Issue No. 24 of the journal Living
Tradition (July 1989) is devoted to a commentary on my monograph,
Questioning The Validity of the Masses using the New, All-English
Canon, first published in March of 1968. For the sake of
brevity it will hereinafter be referred to as simply "QTV".
The Editor of Living Tradition is Monsignor John F. McCarthy,
J.C.D., S.T.D.; and he is also the author of its featured critique
Because some readers of this present
booklet may not be familiar with QTV, it is expedient to give
here a concise synopsis of its central points. Always we were
taught that the form, the necessary words, for a
sacrament must not be altered, or else the sacrament is not produced.
"In our sacraments," teaches the Catechism of the Council
of Trent, "the form is so definite that any, even a casual
deviation from it, renders the sacrament null." Concerning
the sacramental form for the Holy Eucharist (the wine consecration
at Mass) this same Catechism clearly states: "We are firmly
to believe that it consists of 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 UNTO
THE REMISSION OF SINS.'"
In the English "Mass"
(that is, the vernacularized [English] version of the so-called
Novus Ordo Missae) this sacramental form is altered substantially,
in several ways, but principally by the substitution of the words
"for all" in place of "for many."
In his Catena Aurea
in Quatuor Evangelia (In Matth. Evan., Chap. XXVI, par. 8)
St. Thomas Aquinas quotes Remigius of Auxerre as follows: "And
it must be noted that He [Our Lord] did not say pro paucis
[for a FEW], nor pro omnibus [for ALL], but pro multis
[for MANY]; for He had not come to redeem only one nation (race),
but MANY from among all the nations."
In explaining why Christ said "for
many" instead of "for all" the Catechism of the
Council of Trent continues: "Rightly therefore was it done,
that it was not said `for all,' seeing that in this place
the design of the discourse extends only to
the fruits of the Passion, which brought the fruit
of salvation only to the elect." And so we see that those
words "for all," which according to vital principles
of sacramental theology are NOT to be used in the form
for the consecration of the wine, are in very fact the precise
words the ICEL (International Committee on English in the Liturgy)
chose to be used in this place!
In his Living Tradition article
Monsignor McCarthy summarizes my position thus:
"Let us examine his [Omlor's]
argument, which is as follows on page 48 [of QTV]:
`The ancient and proper
form for the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist uses Christ's own
words and conveys the latter truth; namely, that of efficacy.
The new `form' uses men's words and conveys the former truth;
namely, that of sufficiency. And thus the Innovators,
the authors of this change, have destroyed the essential sense
of the proper form.'"
There are, of course, other theological
principles and salient facts that enter into my treatise. Monsignor
McCarthy does acknowledge many of these throughout his article;
hence the foregoing brief summary of my case will serve as an
adequate starting point for this present discussion. Having quoted
the above passage from p. 48 of QTV, Msgr. McCarthy remarks:
"For Omlor, sufficiency
regards all men, while efficacy regards only the members of the
Mystical Body of Christ". I will get back to this puzzling
remark a little later.
The distinction between the efficacy
aspect and the sufficiency aspect of Christ's Passion and Death
is indeed one of the fundamentals in my argumentation against
the validity of the ICEL version of the wine consecration, which
is presently used in the Novus Ordo "Masses"
throughout the English-speaking world.
In the final words of the ancient
and proper form ("for you and for many unto the remission
of sins") the words "you" and "many"
refer to the elect only, those who attain eternal
salvation. St. Thomas Aquinas teaches this very clearly in Summa
Th., III, Q.78, a.3, ad 8; and also in Book IV of Sentences,
Dist.8, Q.2, a.2, ad 7. Holding fast to these explanations of
the Angelic Doctor, the Catechism of the Council of Trent, also
known as the Roman Catechism, expounds the same idea in the following
`For if we look at the vertue
of it, it must be confess'd, that our Savior shed his Blood
for the salvation of all men. But if we look at
the fruit which men gather from thence,
we may easily understand that it comes not to all
to advantage, but only to some. When therefore
he said, "For you," he signifi'd either
them that were then present, or those whom he had
chosen out of the Jewish people, such
as were his Disciples, except Judas,
with whom he spake. But when he added, "For many,"
he would have the rest that were elected, either
Jews or Gentiles, to be understood.
Rightly therefore was it done, that it was not said "for
all," seeing that in this place the design of the
discourse extends only to the fruits of the Passion,
which brought the Fruit of Salvation only to the Elect.'
The foregoing is a faithful transcription
from page 207 of the first translation of the Trent Catechism
into the English language, published at London in 1687, under
the Catholic King James II. The emphasized words and phrases
shown above are as they appear in the original text. In this
excerpt just cited the wording "for all" is explicitly
singled out as being contrary to the "design of the discourse,"
that is, contrary to the Mind of Christ when He said, "for
many," meaning not all men, but only the elect who are the
only ones who actually benefit from the fruits of the Passion,
namely, "the Fruit of Salvation."
As will be demonstrated later, the
final prepositional phrase, "unto the remission of sins"
(in remissionem peccatorum), denotes result
or efficacy, inasmuch as with the elect the remission of their
sins actually takes place. This concept
is quite different from that of purpose or sufficiency,
which is what is conveyed by these final words of the despoiled
ICEL version: "for you and for all so that
sins may be forgiven." Coupled with the condemned
substitution of "all" for "many" is the additional
corruption of meaning in the ICEL's final (mistranslated) words,
"so that sins may be forgiven." Such a clause is known
grammatically as a clause of purpose (beginning
with `so that'); it fails to convey the theologically demanded
sense of result or efficacy, as explained by the
Roman Catechism, St. Thomas, and other theologians (including
saints, popes and doctors of the Church).
In QTV and in subsequent writings
I have presented abundant documentation from many learned authorities
to elucidate the distinction between efficacy (result) and sufficiency
(purpose). The following passage (as only one example) illustrates
this important idea very well. It is from Treatise on THE
HOLY EUCHARIST, by St. Alphonsus Mary de Liguori, a Doctor
of the Church whose writings display the most profound learning
and piety. The passage is from p. 44 of the translation by Rev.
Eugene Grimm, C.Ss.R.
The words pro
vobis et pro multis (`For
you and for many') are used to distinguish the virtue of the blood
of Christ from its fruits; for the blood of our Saviour is of
sufficient value to save all men, but its fruits are applicable
only to a certain number and not to all, and this is their own
fault. Or, as the theologians say, this precious blood is (in
itself) sufficiently (sufficienter)
able to save all men, but (on our part) effectually (efficaciter)
it does not save all it saves only those who co-operate
with grace. This is the explanation of St. Thomas, as quoted
by Benedict XIV.
Moreover, I have in one place or
another also quoted passages in the same vein from the Roman Catechism,
St. Thomas Aquinas, Popes Innocent III and Benedict XIV. Consequently
it is puzzling that Monsignor McCarthy would remark that it is
"for Omlor" that the distinction between sufficiency
and efficacy is a tenet.
Another very important theological
principle in my case against the validity of the English "Mass"
is that the res sacramenti (a term that theologians use
for the principal fruit, "the effect")
of the Holy Eucharist namely, the union of the Mystical
Body of Christ must necessarily be signified
in the words of the form for this Sacrament. This point is verified
by many weighty theological authorities I have frequently quoted,
including Pope Leo XIII who laid down specific criteria for valid
sacramental signification (in the Bull Apostolicae Curae,
you and for many unto the remission of sins" are the words
of the sacramental form for the Holy Eucharist that provide this
vital signification of the res sacramenti, for the words
"you" and "many" are the only words of the
form that explicitly designate the members of the Mystical Body
of Christ, which is the Catholic Church.
Moreover, the final phrase,
"unto the remission of sins," signifies the union
of the members, as shall be demonstrated later in Section 5.
The words "you" and "many"
(not "you" by itself nor "many" by itself,
but the two words in conjunction with each other) are said to
designate the elect, and they are also said to designate the Mystical
Body. There is no ambiguity in this, because in termino
they are one and the same thing.
For the sake of clarity, however,
it should be remarked that at any given moment on earth the elect
and the Mystical Body do not exactly coincide, and this is readily
understood by Catholics. For there are always some persons who
at one time are not yet in the Church, but who will eventually
become incorporated among the fideles through Baptism.
Similarly, there are some who once were members of the Mystical
Body, the Church, but who will not be counted among the elect.
That is, those who become "dead members" through mortal
sin and then, tragically, die in that state. Also those who surrender
membership in the Mystical Body through heresy, apostasy, schism
or excommunication will not be among the elect, though at one
time in their lives they were members of the Mystical Body. They
will not be counted among the elect, that is, unless they repent
and become restored to grace in the bosom of their Holy Mother
We therefore speak of the elect
and the Mystical Body interchangeably in the context of the consecration
form, because they come to the same thing in termino: at
the end of time they will exactly coincide. The elect are those,
and only those, who profit from the efficacy aspect of Our Lord's
Passion and Death through the remission of their sins, and who
die as living members of the Mystical Body. After
the Last Judgment the "finalized" Mystical Body (namely,
the Church Triumphant) and "The Elect" will be one and
the same thing.
Msgr. McCarthy writes: "First
of all, Omlor's case for the invalidity of the ICEL form of the
consecration of the wine does not appear convincing to me. The
quotations which he produces to support his case are impressive
in their own right, but they do not prove the invalidity of the
`for all men' translation." And in another place he states,
"and Omlor quotes an array of authorities who have raised
doubts about the use of `for all.' But none of these authorities
says explicitly that the addition of `for all' would invalidate
the sacrament. This is Omlor's own conclusion."
After the first edition of QTV appeared
twenty-two years ago, Father William G. Most, (the first person
to oppose QTV in public print), posed a similar objection.
Appendix 3 of the third edition
of QTV was devoted to presenting Fr. Most's arguments and my replies
to them. The following appears on page 116 of QTV (3rd edition,
Father Most: "His
[Omlor's] appeal to St. Thomas and the Catechism of the Council
of Trent is insufficient by far to prove his case ... Neither
one explicitly states the invalidity of the English form of consecration."
My lengthy reply (pp. 116-117) begins
thus: "No one could be expected to enumerate explicitly
all invalid forms, since there is an infinitude
of invalid forms. There is, however, only one valid
form for any given sacrament."
May one reasonably conjecture that
nitro-glycerine is possibly valid matter for Baptism merely because
not a single dogmatic theologian has ever explicitly
ruled it out?
This argument advanced by both Monsignor
McCarthy and Father Most does, however, serve admirably as a model;
it is the paragon of fuzzy logic. Consider this: if "for
all" had already been explicitly declared invalid,
then the issue would have been settled in advance
case closed ("causa finita est")! Under such
circumstances I would have had neither the occasion nor the reason
to write Questioning The Validity... in the first
place; consequently, in the second place, Father Most and Monsignor
McCarthy would not have entered the picture to oppose QTV (since
it would not have even existed); and, finally, I would not be
writing this now! Therefore it is entirely illogical to argue
against me on the grounds that "all men" had not been
explicitly ruled invalid.
Up until 1967 no one had ever attempted
any innovation in the form for the Holy Eucharist,
least of all such a brazen innovation as "for all men so
that sins may be forgiven." Consequently none of my "array
of authorities" would have had the occasion to single out
explicitly as invalid this particular phraseology. For no one
would have imagined (and I dare say this would have included Monsignor
John F. McCarthy prior to 1967) that anyone would ever presume
even to suggest such a villainous violation of the form of a sacrament
as the one of which we are speaking. The ICEL subversives were
living and breathing testimonials to the truth of the sardonic
Italian aphorism "Traduttori : Traditori" (Translators
When the authors of the Roman Catechism
taught, "Rightly therefore was it done, that it was not said
`for all' ... etc.," they were expounding the theology underlying
the distinction between sufficiency and efficacy. Now, it would
be supreme lunacy to suppose the theologians who wrote this profound
disquisition would have actually deemed to
be valid a form that contains the very words, "for
all," which they had singled out as being contrary
to Christ's design in the words He spoke when instituting
the Holy Eucharist at the Last Supper!
Least of all would those renowned
exegetes have considered to be valid a form that so evidently
violates the fundamental principle of sacramental theology they
so emphatically taught elsewhere in the same Catechism: "In
our sacraments ... the form is so definite that any, even
a casual deviation from it, renders the sacrament null."
Though none of my cited authorities
explicitly declared "for all" to be an invalidating
substitution, all of them implicitly did so. Each of these respected
authorities has furnished valuable jewels of evidence, theological
principles that are certain beyond question, all of which if taken
as a whole form one harmonious mosaic of sacramental theology.
I am only the mosaicist. If all these brilliant facets are considered
in their magnificent totality, the one supporting and enhancing
the other, and the overall panorama is beheld, then my conclusion
that the vernacular "Mass" is no Mass at all is the
only conclusion that can reasonably be reached. Such a scientific
approach to philosophy and theology is of the essence of Scholasticism.
"But none of those authorities
[cited by Omlor] says explicitly that the addition of `for all'
would invalidate the sacrament. This is Omlor's own conclusion."
Here we detect two polemical subterfuges: the suppressio
veri and the suggestio falsi. Suppressio veri
(suppression of the truth) is the stating of something that is
true in itself, while suppressing something that has an essential
bearing on the overall truth. Thus Monsignor McCarthy correctly
says that no authority of mine explicitly avers "for all"
is invalid, but he suppresses the impact, the dynamic force, of
the mosaic of their teachings, the formidable ensemble of those
truths, which implicitly but relentlessly drives
towards that conclusion.
is the stating of something that in itself is not false, while
suggesting to the reader's mind an idea that is false. After referring
to the "array of authorities" who do not explicitly
say "for all" is invalid, Omlor (the amateur) is contrasted
with them in these words, "This is Omlor's own conclusion."
Although he does not expressly say so, he falsely suggests my
judgment must be wrong solely because it is mine.
Monsignor McCarthy writes: "Omlor
contends that the Latin preposition in followed by the
accusative case means `unto the remission of sins,' and `thus
this word unto in itself conveys the sense of effectiveness
or efficacy.' But Omlor's explanation is not exact. The Latin
preposition in plus the accusative sets up a direction
leading to efficacy and can include both the beginning situation
of redemption for all and the final situation of salvation for
some. Therefore, Omlor's reasoning is not conclusive."
Here, in its entirety, is my par.
71 from QTV: "A first observation is that the word unto
(which in Latin is the preposition `in' followed
by a noun in the accusative case) means to,
towards, or leading up to; and thus this word unto
in itself conveys the sense of effectiveness or efficacy."
The charge that my "explanation
is not exact" is meaningless, for I gave no explanation at
all. My paragraph begins, "A first observation is ... etc.,"
and I concluded this short, one-sentence paragraph with the bare
assertion, "this word unto in itself conveys ... etc."
It was an ipse dixit on my part, a bold "take it
from me" declaration. I gave no reasoning at all to support
my assertion, and therefore the remark that my "reasoning
is not conclusive" is likewise meaningless. When I wrote
that sentence I did not elaborate, for I frankly didn't expect
so rudimentary a point to be challenged. As it has now been challenged,
I will present some of the grammatical rules and "reasoning"
underpinning my assertion. In this section, then, what is to
be defended is my ipse dixit that not only do the words
"for many" convey the correct restrictive sense of efficacy,
but the final phrase, "in remissionem peccatorum,"
which in English is "unto the remission of sins," in
itself also conveys the sense of efficacy or result.
The Latin preposition in
with the accusative case is used to denote physical motion, and
it is also used in an abstract or conceptual sense. Certain parallels
can be drawn between these two usages. Firstly, as regards physical
motion the effective reaching of a destination is nearly
always indicated. Thus "Caesar in Galliam venit"
means that Caesar came into Gaul; he effectively arrived in Gaul.
I said "nearly always"
because one finds occasional examples in classical Latin where
in with the accusative fails to denote efficacy, as, for
instance, in the phrase, "in meridiem fugit"
(he fled towards the south), which does not imply an effective
arrival at a destination. However it must be noted that to use
in with the accusative case in such a manner is to do so
"idiomatically or less exactly," according to Allen
& Greenough (New Latin Grammar, 1903 edition, p.133,
Secondly, and more to our point,
are instances in which in with the accusative is used in
the conceptual sense, such as in the phrase we are
discussing, "in remissionem peccatorum." The
analogy between the physical motion usage and the conceptual usage
will become apparent, in that the notion of efficacy or result
is common to both. Consulting the text An Introduction to
Ecclesiastical Latin (by Rev. H.P.V. Nunn, Cambridge University
Press, 1927), we find on page 111 the paragraph 234, under the
heading "In With the Accusative," where the author illustrates
the "pregnant sense" giving the result
of the action of the verb, and also the use "in a predicate"
to express result; i.e., efficacy.
It was St. Jerome who gave us the
Latin phrase in the Vulgate, "in remissionem peccatorum,"
the words of Jesus in instituting the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist
at the Last Supper, as recorded in St. Matthew's Gospel (26,28).
The Greek text for this phrase is "eis aphesin hamartiòn,"
the preposition "eis," which St. Jerome translated
into Latin as "in." This in turn was rendered
into English as "unto" by Father Gregory Martin, the
scholarly linguistics master appointed by the saintly Cardinal
William Allen to translate the New Testament at Rheims (1578-82).
It is therefore important to
discover the meaning contained in the first link of the chain,
namely, this Greek preposition "eis."
We may consult An Idiom Book
of New Testament Greek by C.F.D. Moule, Cambridge University
Press, 1960. On p.70 the author discusses "eis"
and its connotation resulting in; and he furnishes
several passages from the New Testament to illustrate this point
of grammar. One of these examples is from Romans (5,18), which
contains two "eis" prepositional phrases: "eis
katakrima" and "eis dikaiòsin."
Investigating these two phrases proves to be most enlightening.
Romans (5,18) reads thus in St.
Jerome's Vulgate: "Igitur sicut per unius delictum in
omnes homines in condemnationem, sic et per unius justitiam in
omnes homines in justificationem vitae." Thus we find
the two "eis" prepositional phrases ("eis
katakrima" and "eis dikaiòsin")
translated by St. Jerome into two corresponding Latin prepositional
phrases; to wit: "in condemnationem" and "in
justificationem." These would be rendered literally
into English simply by "unto condemnation" and "unto
Nevertheless the translators of
the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine New Testament (1941) did
not limit themselves to the mere phrases "unto condemnation"
and "unto justification." Rather, for the sake of even
greater clarity, they explicitly spelled out "the result
was unto condemnation" and "the result
is unto justification." Here is the complete passage:
`Therefore as from the offense
of the one man the result was unto condemnation to all men, so
from the justice of the one the result is unto justification of
life to all men.'
When Father Gregory Martin at Rheims
translated Matthew (26,28) into English, he rendered "eis
aphesin hamartiòn" or "in remissionem
peccatorum" into a corresponding simple prepositional
phrase. Of the possible choices of an English preposition (from
among to, for, towards, etc.) he selected "unto"
the one that best denotes the required sense of result.
The word "unto" (which
is now classified by some dictionaries as archaic) is of Middle
English origin (circa 1150-1500), and its etymology derives
from "up to + to"; hence "sick unto death"
means so sick that death results.
The word "unto" can have
other entirely different meanings, as in "do unto others."
Also "faithful unto death" would not necessarily mean
that fidelity results in death (though it could be argued that
such was certainly the case with the martyrs).
Exactly the same phrase, in remissionem
peccatorum (eis aphesin hamartiòn), is found in the
Credo of the Mass: I confess one baptism unto
the remission of sins. "For the remission
of sins" (as is often found) would seem to indicate purpose
only and would thus fail to impart the idea of result or efficacy.
"For the remission of sins" is not faithful to the
true sense of "eis aphesin hamartiòn"
intended by the Fathers at Constantinople, who incorporated this
article in the Creed (A.D. 381). I confess one baptism unto
the remission of sins, a baptism that results in
the remission of sins, a baptism that has efficacy,
that does something! Not just a baptism "so
that sins may be forgiven," as the ICEL would undoubtedly
What I have been attempting to prove
in this section is that in addition to the aspect of efficacy
or result being necessarily denoted by the restrictive wording
"for many," this same sense of efficacy is also contained
in the very words of the final prepositional phrase "unto
the remission of sins." This was the ipse dixit in
par. 71 of QTV, which was challenged by Msgr. McCarthy.
In my foregoing demonstration I
trust I have shown that, purely from the standpoint of Latin,
Greek and English grammar, the true meaning of the words of Jesus
in the consecration of the wine is contained in these words:
This is My Blood which shall be shed for you and for many resulting
in (unto) the remission of their sins. This conveys the
notion of efficacy, or result, that is insisted upon by the Roman
Catechism, St. Thomas, St. Alphonsus, Innocent III and Benedict
The ICEL's "shed for you and for all so that sins may be
forgiven" is so immeasurably different from this correct
notion that even a certified clod would be able to detect the
When the Innovators replaced
Christ's word `many' by their own words `all men', they necessarily
had to change also the final phrase, unto the forgiveness
of sins. For to say that Christ died for ALL
men UNTO the forgiveness of sins is, in effect, to say
that His Passion actually brought about the forgiveness
of the sins of all men. And this, of course, clearly is undiluted
And therefore the entire meaning,
or `essential sense' of Christ's own words was changed when the
Innovators made their `form' read: "for you and for ALL
men so that sins MAY be forgiven." What is conveyed
by these words is the idea of the potential forgiveness
of the sins of all men, which idea is opposed to the original
meaning Christ clearly intended to convey which is that of the
actual forgiveness of the sins of `many'.
(From QTV, pp. 149-150).
As has been stated above, the principal
fruit or effect of the Holy Eucharist that is, its
res sacramenti is the union of the Mystical
Body of Christ.
Now, it is through reception of the Holy Eucharist that we, the
members of the Mystical Body in the branch known as the "Church
Militant," become more closely and firmly united to Jesus
Christ the Head of the Mystical Body
and also to one another, and also to our fellow-members in the
other two branches; viz., the Church Suffering and the
Church Triumphant. This
truth is closely related to the Church's teaching on the Communion
of Saints (which we profess in the Ninth Article of the Apostles'
Creed), whereby the different members of the Mystical Body participate
in one another's spiritual goods.
The very principle of existence
and origin of this aforesaid union is sanctifying grace. Any
person living in the state of sanctifying grace is automatically
within Christ's Mystical Body.
But if sanctifying grace is the
raison d'être of the union of the Mystical Body,
which is the res sacramenti of the Holy Eucharist, it must
then be acknowledged that the essential and absolute prerequisite
the sine qua non of this union
is the remission of sins.
It is by means of the Sacrament
of Baptism that we first receive sanctifying grace, and through
the remission of original sin and actual sin (in the case of adult
baptisms) we first become members of the Mystical Body. The Bull
Exultate Deo of Pope Eugene IV
teaches: "Holy Baptism,
which is the gateway (janua) to the spiritual life, holds
the first place among all the sacraments; through it we are made
members of Christ and of the body of the Church."
We retain our status as living
members of the Mystical Body by remaining in the state of sanctifying
grace. And a member who has become spiritually dead through mortal
sin can be reinstated as a living member only by the remission
of sin(s), through what St. Jerome calls "the second
plank after shipwreck," namely, the Sacrament of Penance.
Concerning the Sacrament of Penance, the Council of Trent teaches:
`Besides, it is clear that this
sacrament is in many respects different from Baptism. For apart
from the fact that in matter and form, which constitute the essence
of a sacrament, it differs very widely, ... the fruit of Baptism
is one thing, that of Penance another. For by Baptism we
put on Christ (Gal. 3:27)
and are made in Him an entirely new creature, receiving a full
and complete remission of all sins; to which newness and integrity,
however, we are by no means able to arrive by the sacrament of
Penance without many tears and labors on our part, divine justice
demanding this, so that Penance has rightly been called by the
holy Fathers a laborious kind of Baptism. This sacrament of Penance
is for those who have fallen after Baptism necessary for salvation,
as Baptism is for those who have not yet been regenerated.'
`If anyone, confounding the sacraments,
says that Baptism is itself the sacrament of Penance, as though
these two sacraments were not distinct, and that Penance therefore
is not rightly called the second plank after shipwreck, let him
From all the foregoing it is evident
that the remission of sins that is,
the actual and efficacious remission of sins; or
in other words "in remissionem peccatorum" (UNTO
the remission of sins) is the necessary prerequisite
for: (a) our initial incorporation in the Mystical Body; and (b)
the reinstatement as living members, through the Second Plank
After Shipwreck, of those who have lost sanctifying grace. Consequently,
the REMISSION OF SINS CAN BE SAID TO CAUSE THE UNION of the members
of the Mystical Body.
THEREFORE, inasmuch as this union
is the very res sacramenti of the Holy Eucharist, which
must be signified in the words of the sacramental form,
it is likewise evident that the final phrase of the form for the
Consecration of the Wine in its entirety
to wit: "for you and for many unto the remission of sins"
comprises these essential words. The words "you"
and "many" designate the members; the words, "unto
the remission of sins", signify the principle of their unity.
O vinculum caritatis!
The dictionary definition of "ambiguous"
is: "Capable of being understood in two or more possible
senses; equivocal." The seven examples below are all excerpts
taken verbatim from Monsignor McCarthy's article. They were selected
for presentation because they all contain the inherent assumption
or the forthright admission that the ICEL form is ambiguous.
1) The Latin preposition in
plus the accusative sets up a direction leading to efficacy and
can include both the beginning situation of redemption for all
and the final situation of salvation for some.
2) What I do want to point out is
that "for all men" does not invalidate the form, if
the aspect of efficacy recedes from "for many" to "for
you" and the following words "for all" become an
expression of the salvific will of Christ towards all men.
3) Was the ICEL translation made
and presented in awareness of this contrary theological and doctrinal
position? Was due attention paid to the need to keep the form
of the sacrament clear and unambiguous ...?
4) And so Omlor is constrained to
argue that the addition of the words "and for all men"
changes the essential sense of the form from that of efficacy
to that of sufficiency. Now, this might be true if the words,
"for you" did not precede the words "for all,"
but, when the words "for you" are retained, the sense
of efficacy is already conveyed, so that the succeeding words
"and for all" simply express the background of the salvific
will of Christ on the Cross. Thus, the sense of efficacy of the
form may be weakened and obscured, but it is not destroyed.
5) While this translation does not
clearly invalidate the sacrament, as Omlor maintains, it does
seem to confuse and obscure its integral form.
6) Note also that the form of the
Holy Eucharist both looks to the future and looks to the past
... Similarly, the words of the form for the Holy Eucharist, even
as they refer primarily to the efficacious graces that will flow
from the Mass, refer also in a secondary sense to all the graces
that were to come from the sacrifice on Calvary. To make this
secondary sense explicit in a secondary way would not necessarily
invalidate the form, but it does effect a partial change of emphasis
which does not seem very consistent with the original meaning
of the words.
7) Martin Luther contended that,
since Christ died once and for all and thereby redeemed all men,
there was no need for the Mass. The emphasis upon the salvific
will in the words "for all" could suggest a Lutheran
misunderstanding of the Mass, and its reduction in the minds of
some to a mere communion service.
The foregoing excerpts all reveal
that Monsignor McCarthy believes the ICEL form, "for you
and for all so that sins may be forgiven," can be understood
in two or more possible senses. NOW, A SACRAMENTAL FORM THAT
IS AMBIGUOUS IS IPSO FACTO INVALID. "In our sacraments,"
teaches the Catechism of the Council of Trent, "the form
is so definite that any, even a casual deviation from it, renders
the sacrament null. Hence the form is expressed in the clearest
terms, such as exclude the possibility of doubt." "Moreover,
the signification must not be ambiguous, but so far definite as
to discriminate the grace effected from graces of a different
kind ...," noted Cardinal Vaughan on the same subject.
Here I should make an important
clarification. From the above it must not be thought that the
form of a sacrament cannot signify more than one thing. The "Respondeo"
of St. Thomas in Summa Th., III, Q.78, a.3, explains the
various things that are designated or signified in the consecration
of the wine by the various parts of the form: "This is the
chalice of My Blood," "of the new and eternal testament,"
"the mystery of faith," "for you and for many unto
the remission of sins," etc. (Also, in "Res Sacramenti",
an article published in May 1970, as Issue No. 3 of Interdum,
I discussed four things that are signified in the form for the
Holy Eucharist, namely, transubstantiation, sacrifice, propitiation,
and the res sacramenti, which is the union of the Mystical
Body of Christ).
When we say an ambiguous sacramental
form is ipso facto invalid, we mean that a single
word or group of words cannot be understood in more than
one way. Thus, for example, were one to claim "This is My
Body" refers both to Christ's true body and also to His Mystical
Body, he would be asserting that those words are ambiguous. Therefore
it is evident that Monsignor McCarthy's opinions that were cited
above all presume the ICEL form is ambiguous in the "ipso
facto invalid" sense, because they all claim the same
phrase, "for you and for all so that sins may be forgiven,"
is to be understood as meaning more than one thing.
Msgr. McCarthy observes, "First
of all, Omlor's case for the invalidity of the ICEL form for the
consecration of the wine does not appear convincing to me,"
but he does acknowledge elsewhere in his article that I have written
a "highly documented treatise," that my quoted sources
are "impressive in their own right," and that "Omlor
quotes an array of authorities," etc.
What do appear convincing to him
are his own jerry-built theological theories. In propounding
them he appeals to no higher authority. He offers no quotations
from any Father or Doctor of the Church, nor does he cite any
recognized theologian, or catechism, or dogmatic theology text.
Neither does he invoke the Magisterium of the Church through
dicta or acta of the Sovereign Pontiffs, ecumenical
councils, etc. Throughout the entire presentation of his case
(which begins at the bottom of page 4 of the journal and takes
up most of page 5) he quotes one, and only one, supposed authority
to support his theories. This authority is, of all people, Omlor!
He commences his case thus: "But
Our Lord, in the ICEL translation of the form, is referring only
to members (present or future) of the Mystical Body where He says
`for you.' Therefore, from this aspect, the essential sense of
the proper form is preserved. Omlor himself admits this (on page
65 of his treatise), where he says that `even simply the words
for you would suffice to signify the members of the Mystical
Body.' And therefore, this part of his argument falls."
Great balls o' fire! Never,
on page 65 or in any other place have I admitted that the ICEL
version preserves the essential sense of the proper form. For
that is the very antithesis of my position! Monsignor McCarthy
has failed utterly to perceive the context in which I made the
remark he cites, the purpose of which was simply to show
that all the Scriptural accounts of the Institution of
the Holy Eucharist contain words that refer to the Mystical Body.
Below is the mere half-sentence he has quoted (the part in bold
print), followed by the remainder of my explanation on page 65
of QTV, which clearly shows the overall context:
... even simply the words "for
you" would suffice to signify the members of the Mystical
Body. And it is important
to note well that all Scriptural accounts [Note: these
italics are in the original text of QTV] of the institution of
the Holy Eucharist contain this signification of the members of
the Mystical Body.
Thus Sts. Matthew and Mark record
"for many." St. Luke records: "This is
my body, which is given for you," and also "This
is the chalice, the new testament in my blood, which shall be
shed for you." ...
St. Thomas has explained that not
all the essential elements of this sacramental form can be found
in any single account from the Scriptures: "The Evangelists
did not intend to hand down the forms for the sacraments, which
in the primitive Church had to be kept concealed, as Dionysius
observes at the close of his book on the ecclesiastical hierarchy:
their object was to write the story of Christ." (Summa
Th., III, Q.78, a.3, ad 9).
From my comments on p. 65 of QTV
it cannot be inferred that the words, "for you," and
these words alone, (which appear in St. Luke's Gospel),
would suffice to signify the Mystical Body in the sacramental
form for the Holy Eucharist.
The crux of Msgr. McCarthy's case,
upon which his whole argument depends, is that the mere words,
"for you," suffice to denote the entire
Mystical Body in the ICEL form. And therefore the presence of
these two words, "for you," preserves validity, despite
the addition of "and for all," and despite the further
addition of the clause of purpose, "so that sins may be forgiven."
The cornerstone of his case hinges on the great authority Omlor,
whom he quotes as saying, "even simply the words `for you'
would suffice to signify the members of the Mystical Body."
There is a subtle, yet chasmal,
difference between the "for you" in St. Luke's Gospel
I cited, standing alone by itself, and these same words "for
you" taken from St. Luke and made part of the sacramental
form, "for you and for many unto the remission of sins."
When incorporated into the sacramental form, these words "for
you" do not signify the entire Mystical Body, but only
a part thereof. This mysterious signification now contained
in the sacramental form is wrought through the incomprehensible
design and operation of the Holy Ghost, as is explained by the
Roman Catechism in these words:
`But those words which are added,
"For you and for many," are taken severally from S.
Matthew and S. Luke, which notwithstanding Holy Church, taught
by the Spirit of God, has join'd together. ...
When therefore He said, "For
you", He signifi'd either them that were then present, or
those whom He had chosen out of the Jewish people, such as were
His Disciples, except Judas, with whom He spake. But when He
added, "For many," He would have the rest that were
elected [i.e., the REMAINDER of the Elect] either
Jews or Gentiles, to be understood.'
Monsignor McCarthy's key assumption, the cornerstone on which
his entire case rests, namely, that the mere words "for you"
allegedly denote the Mystical Body in toto (thus
supposedly preserving the essential sense of the form) is absolutely
unsound, as I have just shown, quoting the original 1687 English
version of the Roman Catechism.
Furthermore, contrary to Monsignor
McCarthy's theory, the simple fact that the words "for you"
were retained in the ICEL's form does not and cannot take care
of the invalidity problem. These words "for you" in
no way nullify or counteract the false signification
of the ICEL's additional spurious words, "and for all men."
This is an important point, and it seems appropriate to reproduce
what I wrote some twenty years ago in the article, "Res
Since `all men' do not, never have,
and never will belong to Christ's Mystical Body, it is evident
that these words substituted in the form cannot possibly designate
the res sacramenti (the union of the Mystical Body). On
the contrary, they contain a false signification;
they are in opposition to the special grace of the
Eucharist. "For all men" works against the purpose
for which Christ instituted the Holy Eucharist, namely, the unity
of His Mystical Body. As long as these words are present,
mutilating the form, the Sacrament and the Mass must, in our opinion,
be considered invalid...
In another place Msgr. McCarthy
states, "And so Omlor is constrained to argue that the addition
of the words `and for all men' changes the essential sense of
the form from that of efficacy to that of sufficiency."
Not in the derogatory sense that is implied am I constrained to
argue thus; but I am constrained in the sense that principles
of sacramental theology and simple English rhetoric force
me to this conclusion. Examine the ICEL's bogus form. Look at
the words themselves, "shed for you and for all so that sins
may be forgiven." Do they denote even a whit of efficacy?
Monsignor McCarthy seemingly does
not pay sufficient attention to the overall contexts in which
words appear. He claims, "... but, when the words `for you'
are retained, the sense of efficacy is already conveyed."
Now, to assert, albeit erroneously, that "for you"
denotes the entire Mystical Body is one thing. But to claim these
words "for you" in themselves denote efficacy
is absurd. Even moreso when they are followed by the clause of
purpose: "so that sins may be forgiven."
His other theory that "the aspect of efficacy recedes from
`for many' to `for you'" smacks of semantic sleight of hand.
When reading his many arguments
(cited earlier) that presume ambiguity in the ICEL form, I was
struck particularly by this one:
"The Latin preposition in
plus the accusative case sets up a direction leading to efficacy
and can include both the beginning situation of redemption for
all and the final situation of salvation for some."
It was déjà-vu!
Back in 1968, Father Most claimed,
"One can with equal ease think of the fact that the redemption
was sufficient to forgive all sins,
or the fact that it actually or efficaciously leads
to forgiveness only in some men, in those who accept
My reply to this was as follows:
Though it is not the case, let us
assume (for argument's sake) that the new "form" actually
does convey both sufficiency and efficacy. The
"form" would then be automatically wrong, for the proper
form should denote efficacy only. In explaining
why "all men" should not be used, the Trent Catechism
gives this reason: "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." (Emphasis
Secondly, if the new "form"
does convey these two entirely different concepts, it is, by definition,
ambiguous. Hence it cannot be a valid form, which
must be definite, as stated above in Reply to
But, finally, the new "form"
actually denotes sufficiency only (as explained
in par. 72 and in pars. 80-82 earlier in this monograph), because
the phrase "all men," by its universality, cannot possibly
denote "the elect only." (QTV, 3rd edition, pp. 118119).
The good news is that the ICEL form
is not ipso facto invalid owing to some ambiguity, simply
because the actual words don't signify more than one thing; they
clearly signify sufficiency only. It is solely in the imaginings
of Father Most and Monsignor McCarthy that both sufficiency and
efficacy are signified. The bad news is that my case for invalidity
Another plank in Msgr. McCarthy's
case is that "The validity of the ICEL translation is bolstered
in the new Sacramentary by the addition of the words in the consecration
of the bread, `which will be given up for you.' It is the same
`you,' the members of the Mystical Body, that appears again in
the consecration of the wine." (He has an idée
fixe about those words "for you".)
One dictionary definition of "bolster"
is "To support, hold up, or maintain; esp. to support with
difficulty or effort." Another dictionary gives: "Support
so as to keep from falling." What is unshakeable needs no
bolstering. During the long period before the new Sacramentary
became finally "approved", with the updated bread consecration
form, what was the status of the English "Mass"? Invalid,
or doubtfully valid, or merely unbolstered? This plank in the
Monsignor's case is so mournfully weak it is beyond bolstering.
the words that were added to the bread consecration, "which
will be given up for you," do not denote efficacy any more
than do the words "for you" in the ICEL wine consecration.
The formulae in the various Eastern rite liturgies contain additional
words in the consecration of the bread (which, it must be noted,
are not necessary for validity), but these additional words denote
efficacy. For example, in the Byzantine Rite we find: "This
is My Body which is broken for you unto the remission of sins."
The ICEL's form does not have "unto the remission of sins,"
or any other equivalent words which would denote efficacy.
In comparing our Latin Rite with
the Eastern rites, however, some caution must be observed. Some
elements that are fittingly contained in the Oriental liturgies
are not to be found in our Latin Rite. Vice versa, the words,
"the Mystery of Faith," (for example), that are part
of the Latin Rite formula, do not fittingly appear in any of the
Eastern rite liturgies, except those of the Maronites, the Chaldeans,
and the Malabarites.
therefore, words to commemorate Our Lord's Passion, such as the
ICEL's "which will be given up for you," are not appropriate
in the Latin Rite form for the consecration of the bread. The
Roman Catechism explains this inaptness in the passage quoted
below, which is excerpted from the same 1687 edition, all italics
being in the original text. Concerning the wine consecration:
`Wherefore fitly in this place,
rather than in the Consecration of the Body,
is the Passion of the Lord commemorated in these words
`which shall be shed for the remission of sins.' For the Blood
being separately consecrated by it self, with relation
to the Passion of the Lord, has greater force and
power to lay before the eyes of all, both the Death
and kind of suffering.'
the words, "This is My Body", and these words alone,
suffice for the valid consecration of the bread. After
nearly two thousand years the Innovators decide to append
"which will be given up for you." This meddling, this
pointless innovation, would seem to accomplish nothing. However,
whenever seemingly harmless, though also seemingly
pointless, things are done by conspirators, there is always
purpose behind them. They are called machinations.
To date the Innovators
have violated the sacred consecration
form by means of at least six distinct changes, on three separate
occasions. This "trial and error" tinkering would be
farcical if it regarded any ordinary matter, instead of the most
holy of things, the words of Jesus Christ.
(1) The original despoiled version
of 1967 introduced the "for all men so that sins may be forgiven"
change, which is the invalidating mutilation of the form we have
been discussing in depth.
(2) In the same 1967 version the
consecration form for the wine was broken up into two separate
sentences; the first sentence ending with the words, "the
mystery of faith," and the second beginning with the words,
"This blood is to be shed for you and for all men ... etc."
As was pointed out as far back as May 1970 in the article Res
Sacramenti, this unprecedented innovation in itself is yet
another probable source of invalidity.
St. Thomas Aquinas teaches that
all the words following "This is the chalice of My Blood"
are determinations of the predicate; that is, they determine the
essential signifying elements of the Sacrament by means of the
uninterrupted recitation by the priest of the words of Christ.
Consequently the discontinuity of the ICEL form, caused by stopping
the recitation after several determinations have been expressed
(that is, up through the words "the mystery of faith"),
and then resuming with a new sentence, interferes
with the integrity of the entire expression. In all other sacraments
the essential form is expressed in a single statement, wherein
all the necessary signifying elements of the sacrament are contained
in the one uninterrupted utterance.
(3) In the "New Order"
of the Mass (Novus Ordo Missae) that was first promulgated
several years later in 1969, the vitiated form comprising the
two separate sentences was retained. However, the sentences themselves
were changed in wording once again! The first now completely
omits the words "the mystery of faith," and ends with
the words "new and everlasting convenant." The second
sentence was changed from "This blood is to be shed for you
and for all men ... etc." to "It will be shed for you
and for all men ...etc.". Observe the trivial alterations:
"It" instead of "This blood"; "will be
shed" instead of "is to be shed." Such seemingly
foolish fiddling, apparently just for the sake of fiddling, was
really not foolish at all. These changes and the ones mentioned
just below in Nos. (4) and (5) all served the very useful purpose
of diverting attention away from the real issue, namely, the serious
and invalidating change, "for all men so that sins may be
(4) In the same Novus Ordo
of 1969, the words "the Mystery of Faith" were deleted
from the actual consecration form, as was mentioned above, only
to reappear afterwards outside the consecration
itself, in the form of an acclamation by the priest, to which
the congregation replies, "Christ has died, Christ is risen,
Christ will come again." These three truths have nothing
whatsoever to do with the mystery of faith of the Holy Eucharist;
to wit, what was formerly wine and still has all the physical
and chemical properties of wine is not wine, but It is now the
Precious Blood and the Body, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ.
O res mirabilis! The acclamation, "the mystery of
faith," followed by the wholly inappropriate reply by the
congregation, suppresses the dogma of the Real Presence and thereby
implicitly but in fact denies it. For the true meaning of those
words, "Mystery of Faith," in this place, is explained
lucidly and succinctly by the Roman Catechism:
"for it is call'd the
mystery of Faith, because by Faith we perceive
Christ's Blood hid under the Species of Wine."
(5) The appending to the form for
the consecration of the bread of the words, "which will be
given up for you," (which was already discussed in the previous
section) was also a feature of the Novus Ordo.
(6) The reader has perhaps noticed
that I have sometimes referred to the "for all men"
change, and sometimes simply to "for all." Only a few
years ago (1985) the ICEL changed their original "for all
men" to "for all." The change was an official
and mandatory one. The reason? Because political pressure was
exerted by vociferous, left wing, so-called "feminist"
creatures! Lest we forget, we are talking about the supposed
sacred words of Jesus Christ in the supposed Catholic Mass.
But the sacred words of Christ and
the safeguarding of a valid Mass mean absolutely nothing to those
vile wreckers. They are like automobile mechanics adjusting a
carburetor until the mixture seems right. They treat those sacred
words as toys, to be played with, taken apart and experimented
upon again and again until they finally come up with something
"acceptable," at least for the time being.
In one edition of Webster's New
Collegiate Dictionary the first definitions given for "conspiracy"
are "Combination of persons for an evil purpose; a plot."
In this section I shall show that the invalidating "for
all men" vitiation of the Catholic Mass was prearranged and
carried out by the perpetrators of what I hereby designate as
the `For All Men' International Conspiracy.
As Monsignor McCarthy so capably
demonstrated, never was there the slightest explicit approval
or "go ahead" officially given, not even by the Vatican
II Council of the Robber Church, for anyone to render the Canon
of the Mass into the vernacular tongues. Archbishop Robert J.
Dwyer of Portland, Oregon, stated at the time: "The ICEL
has performed its task so poorly as to raise serious questions
as to its competence. Never was there the slightest consultation
with the bishops of the English-speaking world; here is a
signal instance of bureaucracy inflicting its will by methods
which can only be described as high-handed." (Quoted in
Twin Circle, June 21, 1970, with my italics added). The
Archbishop's first statement is quite incorrect, for the ICEL
performed its assigned task magnificently with consummate competence,
all according to plan. The conspirators knew exactly what they
were doing, their execution of the scheme was deft, and everything
went as smoothly as clockwork, at least at first.
These words of Danton
come to mind: "In order
to overcome them, Messieurs, we need audacity, more audacity,
always audacity, and France is saved." Mrs. Nesta Webster
described the modus operandi of the conspiratorial French
Revolutionists as "effrontery, an insolent contempt for public
opinion, the mutual resolution to bring off a coup and brazen
out the consequences" (The French Revolution, p. 305).
During 1967-68 vernacularized liturgies
started popping up "spontaneously" in a multitude of
languages all over the globe, all at about the same time and all,
as we have seen, without official approbation. Now, if the phony
"translation" of "pro multis" into
"for all men" had slipped by only in the English version,
then one might possibly have attributed such a blatant blunder
to the deplorable ignorance of Latin and sacramental theology
that was then prevalent among most bishops of the English-speaking
world, whose proficiency in those areas of learning, as is now
quite clear, was (and is) somewhat less remarkable than that of,
say, the Negrillo pygmies of Central Africa.
However, the bogus words, for
all men, did not appear only in the English version. With
very few exceptions (e.g., in the Polish, Japanese and Vietnamese
translations) the very same falsified words, for all, or
for all men also occurred in all those vernacular renditions
that popped up so spontaneously. As examples: in Italian, per
tutti; in German, für Alle; in Spanish, por
todos; in Portuguese, por todos os homens, etc. Departing
from the various versions of the French New Testament (Matthew
26,28), which have either pour un grand nombre or pour
une multitude (both of which mean literally "for many"),
the vernacularized French liturgy has pour la multitude.
There is a difference between the correct "une multitude"
and "la multitude," for the latter does not mean
many, but rather "the masses." It is equivalent literally
to the Greek hoi polloi, which has become part of the English
language. "La multitude" certainly does not
satisfactorily signify the Mystical Body, the "many"
that Christ intended.
To anyone who has no inkling that
a preconcerted plan of conspirators was afoot this spontaneous
incorrect rendering of "pro multis" on a virtually
universal basis must seem most astounding, for two reasons. (1)
In all those countries and in all those languages the New Testament
sources of these words (Matt. 26,28) all have the word which is
the equivalent of "many" in English. Moreover, presumably
these same equivalents of "many" appeared in the vernacular
versions of the wine consecration form in all the laymen's missals
that were in use in all those countries. (2) Every schoolboy
knows that "pro multis" means "for many";
and "for all" would be "pro omnibus".
Those vernacularized liturgies that
started popping up "spontaneously" in 1967-68, in a
multitude of languages all over the globe, all at about the same
time and all without official approbation, were all produced by
various national or international "Committees on the Liturgy,"
which were the counterparts of the English-speaking ICEL. This
orchestrated global operation was directed and controlled by the
Vatican's now defunct "Sacred Congregation for the Divine
Cult," that nefarious creation of Montini which supplanted
the Sacred Congregation of Rites. At the time of the `For
All Men' International Conspiracy the Secretary of this "Sacred"
Congregation was Msgr. Annibale Bugnini who was later (1972) made
an archbishop. He died in 1982 at the age of seventy.
The reader will recall that Bugnini,
the ringleader of the conspiracy, was publicly exposed in 1976
as having been secretly a Freemason since April 23, 1963, Code
Number 136575, and Code Name "BUAN". Pope Leo
XIII (encyclical Humanum Genus, 1884) declared Freemasonry
to be of "the kingdom of Satan"; and eighteen years
later in "A Review of His Pontificate" (March
19, 1902), the same Pontiff spoke again of Freemasonry as "Full
of the spirit of Satan." Now I ask, can any person of sound
mind conceivably suppose that Annibale Bugnini, that most talented
operative of Freemasonry, which is of the "mystical body
of Satan," would be taking pains to preserve
the validity of the Catholic Mass and would be making sure that
the Mystical Body of Christ was being properly signified
in the words of the consecration form?
Catholics all over the world
the victims of "audacity, more audacity, always audacity"
were supposed to believe that this ubiquitous occurrence
of "all men" resulted from the universally acknowledged
fact that "for all men" is indeed correct. As there
was supposedly no complicity or connivance between the various
national liturgical groups, all those linguistic scholars in different
parts of the world worked on their translations all by themselves,
totally without any outside influences, and all those experts
came up with the very correct translation "for all."
Least of all (we must supposedly conclude) would there have been
any secret Masonic clique masterminding the whole concerted operation
of those various national groups, all acting so absolutely independently
and individually, for that would smack of conspiracy!
There are two, and only two, possible
explanations of what happened. Either there was a brilliantly
executed conspiracy, "the mutual resolution to bring off
a coup and brazen out the consequences," or else there was
in the years 1967-68 a world-wide, mysterious dearth of schoolboys
able to give advice on the correct translation of "pro
We cannot absolutely know that
all these exact adaptations are the result of preconcert. But
when we see a lot of framed timbers, different portions of which
we know have been gotten out at different times and places, and
by different workmen Stephen, Franklin, Roger, and
James, for instance and when we see these timbers
joined together, and see they exactly make the frame of a house
or a mill, all the tenons and mortices exactly fitting, and all
the lengths and proportions of the different pieces exactly adapted
to their respective places, and not a piece too many or too few,
not omitting even scaffolding or, if a
single piece be lacking, we see the place in the frame exactly
fitted and prepared yet to bring such a piece in
in such a case, we find it impossible not to believe that Stephen
and Franklin and Roger and James all understood one another from
the beginning, and all worked upon a common plan or draft drawn
up before the first blow was struck.
(From the speech, "The House Divided Against Itself,"
delivered at Springfield, Illinois, June 17, 1858, by Abraham
At this point the reader is possibly
wondering why the international gangsters were so hellbent on
getting "for all" firmly implanted in virtually all
the liturgies throughout the world. A little later on I shall
elucidate this point.
In declaring Anglican Orders to
be categorically invalid, Pope Leo XIII (Bull Apostolicae Curae,
1896) averred that the invalidity arises from two sources, namely,
defect of form and defect of intention. Defect of form
because the form of words for the Sacrament of Holy Orders that
the Protestant Revolutionaries concocted fails to provide the
necessary sacramental signification; thus on this count the Anglicans'
"sacrament" is utterly null. They have no priests at
By defect of intention
the Sovereign Pontiff Leo XIII meant that the Anglicans' "sacrament"
is, moreover, likewise null because of the depraved intentions
of the framers of the bogus rite. Pope Leo furthermore
made it clear that either one of these defects, of form or of
intention, alone by itself, would have been sufficient to render
the sacrament invalid; both defects were not required.
The intention in another's mind
is at times difficult to know, but it is not always impossible
to discover it. Leo determined that the intentions of those Protestant
Revolutionaries, clearly and unmistakably ascertainable
from their own words and writings, were to invent a new
rite for a new type of ministry that is totally
different from the Catholic Church's, and perforce from Christ's,
concept of the priesthood.
We have thus far focused attention
on the defect of form of the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist and
the Mass resulting from the "for all men ... etc." falsification.
In the preceding section we also adverted to the Masonic animus
that inspired this falsification. Therefore it would seem unnecessary
to press the invalidity issue any further. However, it seems
appropriate to touch upon, though only very briefly, the defect
of intention of the framers of the new liturgy. Their perverse
intentions have already been most skillfully exposed by a group
of eminent Roman theologians.
The "New Order of the Mass"
(Novus Ordo Missae) was originally promulgated in April
of 1969; and it is important to note that its authors were the
very same Masonic subversives, still directed and controlled by
Annibale Bugnini, who had earlier brazened out the "for all
men" conspiracy. Shortly after the Novus Ordo was
released a theological tract appeared that bore the title,
Roman Theologians Take a Look at the New Order of the Mass.
This brilliant treatise is replete
throughout with the most damning evidence, quoted from the very
lips of the criminals themselves through their published words,
showing conclusively their perverse intentions to invent a new
liturgy that is totally different from the Catholic Mass. Bearing
in mind the proverb, "Qui nimis probat, nihil probat,"
(he who proves too much proves nothing), I shall cite but one
passage from this tract in which the Roman Theologians reproduce,
verbatim, the very definition of "Mass"
furnished by the criminals, followed by the analysis of this definition.
The passage is from pages 56, and all the italics shown
are in the original text:
Let us begin with the definition
of the Mass given in para. 7, that is at the beginning of the
second chapter of the Novus Ordo, "De structura missae":
"Cena dominica sive Missa est sacra synaxis seu congregatio
populi Dei in unum convenientis, sacerdote praeside, ad memoriale
Domini celebrandum. Quare de sanctae ecclesiae locali congregatione
eminenter valet promissio Christi `Ubi sunt duo vel tres congregati
in nomine meo, ibi sum in medio eorum.' (Mt. 18,20)."
[Author's note: an English translation
of the foregoing definition of Mass is, "The Lord's Supper
or Mass is the gathering together as one of the holy assembly
or the congregation of the People of God, with a priest as President,
to celebrate the memorial of the Lord." The Roman Theologians'
analysis of this definition continues below.]
The definition of Mass is thus limited
to that of "supper," which is constantly repeated (Nos.
8, 48, 55d, 56); this "supper" is, moreover, characterised
by the congregation presided over by the priest, and by the act
of remembrance of our Lord, recalling what He did on Holy Thursday.
None of this implies either the Real Presence or the reality
of the Sacrifice or the sacral character of the officiating
priest or the intrinsic worth of the eucharistic Sacrifice
independently of the presence of the congregation. In a word,
it does not imply a single one of the dogmatic values essential
to the Mass, and constituting its true definition. Their deliberate
omission here suggests that they are "out of date" and
amounts, at least in practice, to their denial.
Roman Theologians Take a Look
at the New Order of the Mass
continues with page after page of similar self-incriminating evidence
provided by the inventors of the new "Mass."
The Roman Theologians' concluding
comments include the following: "We have limited ourselves
to a summary examination of the Novus Ordo at those points
where it departs from the theology of the Catholic Mass"
(p. 18); "It is clear that the Novus Ordo no longer
intends to present the faith as taught by the Council of Trent"
(p. 19). Note well the words, "no longer intends."
Defect of intention of the FRAMERS of the
rite as well as defect of form. No Mass at all on two
G. B. Montini promulgated the Novus
Ordo on April 3, 1969,
whereas Pope Leo XIII, a true
Vicar of Christ, would have anathematized it in a flash! The
Council of Trent, in fact, did anathematize it in advance,
as shall be seen. My purpose now is not to continue demonstrating
the invalidity of the Bogus Ordo, but merely to cite one example
of the incredible impudence of the conspirators.
The Conspirators: "Since the
Eucharistic celebration is a Paschal banquet, according to the
command of the Lord, his body and blood are taken as SPIRITUAL
FOOD." (Quoted from par. 56 of "General Instruction
on the Roman Missal"). Commenting on yet another place
where this same heretical view is expressed (namely, in par. 28
of the same "General Instruction"), the Roman Theologians
remarked on p. 14 of their devastating treatise: "So Christ
is indeed present, but ONLY SPIRITUALLY."
"His body and blood are taken
as SPIRITUAL FOOD": even Danton would have blushed
at such audacity! For the Conspirators poached this condemned
phraseology from Thomas Cranmer's Book of Common Prayer (1549):
"Thou has vouchsafed to feed us in these holy mysteries
with the SPIRITUAL FOOD of the most precious body and blood
of thy Son." The Holy Council of Trent (Canon 8, Session
XIII) condemned this heresy of Cranmer and of all those who would
ever dare to follow in his footsteps: "If anyone says that
Christ received in the Eucharist is received ONLY SPIRITUALLY
and not also sacramentally and really, let him be anathema."
(All emphases in the preceding two
paragraphs were added by the author.).
Some fundamental Catholic principles
must be recalled before we come to the gist of this present section.
It is essential that these few selected vital teachings of Catholicism,
set side by side (mosaicked), become crystallized in the reader's
mind, so that the realization of what has happened and is still
happening today may become emblazoned upon his intellect. What
for some has thus far been mere suspicion must now be confirmed
as being reality. The reality is not gladsome. But instead of
becoming timorous we should perhaps reflect upon these words of
the immortal patriot Patrick Henry: "For my part, whatever
anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole
truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it." (From
the speech, "Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death,"
delivered at Richmond, Virginia, March 23, 1775).
(1) The Catholic Church is not
"first among equals." It is the UNIQUE, True,
Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church, founded by Our Lord
Jesus Christ. This Catholic Church, known also as the Mystical
Body of Christ, is the one and only ARK OF SALVATION, outside
which there is naught but spiritual shipwreck.
(2) Apostasy, which is defined
as the "abandonment of the Catholic faith," automatically
severs a person totally from the Church,
Christ's Mystical Body, the Ark of Salvation. St. Thomas Aquinas
(Summa Th., II-II, Q. 12, a. 3) gives this example of apostasy:
"Moreover if anyone were ... to worship at the tomb of Mahomet,
he would be deemed an apostate." Concerning an apostate
the Angelic Doctor remarks, "The result is that he sows
discord, endeavoring to sever others from the faith even as
he severed himself."
(3) Pope Pius XI deemed ecumenism
to be "tantamount to abandoning the religion revealed by
God." In his encyclical Mortalium Animos (1928),
he taught authoritatively: "With this object congresses,
meetings and addresses are arranged ... where all without distinction
... are invited to join in the discussion. Now, such efforts
can meet with no kind of approval among Catholics. They
presume the erroneous view that all religions are more or less
good and praiseworthy. Those who hold such a view are
not only in error; they distort the true idea of religion, and
thus they reject it, falling gradually into naturalism and atheism.
To favor this opinion, therefore, and to encourage such undertakings
is tantamount to abandoning the religion revealed by God."
The last six words that were quoted constitute the precise definition
of apostasy. (Italics added in the above).
In the magisterial words just cited
the Sovereign Pontiff Pius XI spoke only of mere meetings
with those outside the Faith for the purpose of theological discussions,
since that in itself presupposes the erroneous view
that false sects are "more or less good and praiseworthy";
and such ecumenism furthermore dares to presume also that the
words of Christ, "An evil tree cannot bring forth good fruit,"
are false. Man's only real and ultimate good is the possession
of the Beatific Vision; no false church, or sect, or religious
movement, or pagan cult can possibly lead thereto. On the contrary,
such as these are but harmful impedimenta.
(4) Even more serious a crime than
the ecumenism described above which involves mere
meetings, but is nevertheless tantamount to apostasy
is the worshipping together with those outside the
Catholic Faith. This crime is known as "communicatio
in sacris," and it is expressly condemned by CANON LAW
(Canon 1258, CJC). As
every Catholic surely knows, communicatio in sacris is
mortally sinful; it is a flagrant act of apostasy.
The interpretation of CANON 1258
is expounded by the noted Jesuit authors, Bouscaren and Ellis,
in Canon Law, A Text and Commentary, (Bruce, Milwaukee,
1951). In the following comment (from p. 704) the authors are
referring to merely passive presence, that is, the
mere physical presence at a non-Catholic service; let alone active
participation, which is what constitutes communicatio
in sacris. "It is conceivable that even merely passive
presence might be accompanied by an internal intention to approve,
assent to, or encourage the non-Catholic worship; if that were
true it would be formal co-operation in an evil act, and
forbidden by the natural law." (Emphasis added).
(5) A well know axiom, "Lex
Credendi : Lex Orandi" should also be called to mind:
"What people already believe
is automatically and necessarily mirrored in the very words of
the prayers they recite. This truism is one part of the principle:
Lex Credendi : Lex Orandi the law of belief
is the law of prayer. This principle works reversely also: that
is to say, people can be led towards certain beliefs
by means of the very prayers they are accustomed to saying (and
hearing). And that is why parents teach their small children
The Hail Mary, for example, and The Apostles' Creed, even though
these little ones do not yet fully understand everything they
are praying. Now, whether or not these parents are familiar with
the phrase, lex credendi : lex orandi, they are nevertheless
putting this principle into practice, for they are teaching their
children to pray those things that they will ultimately come to
believe." (From pp. 97-98 QTV).
Having defined apostasy and having
given some theoretical examples, such as ecumenism and communicatio
in sacris, I shall now provide a few specific examples. From
several dozen that readily come to mind I have selected the following
as being good hypothetical illustrations.
EXAMPLE 1. If any Catholic (for example, one known as `Pope') were to enter a Lutheran place of worship in Rome (let us say, just for example, on Dec. 11, 1983) in order to participate in the Lutherans' celebration of the 500th anniversary of Martin Luther's birth;
and if this
hypothetical Catholic were to join in the Lutherans' worship,
and, moreover, were even to preach a sermon eulogizing Martin
Luther; then this hypothetical Catholic (or, rather, ex-Catholic)
would thereby in effect be publicly proclaiming that Martin Luther
was not the very incarnate personification of consummate hatred
and enmity towards Catholicism which, of course, he was. In a
hypothetical situation such as the one we are describing, this
ex-Catholic (for example, a pope) would have clearly and publicly
demonstrated his betrayal of Jesus Christ and His Church, thus
becoming an apostate, for such behaviour would be "tantamount
to abandoning the religion revealed by God," as the Catholic
Church so forcibly teaches through the words of the Sovereign
Pontiff Pius XI, cited above.
EXAMPLE 2. If any Catholic (for example, one known as `Pope') were to go into a "sacred forest" of tribal animists at Lake Togo in Africa (I realize this must sound like a wholly preposterous hypothetical example, but please bear with me) on, say, August 11, 1985 (which will serve as a reasonable hypothetical date);
and if this hypothetical Catholic were to pray at a place in this sacred forest consecrated to the worship of false gods and then actually perform pagan rites, such as the sprinkling on the ground of a mixture of flour and water, which is a ritual of ancestor worship;
and if the entirely hypothetical French periodical La Croix on, say, Aug. 13, 1985, were to quote our hypothetical Catholic (for example, a pope) as saying, "The prayer meeting in the sanctuary at Lake Togo was particularly striking. There I prayed for the first time with animists.";
and if the Vatican
newspaper L'Osservatore Romano in its Italian edition of,
say, August 11th, (page 5, for example), were to report: "On
John-Paul II's arrival at the place, a sorcerer began to invoke
the spirits: `Power of water, I invoke you; Ancestors, I invoke
you.'"; then in such a hypothetical case as the one we're
studying the hypothetical ex-Catholic, namely the entirely fictitious
"John-Paul II", would be the most hideous apostate.
For such odious, atavistic behaviour would be the ultimate violation
of CANON 1258; unnatural worshipping with heathens
is certainly "formal cooperation in an evil act, and forbidden
by the natural law," as stated by the canon lawyers Bouscaren
EXAMPLE 3. If any Catholic (for example, one known as `Pope') were to travel across the Tiber River from the Vatican (on, say, April 13, 1986, hypothetically) in order to visit the Jewish synagogue in Rome,
and if (as would
perhaps be reported via Reuters news service the same day
this is all hypothetical) "he offered prayers in the synagogue
with Rabbi Elio Toaff during a religious service in the afternoon,"
then such a traitorous ex-Catholic (for example, a pope) would
thereby perform an act of supreme apostasy, namely, communicatio
in sacris with an anti-Christian Jewish rabbi. Such a betrayal
of Jesus Christ and His Mystical Body, the Church, would be not
merely "tantamount to," but brazenly abandoning
the religion revealed by God.
EXAMPLE 4. If any Catholic (for example, one known as `Pope') were personally to organize an assembly in a certain city (the Italian city famous as that of St. Francis will serve as a hypothetical location) of sundry and motley non-Catholic, anti-Catholic and pagan personages, including (hypothetically) Anglican Runcie, Greek Orthodox Methodios, Buddhist Dalai Lama, Methodist Emilio Castro, Hindus, Sikhs, Shintoists, Jainists, tribal animists from Africa, Moslems, Zoroastrians, Jewish rabbis, and the Crow Indian medicine man from Montana, Mr. John Pretty-on-Top;
and if this
hypothetical menagerie were to be assembled on, say, Oct. 27,
1986, so that it could be hypothetically reported in the Nov.
10th edition of Time magazine that our hypothetical ex-Catholic,
a most humble and unpretentious traitor, travelled to the venue
in "a bus with thirty other representatives, and quietly
took a place at the rear of the procession through the town's
cobblestone streets"; then the hypothetical ex-Catholic (for
example, a hypothetical apostate pope) would thereby be proving
audaciously proving that he is apostate
par excellence! World-wide statistics on renegade priests,
fallen away Catholics, apostate nuns, decreasing numbers of priestly
and religious vocations, decreasing numbers of converts to the
Faith, increasing unbelief in even the most essential Catholic
dogmas such as the divinity of Christ and the existence of hell,
etc., all these statistics would verify that our hypothetical
apostate pope has been and is being most successful, because he
would effectively confirm these words of St. Thomas, "The
result is that he sows discord, endeavoring to sever others from
the faith even as he severed himself."
We must move along to consider other
matters, so our little travelogue must now come to an end. In
a way that is disappointing, for I have a plethora of wonderful
hypothetical examples, all very interesting and instructive.
These hypothetical examples could be set in many exotic geographical
locations, such as Fiji, New Delhi, Cameroon, Taizé (France),
Tokyo, Seoul, Mainz (Germany), World Council of Churches Headquarters
(Geneva), Canterbury Cathedral, Kinshasa (formerly Leopoldville,
Belgian Congo), Bangkok, Bombay, Westminster Cathedral, Masonic
Lodge of B'nai B'rith, Port Moresby, Morocco, Istanbul, Manila,
I do hope the four hypothetical
examples I selected for presentation have served adquately as
illustrations of apostasy; and I also hope that certain things
are crystallizing in the reader's mind.
It is not coincidental that the
words "for all men" are part of the bogus consecration
form as well as being one of Freemasonry's shibboleths. For the
"universal brotherhood of all men" philosophy is one
of the animating principles of Freemasonry, which underpins its
anticipated one-world, universal religion.
At one place in his article Monsignor
McCarthy made the following very perspicacious observation: "What
seems to have prompted the `for all men' translation was not the
exigencies of the words themselves [i.e., pro multis],
but rather a theological framework in the minds of the translators,
to which these words were made to conform."
Here the Monsignor is apparently
questioning the motives of the "translators," and therein
lies his perspicacity. However, he probably assumes the "theological
framework" to which the words "for all men" were
made to conform is somehow related to the Catholic teaching on
the sufficiency aspect of Christ's Passion. While the words "for
all men" do in fact conform to the sufficiency aspect, that
is NOT the theology to which these words were made
On the contrary, the "theology"
to which the Masonic operatives made "for all
men" conform is the theology of apostate ecumenism and Freemasonry's
envisaged universal religion. It must constantly be kept in mind
that Freemason Annibale ("BUAN") Bugnini was the leader
of the `For All Men' International Conspiracy. Another influential
"Special Consultant on the Commission for the Liturgy"
at the time was Msgr. Virgilio Noé, who subsequently became
the Secretary of the "Sacred" Congregation for the Divine
Cult, which was the same position that Bugnini had held previously.
According to published documentation
(Bulletin de L'Occident Chrétien, No. 12, July 1976),
Virgilio Noé was initiated into Freemasonry on April 3,
1961, Code Name "VINO", and Code No. 4365221.
In Issue No. 53 (April 1970) of
Notitiae, the official organ of Mafia Liturgica,
under the Godfather Bugnini, there appeared an article written
by Professor Max Zerwick, S.J. Its subject matter was the "for
all men" controversy which by then was receiving considerable
international attention. Zerwick concluded that "for many"
must yield to "for all men" for the following reason:
"because of the accidental but real unsuitableness of the
words, `for many.'" (Page 140, Notitiae, No. 53).
No doubt the reader will recall
that in 1961 Max Zerwick was removed from his professorship at
the Biblical Institute on the grounds of "suspicion of teaching
heresy." But that fact has no bearing on the value of his
opinion I just quoted, which from the viewpoint of the conspirators
is quite correct, because the words "for many" are utterly
unsuitable for their purposes, as will now be shown.
The "President" of the
Congregation (which in the Robber Church's argot means "priest-celebrant")
stands behind the table, facing the congregation. At one very
propitious moment during his performance, when all are paying
close attention, the President says clearly and audibly so that
everyone can hear, these words: "for you and for all"
(or if the President and the congregation should happen to be
Italians, for example, the words would be "per voi e per
St. Paul writes (Rom. 10,17): "Faith
then cometh by hearing." Destruction of faith can likewise
come by hearing. Hearing these same words every Sunday (or Saturday
evening), repeatedly, time and time again, the congregation will
eventually, but inevitably, come to understand what "for
all" is all about. Things will begin to click for them;
the pieces of the jigsaw puzzle will start fitting neatly into
place; they will develop "theological insights"; a clear
picture will finally emerge. In a word: they will be hit with
the full force of "Lex Credendi : Lex Orandi".
They hear and they will be led to believe. Now they will see
the full significance of the "Ecumenical Movement."
Now they will understand what deep meanings underlie this new
form of worship, this new liturgy and the new communion rite,
in fact the whole new streamlined and "aggiornamento'd"
Robber Church. They will realize that the old teaching about
the Mystical Body was too narrow and parochial, because our new
church and our new "eucharist" aren't just for Catholics.
As the "President" has been saying, while holding up
the cup: "for you and for ALL!"
"Lex Credendi : Lex Orandi"
will also enable them to understand why the See of Peter is vacant,
at least a good part of the time. That is, why K. Wojtyla is
nearly always on the go, travelling hither, thither and yon, earnestly
endeavoring to worship together with all men; that
is to say, with specimens of every conceivable class of heretics,
schismatics and pagans: Anglican Runcie, Greek Orthodox Methodios,
Buddhist Dalai Lama, Methodist Emilio Castro, Hindus, Sikhs, Shintoists,
Jainists, tribal animists from Africa, Moslems, Zoroastrians,
Jewish rabbis, and Mr. John Pretty-on-Top, the Crow Indian medicine
man from Montana (and my apologies if I have overlooked any other
notable Assisi freak).
Now, if the President of the Congregation
were saying "for many," rather than "for all,"
some of those nice people just mentioned might get left out.
(In fact, they would all be left out. The "many,"
Christ's Mystical Body, was not represented at the Assisi "pantheon,"
nor could it have been.). Saying "for many" would surely
mess up the whole plan, wouldn't it? Yes, Professor Max Zerwick
wrote with wisdom, because those words "for many" are
absolutely "unsuitable" and they definitely must yield
to "for all." Another thing: if the priest were facing
towards God in the tabernacle and praying a silent Canon of the
Mass, that would REALLY mess things up! "BUAN",
"VINO", Zerwick, and the ICEL with its many international
counterparts did all the necessary paper work; the ubiquitous
Wojtyla now does the necessary leg work. As St. Thomas observed,
apostates always endeavor to sever others from the faith even
as they have severed themselves. The apostasy is rapidly becoming
universal, which is Satan's and Freemasonry's plan for all men.
Pope St. Pius X long ago foretold
what is now happening. "Their real aims, their plots, the
line they are following are well known to all of you. ... What
they propose is universal apostasy ... it creeps insidious and
hidden in the very veins of the Church ... the ways are hidden
and darksome ... Truly a spectacle full of sadness for the present
and of menace for the future." (Encyclical Editae Saepe,
May 26, 1910).
"The real issue is not so much
the validity or invalidity of the translation as it is its correctness
and opportuneness." This remark of Monsignor McCarthy's
exhibits two characteristics. First of all, it is euphemistic;
it is not the validity of the translation that is at stake, but
the validity of the Mass itself. Secondly, it illustrates the
familiar debating flaw known as "Ignoratio Elenchi,"
that is, arguing for something other than the issue actually proposed
for discussion. Opportuneness? Ridiculous! Knowledgeable Catholics
who avoid the bogus vernacular "Mass" do not do so just
because it isn't nice and its inopportune wording is offensive.
On the contrary, they seek out the True Mass, the ancient Latin
Mass, because they want to be sure it IS Mass. Our enemy, The
Robber Church, doubtless knows well that the real issue is validity,
which is why its so-called "Indult Mass" is available
only for the purblind and the pusillanimous who are willing to
concede that the invalid "New Order Mass" is "valid."
The real issue is validity,
not some airy-fairy "correctness and opportuneness."
If Monsignor McCarthy truly believes otherwise, then why did
he attempt to refute "Questioning the Validity
The autopsy is finished. It is
now time to write the epitaph for Msgr. McCarthy's article. I
propose that it should read simply: 100to1.
Although the "New Order" is presumably neither "correct"
nor "opportune," the Monsignor nevertheless insists
it is valid. To put it in the proverbial nutshell: he would
have it that Freemason No. 136575 and Freemason No. 4365221
and the whole gang of ICEL outlaws (none of whom cared a feather
or a fig about validity anyway) inadvertently and despite their
very best efforts and contrary to their stated intentions came
up with a "winner," with something that somehow turned
out to be a valid Catholic Mass, at bookmakers' odds of 100 to
The Freemasons' penetration of the
Vatican, by having secret members placed in influential positions,
has been cited or documented or at least commented upon by several
writers, groups and publications, including International Committee
of Defense of Catholic Tradition, David Yallop, Bulletin de
L'Occident Chrétien, Tito Casini, the Italian Government,
Stephen Knight, Martin Short, Faithful and True (Plympton,
South Australia), Michael Davies and, of course, the perennially
entertaining Father Brian Harrison (letter printed in AD
2000, Aug. 1989).
A list giving the names of 117 Catholic
clerics, all allegedly secret Masons, first appeared in 1976;
and it is still being circulated, with new names being added from
time to time. Father Brian Harrison, who deplores "crackpot
conspiracy-theorists," for some reason thinks the list is
"absurdly long." I fail to see his point. One-hundred-some-odd
masterminding inside operatives represent an infinitesimal percentage
of the total number of "Catholic" churchmen who presently
are laboring like Hercules to destroy the faith of Catholics.
Perhaps the "absurdly long" list, even with its subsequent
additions, is still missing quite a few.
After the list had become fairly
widely disseminated, stories and theories about it abounded (and
today some of them still survive). The speculations and the tales
concerned the original sources of the information, its accuracy
or lack thereof, and the motives behind its disclosure. Perhaps
we shall never know the exact original source of the data or the
reasons for making it public, but we do have some substantiating
proof of its probable accuracy.
Later, in 1981, the raid on Gelli's
premises by the Italian "gendarmeria" turned
up many names of undeniably actual
Masons (but not all clerics, of course) of the members
of the Lodge Propaganda Massonica Due, known familiarly
as simply "P2". Vindicating the putative reliability
of the original list, Martin Short observes that "it is remarkable
how it [the 1976 list] named several men deeply implicated in
the P2 scandal nearly five years later" (Inside
The Brotherhood, Grafton Books, 1989, p. 117, emphasis added).
Never dreaming that four cardinals
named on the "controversial" 1976 list
namely, Casaroli, Villot, Macchi and Poletti would
five years later be irrefutably identified as Masons
through the corroborating evidence found by the Italian authorities,
L'Osservatore Romano in its issue of October 10, 1976 (quoted
by Fr. Harrison) matter-of-factly proffered this barefaced lie:
"Not one, we say, not one of the accused Vatican prelates
has ever had anything to do with Freemasonry." Not only
a lie, it was a clearly unprovable, grossly audacious
asseveration. It merely confirms the wisdom in the advice that
no one should believe even the page numbers of L'Osservatore
Romano without verifying by actually counting.
Even if Bugnini and Noé had
never been exposed publicly, the telltale Masonic stamp
on "for all men" and on the Novus Ordo's various
"anaphoras" is in itself ample proof of the workings
of Satan's Masonic "hidden hand." The subsequent unmasking
as actual Masons of the key figures in the "liturgical revolution"
has such a high probability of being valid testimony that it would
be foolhardy to decry it. The most rational comment would be,
"Well, it figures!"
I hope no critic of mine will be
tempted to resurrect the hackneyed "Aramaic language"
argument. That fraud was first advanced by Dr. Joachim Jeremias.*
It then got parroted, with occasional
embellishments (predictably), by ICEL, Notitiae in several
issues, Max Zerwick, Bishop Thomas Muldoon, and many other linguistic
wizards of even lesser ability.
The "argument" is basically
that the Aramaic language spoken by Our Lord had no word at all
meaning "all" and that He was forced to use a "Semitic
idiom" like those found in the Book of Isaias, in order to
convey the idea that He really meant "all men," and
not just many. Jesus, then, supposedly used some ambiguous term
that unfortunately might appear to mean "many" when
translated into other languages. But fortunately we now have
all these linguistic wizards who solemnly assure us that Our Lord
really meant "all men" when He said "many"
at the Last Supper.
The whole business is 100% polyunsaturated horse feathers.
I have in my files a letter, dated
18 July 1970, that I received from Dr. Revilo P. Oliver, the distinguished
scholar, author and lecturer of international repute, who at that
time was in his 25th year as Professor of the Classics at the
University of Illinois. His letter reads in part:
Dear Mr. Omlor:
Thank you for the copy of your excellent
booklet, `The Ventriloquists.' I was particularly interested
in the subject because several months ago an acquaintance of mine
asked me to check the critical editions of the Greek text of the
New Testament to make certain that there was no variant reading
that would authorize the words `for all men.' The inquirer evidently
did not know of the impudent claim that you refute.
The sheer impudence of the claim
is almost breathtaking, because everyone who has even the slightest
knowledge of linguistics knows very well that no language used
by a people that has attained even the rudiments of a culture
could fail to distinguish between `many' and `all'. Aramaic was
for several centuries the language in which the business and diplomacy
of the Near East (including Indo-European nations) was conducted.
You were dealing, of course, with
a specimen of what I regard as the ultimate dishonesty, calculated
lying by persons who have been trained as scholars and who use
their expert knowledge not only to swindle the uneducated but
to destroy the very civilization that made scholarship possible.
Your booklet is addressed, of course,
to members of the Church that is now committing suicide, but you
have also exposed the cancer that is destroying the civilization
of the West.
/s/ Revilo P. Oliver.
Whoever would sincerely attempt
to discover the actual Aramaic words that Jesus spoke and investigate
their grammar sense, would do well to start by consulting the
ancient Syriac (Aramaic) texts of the New Testament. For example,
the Peshito (Peschitto), which is the earliest dated Syriac Biblical
manuscript. St. Ephrem, the great Eastern Doctor of the Church,
who died in A.D. 373, wrote exegetical treatises in Syriac and
he used the Peshito for his Scriptural references.
Matt. (26,28) and Mark (14,24) are
the two Scriptural sources of the word under discussion. In both
places the Peshito has the word, "saggi`a," which
means strictly "many," as opposed to the other Aramaic
word, "kolla," which unequivocally means "all
men." One can verify these facts by inspecting the Peshito
and then checking an Aramaic-English dictionary. But I suspect
that any given one of our linguistic wizards, selected randomly,
would be totally incapable of recognizing or identifying even
a single word of Aramaic, not even if one should happen to jump
up out of his beer stein and land right smack on his proboscis.
This same ancient Aramaic word,
"saggi`a," (which is pronounced "saa-gee-yeh,"
with hard "g" and accent on the second syllable), meaning
"many" and not "all men," is still often heard
today. For it is in the Consecration of the Wine in Masses of
the Maronite Rite, which employs for its Words of Consecration
the ancient Aramaic tongue that Our Saviour spoke.
As a final point of interest, in
three small Syrian villages Bakha, Jabaadin and Malula
(which is only 35 miles from Damascus) the Aramaic
language, exactly as spoken by Our Lord, is still preserved and
used as the local tongue, unchanged through the centuries except
for the inclusion of some Arabic words from time to time, in order
to keep abreast of technological change. (See The Milwaukee
Journal, Jan. 13, 1987, p. 1G).