May 2022: False Liturgy is the Result of Heresy

We hear much about Martin Luther saying: "Destroy the Mass And You Will Destroy the Church". However, let us look at how heresy proceeds to move forward. In 1517 Luther posted his 95 theses. His Missal did not come out until 1523. His aim was at doctrine first, then he formulated a new missal to fit his new doctrine. Over the centuries this liturgy has been revised.

England moved even more slowly. Henry VIII created the Anglican Church by separating from the Catholic Church in 1534. The book of common prayer was not begun until 1548 after Henry VIII had died. Thomas Cranmer, the Archbishop of Canterbury created this book to replace the Sarum Missal in use at the time of the creation of his Church. He did this in order to fit the liturgy of the Anglican Church with the doctrines of the time. Notice again that the heresy comes first, then the new liturgy.

Orthodoxy has not yet changed its liturgy, but has rejected the filioque doctrine. Saint Athanasius says: "The Holy Ghost is from the Father and the Son; not made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding." And we read in Scripture (John 15:26): "But when the Paraclete cometh, whom I will send you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceedeth from the Father, he shall give testimony of me."

In the Conciliar Church things began with Vatican II (1962-1965). On December 4, 1963 the Decree Sacro Sanctum Concilium was approved. It states in paragraph 34: "The rites should be distinguished by a noble simplicity; they should be short, clear, and unencumbered by useless repetitions; they should be within the people's powers of comprehension, and normally should not require much explanation." Two paragraphs later after stating Latin is to be retained, it decrees: "But since the use of the mother tongue, whether in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments, or other parts of the liturgy, frequently may be of great advantage to the people, the limits of its employment may be extended. This will apply in the first place to the readings and directives, and to some of the prayers and chants, according to the regulations on this matter to be laid down separately in subsequent chapters." Much more could be said about this decree.

Vatican II teaches heresy in several of its decrees.

Pious ears are offended even before the Vatican 2 Council, when we read the following ruling of the Sacred Congregation of Rites dated February 14, 1961: "In preparing or revising the historical lessons of feasts of whatever class, the following should be observed: ... c/ the commonplace should be avoided; false ¹ 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."

Read this closely, and you will see that in 1961, this Congregation thought that it was possible for the Church to lie to us through the Sacred Liturgy! In his encyclical Mediator Dei Pope Pius XII condemns these errors most emphatically: "For this reason, whenever there was a question of defining a truth revealed by God, the Sovereign Pontiff and the Councils in their recourse to the 'theological sources', as they are called, have not seldom drawn many an argument from the sacred science of the Liturgy. For an example in point, Our Predecessor of immortal memory, Pius IX, so argued when he proclaimed the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary. Similarly during the discussion of a doubtful or controversial truth, the Church and the Holy Fathers have not failed to look to the age-old and age-honored sacred rites for enlightenment. Hence the well-known and venerable maxim: 'Legem credendi lex statuit supplicandi'- let the rule for prayer determine the rule of belief. The sacred Liturgy, consequently, does not decide or determine independently and of itself what is of Catholic faith. More properly, since the Liturgy is also a profession of eternal truths, and subject, as such, to the Supreme Teaching Authority of the Church, it can supply proofs and testimony, quite clearly of no little value, towards the determination of a particular point of Christian doctrine."

In the Constitution on the Liturgy, Vatican 2 confirms the heresy quoted above: "As regards the readings, the following shall be observed: ... c/ 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." Further it exacerbates this heresy by accusing the Church of teaching myths! "To whatever extent may seem desirable, the hymns are to be restored to their original form, and whatever smacks of mythology or ill accords with Christian piety is to be removed or changed."

And so this decree is heretical, but by no means the only heresy coming from Vatican II, which has more in common with the Jansenist Synod of Pistoia than with anything Catholic.

This decree began a movement in the liturgy, which came to be known as the changes, which ran from 1963 until the promulgation of the Novus Ordo in 1969 in the Apostolic Constitution, Missale Romanum. It states in part: "The recent Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, in promulgating the Constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium, established the basis for the general revision of the Roman Missal: in declaring "both texts and rites should be drawn up so that they express more clearly the holy things which they signify"; in ordering that "the rite of the Mass is to be revised in such a way that the intrinsic nature and purpose of its several parts, as also the connection between them, can be more clearly manifested, and that devout and active participation by the faithful can be more easily accomplished"; in prescribing that "the treasures of the Bible are to be opened up more lavishly, so that richer fare may be provided for the faithful at the table of God's Word"; in ordering, finally, that "a new rite for concelebration is to be drawn up and incorporated into the Pontifical and into the Roman Missal.""

Depending on where one lived, the movement of these changes. In the United States the whole Mass was in English by 1968. Patrick Henry Omlor questioned the validity of the New English Canon and wrote in part: "But the alteration we shall analyze most carefully is the one that occurs in the final words. For you and for all men so that sins may be forgiven has been substituted for: For you and for many unto the forgiveness of sins." He then concludes: "If the above substitution is not a mere translation, but involves an essential change in meaning, then the sacrament has clearly been rendered invalid, as shall be shown, using St. Thomas as an authority." We shall not go into an in depth study here. Many other vernaculars also made the same substantial change, including Italian. A priest went to Rome to question a Cardinal and asked: "What does Paul VI say, when he celebrates in Latin?" The answer was "pro multis", which means "for many." "And what does he say in Italian?" And he received the answer: "Per tutti," which means "for all." The priest told the Cardinal that until Paul VI figures it out, that he was going back to the Latin Mass, which expresses the Catholic Faith.

In the 1970's two questions were sent to Rome about this change and the reply was in essence that Jesus meant to say for all, but Aramaic did not have a clear word for this, so he used for many instead. There is much to consider here. Would God allow a language that cannot express His meaning clearly? The statement that God would create such a language sounds offensive to pious ears if not out right heretical.

Paul VI signed the decree, Insauratio Liturgia in 1974, which states: "The liturgical reform which has been carried out in accordance with the Constitution of the Second Vatican Council has made certain changes in the essential formulae of the sacramental rites." So if a essential form appears to be changed, then we must presume it has been changed to conform to Vatican II doctrine.

Let us return to the question of "for all" and "for many". Vatican II in encouraging religious liberty and other statements implies that all can arrive at Heaven or what is called Universal Salvation. "For all" fits with this doctrine better than "for many."

Although the translation has been changed back to the original as found in Scripture in most, if not all vernacular translations, does not change the fact that there is a problem. The form of consecration in the Conciliar Church, both Novus Ordo and Indult, must be interpreted in light of the two Notitiae. The new Rites of the Sacraments must be interpreted in light of Vatican II and its spirit, which they were formulated to express.

Those who desire to return to the Catholic Church must realize that restoring the Latin Mass is not going to restore the Faith to a heretical sect. The Faith must be restored with the liturgy. How are heretics received back into the Catholic Church? If they have their own liturgy, it must be restored to the form it had before their separation from the Church. For instance, if the Orthodox want to return, they must restore prayers for the Pope.

Return to the Church and the Church will restore the Mass and Sacraments to you.