touching on the substance of the sacraments." Pope St. Pius X, Apostolic Letter EX QUO, December 26, 1910

"As the Council of Trent teaches, the seven sacraments of the New Law have all been instituted by Jesus Christ, Our Lord, and the Church has no power over the 'substance of the Sacraments,' that is, over those things which with the sources of divine revelation as witnesses, Christ the Lord Himself decreed to be preserved in a sacramental sign." Pope Pius XII, Apostolic Constitution Sacramentum Ordinis, November 30, 1947

"Papal letters, sermons, speeches from a balcony, statements allegedly made at private audiences, or whatever it's palace guards involve a pope in, are all very nice, and bound to impress in various degrees, and rightly so. But they most certainly do not affect in any shape or form an Apostolic Constitution like Pius V's QUO PRIMUM. And to suggest that Pope Paul's MISSALE ROMANUM Constitution of April 3, 1969, abolishes that of Pius V, is to accuse Paul VI of the unthinkable, the destruction of the very concept of papal continuity, a crime against divine and ecclesiastical law, a crime which Paul VI did NOT commit, judging by a careful analysis of his "New Mass" - decree. And I appeal again to any of my peers in the field of canon law to disprove this interpretation of mine".

"I am, of course, always speaking of the LATIN text of Pope Paul's "New Mass"- constitution, - the only text which is official - and not of its erroneously or deliberately "reinforced" translations that are now being printed as prefaces to the new "missals" or "sacramentaries." The Latin text we studied was published in the ACTA APOSTOLICAE SEDIS of April 30, 1969, (AAS, 61 (1969), p. 217-222,) and to be willing to accept this or any other Latin text as official is being far more generous than many a canon lawyer might be, knowing the unbelievable confusion surrounding even that allegedly official text. For, - and this will find our readers of the legal profession shaking their heads in disbelief - no less than three different versions of even the Latin text of the "New Mass" - constitution have been placed in circulation by the Vatican, a fact which, by itself, justifies, both morally and legally, the immediate rejection of Pope Paul's entire "New Mass" - constitution, on the basis of the old legal axiom; "Lex dubia, lex nulla," "a doubtful law is no law."

TAKEN FROM THE NEW MASS WARNING
BY FATHER GOMMAR A. DE PAUW

"If anyone says that the Mass ought to be celebrated in the VERNACULAR only, ... let him be anathema (cursed).

ECCUMENICAL COUNCIL OF TRENT

"The use of the LATIN language is a clear and beautiful sign of unity, and an efficacious remedy against any corruptions of true doctrine ... He wanders from the right path who wishes to restore to the ALTAR the ancient form of a TABLE."

POPE PIUS XII

"LATIN is the immutable language of the Western Church."

POPE JOHN XXIII

"There must be no INNOVATIONS unless the good of the Church genuinely and certainly requires them (art. 23) ... The use of the LATIN language is to be preserved. (art. 36) ... Even in the Liturgy the Church has no wish to impose a RIGID UNIFORMITY. (art. 37) ... Provisions shall also be made ... for ligitimate variations and adaptations to DIFFERENT GROUPS, (art. 38) ... steps should be taken so that the faithful may be able to say or sing together in LATIN those parts of the ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them. (art. 54) ... GREGORIAN CHANT ... specially suited to the ROMAN LITURGY ... should be given first place in liturgical services. (art. 116) .

CONSTITUTION ON THE SACRED LITURGY,
SECOND VATICAN ECUMENICAL COUNCIL

If one were to believe the "Catholic" papers, the "old" Latin Mass was the 16th century product of the Tridentine Council, sanctioned by Pope Pius V. Some four hundred years later another Ecumenical Council, Vatican II, and another pope, Paul VI, came along, and with them came a new Mass. It all seems so logical. Or does it?

Even the most ardent Vatican II-fans - if there are any left! - admit that there is no comparison between the Council of Trent (1545-1563) and the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965). The first one was definitely a "dogmatic" Council, defining articles of Faith to be believed and promulgating laws to be observed under the most severe sanctions and penalties, including excommunication. Vatican II, on the other hand, by decision of Pope John XXIII who convoked it, was meant to be "just pastoral," resulting in no new definitions or laws, and occupying itself only with "updating and adapting" existing beliefs and practices. One existing law and practice Pope John explicitly excluded from any "aggiornamento" was the use of Latin in the Mass!"

TAKEN FROM THE NEW MASS WARNING
BY FATHER GOMMAR A. DE PAUW

"In our times the use of Latin is contested in many places, and some may ask what is the thought of the Apostolic See in this matter, we have decided to provide, through the timely norms contained in this solemn document, that the ancient and uninterrupted use of Latin be maintained, and, where it has been almost completely abandoned, that it be completely re-established ... The Church by its nature requires a universal, immutable and non-vernacular language ... Since the Catholic Church, because it was founded by Christ the Lord, excels in dignity over all other human societies, it is right that it should not use a vernacular language, but a noble and majestic one: Latin."

POPE JOHN XXIII (1962)

But, who or what is there to stop Pope Paul VI from replacing Pope Pius V's Mass with one of his own? If Pius V could come up with "his" Mass, why could not Paul VI do the same?

Our answer to that prima facie-logical question better be a good one, and a clear one. We believe the Catholic Traditionalist Movements answer is exactly that. And here it is: Pope Paul VI DID NOT and CANNOT LEGALLY revoke the Apostolic Constitution "QUO PRIMUM" of Pope St. Pius V.

The longer the Vatican II-mess continues, the harder it becomes to believe in the good faith and the honesty of the Establishment's hierachy and clergy! Are we to conclude that ALL those Vatican and chancery "officials, and their stooges on the parish level who push the "new Mass" down the throats of the people, have completely forgotten the FUNDAMENTAL CATHOLIC DOCTRINE OF PAPAL CONTINUITY, according to which POPES, in dealing with something as essentially religious as the Sacrifice of the Mass, DO NOT CONTRADICT EACH OTHER?

Until the iconoclasts of the second Protestant Reformation came upon the scene through that "open window" of Vatican II EVERYONE IN THE CATHOLIC WORLD understood that decree of St. Pius V to mean exactly what we still say it means, and to be exactly what we still say it is: An untouchable decree, a true law, binding forever, under pain of mortal sin and excommunication, and issued by a pope and saint, using the fullness of his apostolic authority to protect the very heart of his Church, the Sacrifice of the Mass.

For four hundred years no less than thirty-six popes who inherited QUO PRIMUM believed that when St. Pius V said "Never!" he meant "Never!". That when he said "In perpetuity!" he meant "In perpetuity!" And when he said "For all times" he meant exactly that: "FOR ALL TIMES"!

For some four hundred years ALL Catholics, including thirty-six popes, and all the bishops ever appointed by those popes, equally believed that what St. Pius V by his QUO PRIMUM did bind on earth, was also bound in Heaven!

Those thirty-six popes, sharing the views on papal continuity equally held by the two hundred and twenty-four Roman Pontiffs who preceded them, cannot all have been wrong, if one is to accept the divine origin of the papacy! And neither can two hundred and sixty-one popes, with seventy-eight canonized saints among them, all have been CRIMINALS who deliberately deceived generations of Catholics - and the entire world, for that matter - by making them believe that popes never contradict each other in such essential matters as the Sacrifice of the Mass!

TAKEN FROM THE NEW MASS WARNING
BY FATHER GOMMAR A. DE PAUW

ALL THE PRECEEDING WAS TAKEN FROM
THE PRINTED AND SPOKEN WORD BY:
FATHER GOMMAR A. DE PAUW, J.C.D.
FORMER MAJOR SEMINARY ACADEMIC DEAN AND
PROFESSOR OF THEOLOGY AND CANON LAW;
FOUNDER-PRESIDENT OF
THE CATHOLIC TRADITIONALIST MOVEMENT, INC.