Michael Fighting
"Michael…who standeth for…thy people," — Dan. 12:1-12
Ratzinger Restores Latin Mass
The rule of prayer determines the rule of faith, says Pope Saint Celestine I. Basically we must be consistent. Therefore we pray in the same way we believe. In fact some of our basic prayers outline the basics of the Catholic Faith. The Apostle’s Creed is used in the Catechism as an outline of the basics of the Divine and Catholic Faith. It serves as a simple Profession of Faith, coming to us from the Apostles themselves. Over time other Professions of Faith have been drawn up in order to combat heresies against the Divine and Catholic Faith. These include the Nicene Creed recited in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and the Profession of Faith of the Council of Trent, which was added to by the Vatican Council. As children we are taught the Act of Faith, which contains a line stating that we accept everything that the Church teaches us as of faith, since these truths come from Almighty God, Who cannot deceive nor be deceived.
What is important is that we be consistent in our beliefs, our speech and our actions. And our speech and actions consist in part in prayer, both formal and informal. For instance, we would not say In the name of the mother, and of the son, …. The reason is simple, this denies the doctrine of the Trinity. No, we say: In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, to profess our belief in this most holy doctrine. And yet people today often do things, which are contradictory. This lack of consistency is common today.
And in union with Thy servant our Pope Michael, for our bishop ______, and for all who are orthodox in belief and who profess the Catholic and apostolic faith. This is an important line from the Canon of the Mass. We have placed this as it ought to be recited. However, many pray in union with … Benedict (XVI). By this statement, they are stating that they believe that Joseph Ratzinger is orthodox in belief and professes the Catholic faith. They are also pledging complete obedience to him and to the Bishop they mention next. If someone does not believe this, then they cannot insert his chosen name in the Canon of the Mass, for this would be inconsistent. And the faithful who believe that Ratzinger is not sound in the Faith cannot assist at any Mass said in union with him, for this would be inconsistent. In fact, it is objectively an act of Schism, for to be in union with a heretical antipope is schismatic.
Recently Joseph Ratzinger has extended access to the John XXIII Mass, which is quite similar to the Tridentine Mass. This becomes effective on September 14, 2007, the Feast of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross. However, in granting this concession, he has declared: The Roman Missal promulgated by Paul VI is the ordinary expression of the 'Lex orandi' (Law of prayer) of the Catholic Church of the Latin rite. In other words, celebration of the John XXIII Mass must be according to the theology underlying the Novus Ordo Missae of Antipope Paul VI.
The problem is that the Novus Ordo Missae is itself inconsistent. We believe this is a trick of the Devil to allow the Traditionalists to argue one way, while the Modernists argue the opposite. And this lack of clarity is a trick of the Father of Lies and a basic tenet of Modernism. Although much can be said against the Novus Ordo Missae, the key point is to be found in the form for the consecration of the wine.
In the consecration of the wine two changes have been introduced. According to the decree Missale Romanum the form for the Consecration of the Wine is: “Take this, all of you, and drink from it; this is the cup of my Blood, the Blood of the new and everlasting covenant. It will be shed for you and for all men so that sins may be forgiven. Do this in memory of me.” The words, “The mystery of faith,” spoken by the priest are to be taken out of the context of the words spoken by our Lord, and used instead to introduce an acclamation by the faithful. It should be noted that this is an unofficial English translation published first by the Catholic Truth Society and then republished in a collection in 1975. The Latin original contains: accipite et bibite ex eo omnes: hic est enim calix sanguinis mei novi et aeterni testamenti, qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum. Hoc facite in meam commemorationem. This is where the inconsistence begins. The words pro multis have been translated into all vernaculars as for all. And so, how are we supposed to interpret this. Is the vernacular correct, or the Latin original. In 1970 on two occasions this question was sent to Rome, and Rome replied that the vernacular for all is the correct meaning. In fact, in one of the Notices it was stated that Jesus actually used an Aramaic word, which would be better translated as for all, but was translated into Latin as for many in the beginning when the Mass was first said in Latin.
We must ask why God allowed such a catastrophe as a substantial mistranslation to occur in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. It should be obvious, that God would not allow such a catastrophe, but that is the only reasonable explanation for what Antipope Paul VI and his followers allege occurred. Either pro multis (for many) is correct or pro omnibus (for all). The only other explanation that can be offered is Modernist. It would claim that the rite has evolved over time and the pro multis was fine for the dark ages, but we now know that all men will be saved, so we should now use for all. Of course, we must reject such a proposition. This change is essentially instituting a new and substantially different sacramental form.
To allow any of the above reasoning is to deny that God is God, for we are saying in essence that God allowed a mistranslation from Aramaic into Latin, possibly by Saint Peter himself. He has allowed this to go further. Every edition of the Bible, Catholic and non-Catholic up to the present that we have consulted contain the words for many in the two verses of Sacred Scripture. This includes the New Latin Vulgate published by the Vatican and the New American Translation, which they also provide. So this alleged deception has continued from the time the Gospels were translated into Latin until this very day and in many editions and many languages, some of which claim to have been produced from the original languages.
The Decree de Defectibus of the Council of Trent provides the proper form as did the Council of Florence before it. This Decree provides: If the priest were to shorten or change the form of the consecration of the Body and the Blood, so that in the change of wording the words did not mean the same thing, he would not be achieving a valid Sacrament. Since it should be obvious that a change from for many to for all is a change which does not mean the same thing, therefore the consecration in the vernacular is certainly invalid.
However, what about the Latin original, which contains Jesus’ words pro multis. Since the celebrant must be in union with the theology of Vatican II which produced the Novus Ordo Missae, the consecration form must be taken in that context. They have declared that the original Aramaic words from which this form is derived mean for all, therefore we must presume that this is the intention of a celebrant of the Novus Ordo Missae in Latin, in spite of using the correct words.
We must go further. The Novus Ordo Missae also omits the words the mystery of faith, moving them to after the consecration to introduce a memorial acclamation. This removal of two words also is a substantial change, which occurs not only in the vernacular, but also in the Latin original of the Novus Ordo, which is sufficient to invalidate the consecration. Further this acclamation implicitly denies the doctrine of transubstantiation, for the acclamation most commonly used states: Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again. If the bread and wine have been transubstantiated into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, then it should say: Christ has come again, not Christ will come again. Since the celebrant commences the Novus Ordo with the intention of calling for this acclamation, his intention must be held in doubt. Does he possibly believe some doctrine such as transignification or transelementation? The latter word was used by Antipope Paul VI in his Encyclical Mysterium fidei to explain the effect of the consecration. No good definition of this new doctrine can be found.
Now how does all of this effect the John XXIII Mass? In fact, just what is the John XXIII Mass? The Latin Mass, also called the Tridentine Mass was formed in the early centuries of the Church. In fact, the Canon of the Mass has remained unchanged since the time of Pope Gregory the Great, who added a phrase to the Canon. (590-604) This Canon has remained unchanged for a millennium and a half. The Council of Trent ordered that the Missal be examined and all set in order, which was accomplished under Pope Saint Pius V, who issued the Missal in 1570 with the Decree Quo primum. The Decree forbade any alteration in the Missal.
The first element of the John XXIII Mass is the addition of Saint Joseph to the Canon, which is forbidden by Quo primum. One might argue that Pope Saint Gregory the Great added a phrase to the Canon and as the Supreme Lawgiver, the Pope can do this. However, Angelo Roncalli was not Pope, therefore this argument does not stand.
The second element is the revision of the Calendar in 1960 with the decree Rubricarum Instructum. Now the calendar has been revised before. Both Pope Saint Pius X and Pope Pius XII revised the calendar, and throughout history the Popes have added and transferred feasts on the calendar. This revision, though, was based upon Modernist tendencies.
On February 14, 1961 Antipope John XXIII-II approved a supplementary decree. In part it says:
35. In preparing or revising the historical lessons of feasts of whatever class, the following should be observed;
a) they should be brief and discreet; each lesson should be no longer than an ordinary lesson of the Breviary, most of which are of not more than 120 words;
b) the style should be improved and made easier;
c) commonplace should be avoided; false or inappropriate passages should be deleted or corrected; if historical data be entirely or almost entirely lacking, lessons from the Common should be assigned, or some other more appropriate text from the Fathers should be chosen.
36. Historical truth should be attended to not only in the lessons but also in the antiphons, responsories, hymns, and other parts of the Office, if there are any such proper parts; otherwise those parts should be taken from the Common.
In the Constitution on the Liturgy, Vatican II confirms the heresy quoted above: As regards the readings, the following shall be observed: ... The accounts of martyrdom or the lives of the saints are to accord with the facts of history. ... Historical truth should be attended not only in the lessons but also in the antiphons, hymns, and other parts of the Office, if there are any such proper parts; otherwise those parts should be taken from the common. This implies that the Church in the Breviary has departed from historical truth. This is an implication that our law of prayer has been a lie, which is Modernist. And so the John XXIII Mass was the first modernist step to the Novus Ordo Missae, since it is based in part on Modernist teaching and thinking.
Although arguments can be made for its validity, we must look to the intention of the minister. However, we must take this in context of the permission given by Antipope Benedict XVI. In an accompanying letter he states: Needless to say, in order to experience full communion, the priests of the communities adhering to the former usage cannot, as a matter of principle, exclude celebrating according to the new books. The total exclusion of the new rite would not in fact be consistent with the recognition of its value and holiness. Therefore anyone using this new indult does so in the implicit presumption of the holiness of the Novus Ordo Missae, which presumes its validity in context of the theology given above. Therefore when the celebrant says pro multis he must mean pro omnibus as the two 1970 notices require, which places his intention at least in grave doubt. He also states: It is not appropriate to speak of these two versions of the Roman Missal as if they were 'two rites.' Rather, it is a matter of a twofold use of one and the same rite. Therefore the John XXIII Mass and the Novus Ordo are brother usages of their Western Rite. Of course, theologically, one must accept the theology of Antipope Benedict XVI to use his indult, or else one makes a mockery of being in union with him as an orthodox believer.
In closing there is an interesting note to the new calendar, which is used with the John XXIII Mass and Office. Several feasts were removed, while others were reduced to mere commemorations from their former important place in the Calendar. One of the feasts removed as a useless duplication, was the Feast of Saint Peter’s Chair at Rome on January 18th. February 22nd was merely renamed Saint Peter’s Chair, when it was formerly his chair at Antioch. This is an implicit denial that Saint Peter ever came to Rome, which is another Modernist proposition. In fact, Antipope John XXIII-II is implying that he really wasn’t Pope. Note well the symbolism of this removal. Saint Peter’s Chair at Rome is no longer important, because an heretical usurper is appearing to occupy it, preparing for one far worse than himself who will institute the new religion with its new sacraments, which proclaim and conform to its new theology which is totally un-Christian! Vatican II, which is truly misnamed since it is the founding council of this new all encompassing modernist religion, established the doctrines from which the Novus Ordo Missae and the New Sacraments flowed at the end of the 1960’s. And remember that New Rite of Ordination was prepared for use in the John XXIII Mass, not the Novus Ordo, which followed it two years later. This New Rite of Ordination is rightfully held to be invalid as well.
Let us all be consistent with the true Faith founded by our Lord Jesus Christ upon the Apostles and their successors in doctrine, mission and orders, which succession will last until the end of time. Let us reject these innovations of a modernist entity, which wrongfully usurps the name of catholic, for it has no connection with the Church founded by Jesus Christ except stealing its property and name.
Pope Michael
July 12, 2007 Pope John Gualbert
 Join the Quarterly Mailing List will be emailed when the Quarterly Publication is Ready for Download |
This page was last updated: September 22, 2007
Intentions of the Pope
The intentions of the Supreme Pontiff are: the exaltation of Holy Mother Church, the extirpation (overcoming) of heresies, propagation of the Faith, the conversion of sinners and peace among Christian nations. Unless specific prayers are prescribed for the Pope's intentions, any vocal prayers may be used. See information on gaining an indulgence.
