QUESTIONING THE VALIDITY OF THE MASSES USING THE NEW, ALL ENGLISH CANON By Patrick Henry Omlor Foreword by a Roman Catholic Priest

This version originally published by  Athanasius Press, 780 California Avenue, Reno, Nevada  89502. Printing History: Altadextra Press editions:  1st Printing - March 1968, 2nd Printing - April 1968; 
Athanasius Press: 3rd Printing - (Enlarged) March 1969. 
This printing done by Catholic Research Institute: March, 1998, with permission of the author.

For a printed and bound copy of this document, write to:

Catholic Research Institute
P.O. Box 756
Greenacres, Washington 99016 U.S.A.
Phone: (509) 489-6602 • Fax:(509) 489-4060
E-mail: cri@sisna.com • Web site: http://www.asisna.com/cri


DEDICATION  TO
OUR LADY OF THE BLESSED SACRAMENT 

A Prayer
  
O Virgin Mary, our Lady of the Blessed Sacrament, - thou glory  of the Christian people, joy of the universal  Church - salvation  of the whole world, pray for us, and awaken in all believers a lively devotion toward the Most Holy Eucharist, so that they may  be worthy to partake of the same daily. 

  
An indulgence of 500 days (Pius X, Audience, Dec. 9, 1906; S.C.   Ind., Jan. 23, 1907; S.P. Ap., Dec. 12, 1933).   From THE  RACCOLTA.  

  
                                CONTENTS  
  
            Frontispiece          St. Pius X
                                  "To Restore All Things in Christ" 
            Foreword              by Father Lawrence S. Brey  
            Preface               by The Author  
  
Part  
 1   INTRODUCTION  
          Concerning Father De Pauw's letter ... The Critical  
Point of Inquiry.  
  
 2   THE NECESSITY OF PROPER, DETERMINATE FORMS FOR SACRAMENTS  
          Necessity of Specific, Determinate Matter ...  
Necessity of a Specific, Determinate Form Even Greater.  
  
 3   THE PROPER FORM FOR THE SACRAMENT OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST  
          The Consecration of the Bread ... The Consecration of  
the Wine.  
  
 4   THE NEW "FORM" INTRODUCED VIA THE ALL-ENGLISH CANON  
          Text of the New Form ... Some Preliminary  
Observations.  
  
 5   HOW DOES CHANGING THE FORM INVALIDATE A SACRAMENT?  
          Changes Caused by Omission of Words ... Changes Caused  
by Additions of Words ... Changes Caused by Substitution of  
Words ... The Criterion We Must Use.  
  
 6   NECESSITY OF USING OUR LORD'S WORDS FOR THE EUCHARIST  
          The Source of Power in These Words ... Our Lord's  
Words in the Ancient Form ... Putting Words into Our Lord's  
Mouth.  
  
 7   THE NEW "FORM" DESTROYS THE SENSE OF THE PROPER FORM  
          Two Distinct Aspects of Christ's Death ... The Aspect  
of Sufficiency ... The Aspect of Efficacy ... The Ancient,  
Established Form Conveys the Sense of Efficacy ... The New  
"Form" Conveys the Sense of Sufficiency ... Summary and  
Conclusion.  
  
 8   WHAT IS MEANT BY "THE REALITY" OF A SACRAMENT?  
          Three Distinct Elements in a Sacrament ... Baptism As  
An Example.  
  
 9   WHAT IS "THE REALITY" OF THE SACRAMENT OF THE HOLY  
EUCHARIST?  
          The Three Elements ... Examples To Illustrate "The  
Reality" of The Eucharist.  
  
 10  THE UNIQUE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE EUCHARIST AND THE  
MYSTICAL BODY  
          All Sacraments Related to The Mystical Body ...  
Unique Relationship of The Most Blessed Sacrament ... The  
Words of Pope Pius XII ... Summary and Preview.  
  
 11  WHO BELONGS TO THE MYSTICAL BODY?  
          The One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic, Roman Church ...  
The Visible Church Is Necessary ... Unbelievers and Unbaptized  
Persons Are Not Members ... Heretics, Schismatics, Apostates  
Automatically Excluded ... Loyalty and Adherence to the Pope  
Required ... Conclusion.  
  
 12  THE NEW "FORM" SUPPRESSES WHAT IS ESSENTIAL, AND  
SIGNIFIES FALSELY  
          Christ Could Not Have Said.- "for All Men" ...  
Sacraments Must Contain What They Signify and Signify What  
They Contain ... External Rite of The Eucharist Must Signify  
The Mystical Body ... An Opinion ... The New "Form" Signifies  
Falsely ... Identical Wording Not Required ... The Doctrine of  
the Apostles ... The Alexandrine Liturgy ... The Canons of  
Hippolytus ... "De Sacramentis" of the Pseudo-Ambrose ...  
Eastern Liturgies in General ... Gallican and Mozarabic Rites  
... Summary ... Conclusion.  
  
 13  ANSWERING SOME OBJECTIONS  
  
APPENDIX 1     A COMPARISON OF THE CONSECRATION PRAYERS AS  
               FOUND IN (1) The Original Latin; (2) The  
               Literal English Translation from the Latin; (3)  
               The New All-English Canon; (4) The Anglican  
               Schismatics' "Book of Common Prayer"  
  
APPENDIX 2     "LEX CREDENDI: LEX ORANDI"  
  
APPENDIX 3     ANSWERING SOME MORE OBJECTIONS  
  
APPENDIX 4     INVALID CONSECRATION OF THE WINE INVALIDATES OR  
               AT LEAST CASTS DOUBT UPON THE CONSECRATION OF  
               THE BREAD  
  
APPENDIX 5     A SOLEMN DECREE OF THE ECUMENICAL COUNCIL OF  
               FLORENCE  
  
APPENDIX 6     A LETTER OF POPE INNOCENT III  
  
APPENDIX 7     A REPLY TO MONSIGNOR BANDAS  
  
EPILOGUE       by Rev. Lawrence S. Brey  
  
  

                                FOREWORD  
                        by Rev. Lawrence S. Brey  
  
     Was October 22, 1967 the most ominous and frightening day  
in the two-thousand-year history of the Catholic Church, and  
certainly in the history of the Church in the United States of  
America?  Did that day see a legalized contradiction of  
hitherto inviolate decrees and norms guarding the Canon of the  
Mass?  Did it possibly even bring a new era of darkness into  
the world, the extinguishing of the true sacrificial and  
sacramental Eucharistic Christ from the majority of our  
churches?  
     During the early days of agitation for the introduction  
of the Vernacular into the Mass, and even during the climax of  
the movement, when the matter was debated at the First Session  
of Vatican Council II (1962), Catholics were always assured  
that even if the vernacular should be introduced, THE CANON  
WOULD REMAIN UNTOUCHED, in its centuries-old, inviolate Latin  
form.  And rightly so, for THE CANON is the heart and center  
and essence of the Eucharistic Sacrifice.  But since the 1963  
Liturgy Constitution's granting of PERMISSION to employ the  
vernacular in SOME parts of the Mass, a literal cascade of  
subsequent changes and increased vernacularization has now  
culminated in the introduction of the new, "English Canon,"  
yielding what is, in effect, an all-vernacular Mass,  
(notwithstanding Article 36 of that same Constitution and the  
decrees of the Council of Trent).  Thus, that which was  
heretofore and for thirteen centuries considered INVIOLATE has  
now been touched and disturbingly altered.  Something  
ominously different from the Canon we have always known now  
occupies the heart and center of our Catholic Worship.  
     Not since the introduction of the vernacular IN PARTS OF  
THE MASS in 1964, has so much protest, with so many intense  
misgivings, been engendered, as has been by the introduction  
of this new, English Canon.  How, infinitely more thundering  
this protest would be were it not for the fact that the clergy  
and the faithful have been gradually "conditioned" by change  
after change in recent years, - perhaps to the point of  
expecting change as the order of the day and the "mind of the  
Church"!  
     There are three main classes of objections to the new,  
English Canon: (1) That it contains many omissions,  
mistranslations and distortions, which offend against Catholic  
reverence, piety, and the integrity of the Faith.  (2) That it  
is illicit, i.e., in violation of enduring and unrescinded  
decrees and teachings of previous Councils and Popes.  (3)  
That it is invalid, i.e., that because of some radical  
mutilation it no longer confects or produces the true  
Sacrifice and Sacrament of the Eucharist.  Such an alleged  
invalidity is by far THE GRAVEST and most crucial of all the  
objections, though this view is not shared by many or most of  
the Canon's critics.  It is to the question of the VALIDITY of  
the "new Canon" - in the light of a mutilation of the Form of  
Consecration - that Patrick Henry Omlor devotes this treatise,  
"Questioning the Validity."  We will come back to this  
shortly.  
     Regarding the first two objections to the new Canon - the  
faultiness of its translation and its alleged illicitness -  
much has been said and written already.  A cursory study of  
the new Canon reveals approximately 50 omissions, 50 vague or  
inaccurate or distorted translations of phrases, words or  
clauses; and five or more additions of words or phrases not  
heretofore in the Canon.  In addition, three references to KEY  
DOGMAS (the Divine Maternity of Mary, the Perpetual Virginity  
of Mary, and the Divinity of Christ) have been deleted from  
places where they had been EXPLICITLY incorporated in the text  
of the Canon.  Other doctrines, too, are deemphasized or  
bypassed by way of omissions and mistranslations.  A highly  
respected American theologian has stated that he would "never  
touch" the new Canon, and that "true priests and laymen will  
feel bound in conscience to continue to use the Latin (Canon),  
the sure norm of orthodoxy."  
     Regarding the allegation that the new Canon is in  
violation of several teachings and anathema-sanctioned  
canonical decrees of the Council of Trent, and of later  
documents of the Magisterium, much also has been heretofore  
presented, and the citations have yet to be refuted  
conclusively.  For example: the new Canon embodies violations  
of Trent's prohibition of an all-vernacular Mass, and of the  
Canon being said aloud; also an implicit repudiation of  
Trent's upholding the relevance and piety of the ceremonies  
and external signs used in the Mass; and the Tridentine  
doctrine of the Integrity and Perfection of the traditional  
Roman Canon.  "The Catholic Church," declared Trent, "in order  
that the Holy Sacrifice may be offered ... in a dignified and  
reverent way, established the sacred Canon many centuries ago,  
so pure and free of all error that nothing is contained in it  
which does not in the greatest way inspire sanctity and  
certain piety, and raise the mind ... to God ... (The Canon  
consists) of our Lord's very words, and of prayers received  
from Apostolic tradition or piously ordained by the holy  
Pontiffs."  Adrian Fortescue observed: "The Council of Trent  
ordered that `the holy Canon composed many centuries ago'  
shall be kept pure and unchanged."  It was the pure Canon  
restored by St. Pius V, remaining as it was in the days of St.  
Gregory I (6th century), and in fact going back far beyond his  
time into the mists of the Church's first centuries.  Further,  
the new English Canon is in apparent violation of the Bull Quo  
Primum (1570) of St. Pius V, binding "in perpetuity," as well  
as in violation of the Apostolic Constitution, Veterum  
Sapientia (1962) of Pope John XXIII, and Article 36 of the  
Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy (1963).  
     So much for the first two classes of objections to the  
new English Canon: the gross defects in its translation, and  
its apparent illicitness.  They are weighty and substantiated.   
BUT AS REPREHENSIBLE AND DISTURBING AS THEY ARE, AND  
THOROUGHLY JUSTIFYING THE NON-USE OF THIS CANON, THEY ARE NOT  
NEARLY SO FRIGHTENING AND CATASTROPHIC AS ARE THE IMPLICATION  
OF A THIRD OBJECTION, NAMELY, THAT THE NEW ENGLISH CANON IS  
INVALID.  Some have made this charge on the basis of the  
deletion of certain key dogmas from the Canon, other  
mistranslations of the text, and the concomitant introduction  
of a so-called "New Eucharistic Theology," which in effect  
denies transubstantiation and the sacrificial nature of the  
Mass.  However, given an accurately translated form of  
Consecration, the invalidity of a Mass using the new English  
Canon would, in spite of those factors, hinge on a defect of  
Intention on the part of a given priest-celebrant.  If a  
priest's intent, in consecrating, is contrary to the  
"intention of the Church," then such a consecration would  
indeed be invalid.  But if, in consecrating, he, has the  
intention  of "doing what the Church does (in consecrating)      
then his consecration will be valid - even if personally he be  
a heretic, or have no true Faith in the Eucharist or the  
true nature of the Mass.  Thus, defect of intention, but not  
defect of faith, would be the factor invalidating his  
consecration - EVEN IF HE USED THE TRADITIONAL LATIN CANON!  
     But there is a more CLEAR-CUT criterion on which  
arguments for or against the validity of the "new Canon" can  
be based, and that is whether the FORM of the Sacrament as it  
is rendered in the new "translation" (i.e., the words of  
Consecration), is VALID or INVALID.  "Matter" and "form" are  
the essential components of the rite of a sacrament.  Improper  
matter or a defective form does indeed invalidate the  
Sacrament.  In the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist the MATTER  
is the bread and the wine, and the FORM consists of the words  
of Consecration.  Since the new Canon (obviously) does not  
touch upon the MATTER, it is to the "new" FORM that we must  
look for possible defects and/or mutilations.  Even more  
necessary than the specific matter (the "thing": RES) is the  
SPECIFIC FORM (the "words": VERBA), for the form is the  
"DETERMINING ELEMENT" of the matter.  Thus a change in the  
VERBA and their intent and meaning could imply the  
"determining" of the RES in a manner other than that intended  
by Christ.  
     "IDEAS HAVE CONSEQUENCES!" an American philosopher so  
sagely observed.  And, as words convey ideas, we must LOOK TO  
THE WORDS!  
     To this end, Patrick H. OmIor has contributed his efforts  
in this present treatise.  To date, his is the first such  
study, to my knowledge, to demonstrate systematically and to  
document the thesis that the new, English Canon is invalid by  
reason of defect of form - specifically, by reason of a  
mutilation in the English rendering of the Form for the  
Consecration of the Wine.  I have thoroughly read and studied  
his manuscript, and I sincerely feel that, his study is worthy  
of serious consideration.  It may well be crucial in solving  
the problem of the new English Canon.  And by the very fact  
the question of the validity of the form HAS BEEN RAISED, and  
apparently on genuine grounds, the issue MUST be thoroughly  
studied and resolved.  For in the Sacraments, and above all in  
the Mass, nothing less than absolute certainty, or the MEDIUM  
CERTUM, must be the norm governing their rites.  
     "We must see whether a change of words destroys the  
essential sense of the words," writes St. Thomas Aquinas,  
"because then the sacrament is clearly rendered invalid.     
(Summa Theologica, III, Q. 60. Art. 8)  ARE THERE mutilations  
in the new English form of Consecration, and do they destroy  
the "ESSENTIAL SENSE" of the words?  The author of this  
treatise answers these questions affirmatively, in view of the  
deviations occurring in the "new form" for the consecration of  
the wine.  
     The author demonstrates that these mutilations DELETE THE  
VITAL CONCEPT of the Eucharist's relationship to the MYSTICAL  
BODY OF CHRIST, that they DELETE THE INTENDED EFFICACY AND  
PURPOSE of the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist, and that they  
are a FALSIFICATION OF CHRIST'S WORDS OF INSTITUTION, which  
falsification distorts His intention and purposes in  
instituting and confecting the Sacrifice and Sacrament.  He  
demonstrates that, as a necessary consequence, the form has  
been SUBSTANTIALLY OR ESSENTIALLY MUTILATED; and that  
therefore the form has been rendered invalid; and, finally,  
that therefore any Masses using this new "English Canon" are  
invalid.  
     To support his thesis Mr. Omlor draws heavily on the  
teachings of St. Thomas Aquinas and the documents of the  
Magisterium of the Church, particularly the Council of Trent.   
Of especial importance are the passages he quotes from "The  
Catechism of the Council of Trent," a compendium of OFFICIAL  
Catholic doctrine which enjoys a unique and authoritative  
status - The Trent Catechism is "guaranteed to be orthodox by  
the Catholic Church and her supreme head on earth" says Dr.  
John Hagan of the Irish College in Rome.  
     St. Thomas Aquinas, as an authority on Eucharistic  
theology, deserves profound respect.  Indeed, the Angelic  
Doctor received the singular endorsement of Christ Himself:  
"Bene scripsisti de Me, Thoma!" - "You have written well of  
Me, Thomas!" - words issuing from the Crucifix on the Altar  
before which Thomas was praying in Naples, a year before his  
death.  Only shortly before this had he completed his treatise  
on the Eucharist.  St. Thomas Aquinas is in a special way the  
Theologian of the Eucharist.  It was he who was commissioned  
by the Pope to compose the Office and Mass for the Feast of  
Corpus Christi.  Before appealing to contemporary theologians  
to "justify" the new, English Form of Consecration, MUST WE  
NOT FIRST STUDY MOST CAREFULLY THE TEACHINGS OF THE ANGELIC  
DOCTOR on this MOST VITAL of matters?  "Bene scripsisti de Me,  
Thoma!"  
     THE CHARGE OF INVALIDITY OF THE NEW "ENGLISH CANON" IS A  
GRAVE CHARGE INDEED; ONE THAT MAY NOT BE MADE LIGHTLY OR  
RECKLESSLY, AND ONE THAT MUST BE EITHER TOTALLY REFUTED OR  
TOTALLY SUBSTANTIATED.  Most reprehensible, most  
irresponsible, and most harmful to souls would it be to make  
such a charge, or even raise the question publicly, if there  
were no reasonable foundation for such a charge or doubt.   
Likewise reprehensible would it be to IGNORE THE POSSIBILITY  
of invalidity if concrete evidence of form mutilation can be  
produced.  As shall be shown, such evidence HAS BEEN PRODUCED.   
This present treatise is a systematic study of these  
mutilations and their bearing on the ENTIRE form, and  
therefore on the entire Mass.  
     IN PRACTICE, the very raising of questions or doubts  
about the validity of a given manner of confecting a sacrament  
- if this question is based on an apparent defect of matter or  
form - would necessitate the strict abstention from use of  
that doubtful manner of performing the sacramental act, UNTIL  
THE DOUBTS ARE RESOLVED.  In confecting the sacraments, all  
priests ARE OBLIGED to follow the "MEDIUM CERTUM."  
     From all appearances, a real mutilation HAS INDEED been  
incorporated into the form of consecration in the new English  
Canon, a mutilation that conveys an apparent mutilation of  
MEANING AND CONCEPT.  BUT, THE CHURCH NEVER CONTRADICTS  
HERSELF!  The Church never contradicts herself, as Christ  
never contradicts Himself.  For some ominous reason, present  
ecclesiastical developments, highlighted by the introduction  
of the new English Canon, seem to have slipped out of the  
hands of the Church's Magisterium!  Was October 22, 1967, the  
beginning of an age of new darkness on the earth, and the  
harbinger of an unprecedented crisis within the Church?  Was  
the Blessed Virgin's indication that THE ROSARY and HER  
IMMACULATE HEART would be our "LAST AND FINAL WEAPONS" a hint  
that somehow the Holy Mass would at some point become no  
longer available to most Catholics?  
     The very fact that a question (let alone a certainty has  
been raised concerning the validity of the new ENGLISH Canon  
and consecration form THOROUGHLY VINDICATES the Church's  
traditional, ABSOLUTE INSISTENCE that the essential forms of  
the sacraments ALWAYS BE PRONOUNCED ONLY IN THE ORIGINAL  
LATIN, as they appear inviolably in the Roman Ritual, Roman  
Missal, and Roman Pontifical.  This insistence was aimed at  
preventing the VERY CRISIS WHICH HAS NOW ARISEN!  That is to  
say, it was aimed at safeguarding ABSOLUTELY the integrity,  
essence and intent of the forms from the danger of  
invalidating mutilations.  
     Secondly, it vindicates the Church's insistence on the  
use of the teachings of St. Thomas Aquinas and Scholastic  
Philosophy, the "ancilla theologiae" (handmaid of Theology).  
     Thirdly, and above all, it vindicates the Church's  
insistence on the teachings of the Magisterium in these  
matters pertaining to the Sacraments, and especially the  
decrees of the Sacred Council of Trent and the Tridentine  
Catechism.  
     Can it be that we are now at last experiencing the  
ultimate and most fearsome consequences of abandoning these  
THREE PROVIDENTIAL INSTRUMENTS, in favor of vernacularism,  
muddled thinking and "new theology"?  Do we now find in  
imminent danger of destruction the very heart and essence of  
our religion, the Holy Mass?  With each of the gradual and  
growing changes and vernacularizations of the Mass since 1963,  
the proponents of change always assured us: "It's still  
the MASS!"  Has the time now come (or, if not, will it soon be  
coming?) when, in truth, this can no longer be said?  
     I have written this Foreword, but what, exactly, is my  
position?  It is NOT A POSITION OF UNQUALIFIED AND PRECIPITOUS  
ENDORSEMENT of Mr. Patrick Omlor's arguments and conclusions.   
Rather is it a call to intense mutual study of his thesis, and  
a serious examination of the very real mutilations introduced  
in the form of Consecration and their bearing on the validity  
of the Mass.  IF MR. OMLOR IS WRONG IN HIS THESIS AND  
ARGUMENTS, LET HIM BE REFUTED BEYOND THE SHADOW OF A DOUBT!   
If he is correct, may effective measures be taken IMMEDIATELY  
to restore the Mass, and place it back into the hands of the  
Magisterium.  Or may God Himself intervene!  If the matter  
remains in doubt, unsolved, then the only course of action is  
to take the PARS TUTIOR, indeed the "MEDIUM CERTUM."  
     While considering the author's request that I write and  
sign this Foreword, I wavered and prayed and made no immediate  
decision.  What finally decided the matter for me was my  
recollection of Our Lord's words: "Every one therefore that  
shall confess me before men, I will also confess him before my  
Father who is in heaven.  But he that shall deny me before  
men, I will also deny him before my Father who is in heaven."  
(Matthew: 10,32-3)  For the Mass and its integrity and  
particularly the Consecration and the Most Holy Sacrifice and  
Sacrament of the Body and Blood of the Lord, form the very  
heart and center of my priesthood and of the Faith I swore to  
profess, guard, and defend "to the last breath of my life."  
  
                                L. S. B.  
                                March 12, 1968  
                                Feast of St. Gregory the Great  
  
  
                                 PREFACE  
  
     This little monograph embodies the presentation of a case  
against the validity of the new "form" presently being used  
for the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist.  It was on October  
22, 1967, that this new "form" originally came into use in the  
United States, along with the new English Canon of the Mass.  
     That the arguments presented herein are beyond question  
or challenge I do not claim.  Assuredly they will not be the  
"last word" on the subject.  
     "You must not so cling to what we have said," St. Anselm  
advised his disciple, "as to abide by it obstinately when  
others with more weighty arguments succeed in overthrowing  
ours and establishing opinions against them."  When more  
weighty arguments (either for or against mine) are advanced, I  
will welcome them.  And I will take as my own these words of  
the same great St. Anselm: "If there is anything that calls  
for correction I do not refuse the correction."  
     What I have striven for is clarity.  Each paragraph of  
this monograph is numbered uniquely, so that all who wish to  
question or rebut any particular point, or many points, may  
with ease refer to what I have written.  Not only will this  
aid my sincere opponents in citing chapter and verse against  
me, but it will also point up the insincerity of all BLANKET  
criticisms that avoid citing SPECIFICS.  
  
                                  Patrick Henry Omlor  
                                  Redwood City, California.  
                                  March 7, 1968  
                                  Feast of St. Thomas Aquinas  
  
  
Six Ways To Violate the Form of A Sacrament:  
  
"NIL FORMAE DEMAS, NIL ADDAS, NIL VARIABIS, TRANSMUTARE CAVE,  
CORRUMPERE VERBA, MORARI."  
  
"Omit nothing of the form, add nothing, change nothing; Beware  
of transmuting, corrupting, or interrupting the words."  
  
(Quoted from J. M. Herve's "Manuale Theologiae Dogmaticae")  
  
  
1)  INTRODUCTION  
          Concerning Father De Pauw's Letter  
  
1.  In a 28-page, printed letter, dated December 25, 1967,  
Father Gommar A. De Pauw raised the question whether the  
Masses being said using the new all-English Canon are valid.   
On page 20 of this letter, there appears the following  
opinion: "IF, therefore, a priest, even though he sinfully and  
illegally uses the new all-English-Canon, unequivocally  
assures you - AND YOU SHOULD PUT EVERY PRIEST YOU KNOW TO THIS  
TEST! - that he positively believes in the SACRIFICIAL nature  
of the Mass and in the dogma of TRANSUBSTANTIATION AS DEFINED  
BY THE COUNCIL OF TRENT, and that he still positively intends  
to use his uniquely priestly powers to bring the living Jesus  
Christ present upon our altars, then that priest is still  
offering VALID Masses ..."  (Emphasis in the original)  
  
2.  According to the foregoing opinion, there are two criteria  
for determining whether any given, particular Mass is valid.   
And by virtue of Father De Pauw's use of the word: AND, it is  
implied that BOTH criteria must be answered affirmatively.   
The first criterion pertains to the faith of the priest, while  
the second concerns his proper intention.  
  
3.  Now, firstly, regarding the required faith of the priest,  
St. Thomas Aquinas teaches, "But if his faith be defective in  
regard to the very sacrament that he confers, although he  
believe that no inward effect is caused by the thing done  
outwardly, yet he does know that the Catholic Church intends  
to confer a sacrament by that which is outwardly done.   
Wherefore, his unbelief notwithstanding, he can intend to do  
what the Church does, albeit he esteem it to be nothing.  And  
such an intention suffices for a sacrament: because as stated  
above the minister of a sacrament acts in the person of the  
Church by whose faith any defect in the minister's faith is  
made good."  (Summa Theologica, Part III, Q. 64, Art. 9)  
  
4.  Therefore, from the above it would seem that the priest's  
FAITH in the sacrament of the Most Holy Eucharist is not  
required for the validity of the Masses he offers.  
  
5.  And, secondly, St. Thomas discusses "Whether the  
Minister's Intention is Required for the Validity of a  
Sacrament?", in Summa Th., III, Q. 64, Art. 8.  As is  
generally known, the Angelic Doctor's method of exposition  
consists in first posing a number of "Objections," which he  
subsequently answers, after he has expounded the question at  
length.  In the aforementioned article, the following  
"Objection" is posed.  "Obj. 2.  Further, one man's intention  
cannot be known to another.  Therefore if the minister's  
intention were required for the validity of a sacrament, he  
who approaches a sacrament could not know whether he has  
received the sacrament."  
  
6.  His Reply Obj. 2 contains the following: "On this point  
there are two opinions... "  St. Thomas next proceeds to  
discuss the first of these opinions, and exposes its flaws.   
Then he takes up the second of these opinions in the following  
manner: "Consequently, others with better reason hold that the  
minister of a sacrament acts in the person of the whole  
Church, whose minister he is; while in the words uttered by  
him, the intention of the Church is expressed; and that this  
suffices for the validity of the sacrament, EXCEPT THE  
CONTRARY BE EXPRESSED on the part either of the minister or  
the recipient of the sacrament."  (Emphasis added)  
  
7.  Thus it would seem that there is no necessity for a layman  
explicitly to interrogate the priest concerning the latter's  
intention.  
  
                      The Critical Point of Inquiry  
  
8.  On page 16 of the aforementioned letter Father De Pauw  
correctly claims that they are guilty of "unilaterally  
changing the established form of a sacrament."  The sacrament  
to which he refers, of course, is the Most Holy Sacrament of  
the Eucharist.  
  
9.  Although Father De Pauw mentions it ONLY CASUALLY AND IN  
PASSING, it seems that this point is really the crux of the  
matter.  For if the wording in the PROPER, ESTABLISHED form of  
a sacrament is so altered that the essential meaning of the  
words is changed, then the sacrament is AUTOMATICALLY rendered  
invalid, as will be demonstrated.  For as St. Thomas teaches,  
"Some heretics in conferring sacraments do not observe the  
form prescribed by the Church: and these confer neither the  
sacrament nor the reality of the sacrament."(Summa Th, III, Q.  
64, Art. 9)  
  
10.  As a consequence, both of Father De Pauw's criteria - as  
well as ALL OTHER QUESTIONS - are really beside the point if  
the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist has been AUTOMATICALLY  
RENDERED INVALID by virtue of a defect in the form introduced  
in the new, all-English Canon of the Mass.  And the  
investigation of this question is the purpose of this present  
monograph.  
  
2)  THE NECESSITY OF PROPER, DETERMINATE FORMS FOR SACRAMENTS  
  
                Necessity of Specific, Determinate Matter  
  
11.  As everyone knows, for any sacrament to be administered  
validly, it is necessary that the proper MATTER be used; for  
example, water for Baptism, bread and wine for the Holy  
Eucharist.  
  
12.  St. Thomas Aquinas explains why SPECIFIC, DETERMINATE  
things are required for the proper matter of the sacraments:  
"Since, therefore, the sanctification of man is in the power  
of God Who sanctifies, it is not for man to decide what things  
should be used for his sanctification, but this should be  
determined by Divine institution.  Therefore in the sacraments  
of the New Law, by which man is Sanctified according to I Cor.  
vi. 11, "You are washed, you are sanctified," we must use  
those things which are determined by Divine institution."  
(Summa Th., III, Q. 60, Art. 5)  
  
13.  Thus no mere man may dare attempt to arrogate to himself  
the right to change the PROPER MATTER of a sacrament, for "we  
must use those things which are determined by Divine  
institution."   
  
          Necessity of a Specific Determinate Form Even Greater  
  
14.  Now if a specific, determinate MATTER is required for the  
validity of a sacrament, greater still is the necessity of a  
specific, determinate FORM.  "And therefore in order to insure  
the perfection of sacramental signification it was necessary  
to determine the signification of the sensible things (i.e.,  
THE MATTER) by means of certain words."  (Summa Th, III, Q.  
60, Art. 6)  
  
15.  "As stated above, in the sacraments the words are as the  
form, and sensible things areas the matter.  Now in all things  
composed of matter and form, the determining principle is on  
the part of the form.  ... Consequently, for the being of a  
thing the need of a determinate form is prior to the need of  
determinate matter...  Since, therefore, in the sacraments  
determinate sensible things are required, which are as the  
sacramental matter, MUCH MORE IS THERE NEED in them OF A  
DETERMINATE FORM of words." (Summa Th., III, Q. 60, Art. 7,  
emphasis added)  
  
16.  And so, similarly as above, mere men may not dare usurp  
the right to CHANGE THE PROPER FORM of a sacrament.  
  
3)  THE PROPER FORM FOR THE SACRAMENT OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST  
  
                      The Consecration of the Bread  
  
17.  According to St. Thomas Aquinas, the proper form for the  
consecration of the bread consists of the words: THIS IS MY  
BODY. (Summa Th., III, Q. 78, Art. 2)  
  
18.  Prior to the introduction of the all-English Canon on  
October 22, 1967, the form used during the Mass was: FOR THIS  
IS MY BODY.  This new Canon, however, omits the conjunction,  
FOR; and this particular word, according to St. Thomas, "is  
set in this form according to the custom of THE ROMAN CHURCH,  
who derived it from PETER THE APOSTLE." (Summa Th., III, Q.  
78, Art. 2, emphasis added)  It was put in the form "on  
account of the sequence with the words preceding," the Angelic  
Doctor continues, "and therefore it is not part of the form."  
(Ibid)  
  
19.  Although the omission of the word FOR in the consecration  
of the bread does not affect the validity of the sacrament,  
those who are responsible for this omission seemingly exhibit  
a callous disregard for a Tradition of the ROMAN Catholic  
Church, a Tradition dating from the very beginnings of  
Christianity.  Indeed a Tradition "derived from Peter the  
Apostle."!  
  
20.  Interestingly, the Angelic Doctor also observes, "Thus in  
the form of the Eucharist, FOR THIS IS MY BODY, the omission  
of the word FOR ... does not cause the sacrament to be  
invalid; although perhaps he who makes the omission may sin  
from negligence or contempt."  (Summa Th, III, Q. 60, Art. 8)  
  
                      The Consecration of the Wine  
  
21.  According to "THE CATECHISM By Decree of THE HOLY COUNCIL  
OF TRENT," published by command of Pope Saint Pius V: "We are  
then firmly to believe (certo credendum est)," that the form  
for the consecration of the wine "consists in 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, TO THE REMISSION OF SINS."  (Part II, chap. 4,  
par. 21)  And immediately below in par. 22, we read:  
"Concerning this form no one can doubt (Verum de hac forma  
nemo dubitare poterit) ... it is plain that no other words  
constitute the form (perspicuum est, aliam formam  
constituendam non esse)."  
  
22.  There are other theology books which either state (or at  
least imply) that the words THIS IS MY BLOOD alone constitute  
the form.  This certainly would seem to be incorrect for  
several reasons.  First of all, as just noted, a catechism by,  
decree of AN ECUMENICAL COUNCIL (and not a "pastoral" one  
either) has declared otherwise.  
  
23.  The second reason is by the authority of long-established  
usage.  For in practically all missals, both those used by the  
priest (altar missals) and those used by the faithful, we  
always find italicized or set in bold print the entire form:  
HIC EST ENIM CALIX ... IN REMISSIONEM PECCATORUM.  
  
24.  And finally, thirdly, we should believe that the ENTIRE  
form given in paragraph 21 above is the NECESSARY AND PROPER  
FORM, because the integrity of the expression demands it.   
"Some have maintained," says St. Thomas, "that the words THIS  
IS THE CHALICE OF MY BLOOD alone belong to the substance (that  
is, the essence or necessary part - Auth.) of the form, but  
not those words which follow.  Now this seems incorrect,  
because the words which follow them are determinations of the  
predicate, that is, of Christ's blood; consequently they  
belong to the integrity of the expression."  
  
25.  He continues, "And on this account others say more  
accurately that all the words which follow are of the  
substance of the form down to the words, AS OFTEN AS YOU SHALL  
DO THIS (but NOT INCLUDING these words - Auth.)"  Otherwise,  
why would the priest continue holding the chalice until the  
completion of all these words?  "Hence it is that the priest  
pronounces all the words, under the same rite and manner,  
namely, holding the chalice in his hands."  (Summa Th, III, Q.  
78, Art. 3)  
  
26.  TO SHOW WHY EACH CLAUSE AND PHRASE IS NECESSARY, the  
Angelic Doctor explains them one by one.  "Consequently it  
must be said that all the aforesaid words belong to the  
substance of the form; but that by the first words, THIS IS  
THE CHALICE OF MY BLOOD, the change of the wine into blood is  
denoted..."  It is important to note that St. Thomas says that  
the transubstantiation is DENOTED, but he does not say that it  
actually OCCURS, upon the completion of this clause.  
  
27.  Continuing, "but by the words which come after is shown  
the power of the blood shed in the Passion, which power works  
in this sacrament, and is ordained for three purposes.  First  
and principally for securing our eternal heritage, ... and in  
order to denote this, we say, OF THE NEW AND ETERNAL  
TESTAMENT.  
  
28.  "Secondly, for justifying by grace, which is by faith,  
... and on this account we add, THE MYSTERY OF FAITH.  
  
29.  "Thirdly, for removing sins which are the impediments to  
both of these things, ... and on this account, we say, WHICH  
SHALL BE SHED FOR YOU AND FOR MANY UNTO THE FORGIVENESS OF  
SINS."  (Quotations in paragraphs 26-29 from Summa Th., III,  
Q. 78, Art. 3)  
  
30.  To summarize this part: The proper form for the sacrament  
of the Most Holy Eucharist - ALL OF WHICH is necessary for its  
validity - is:  
          "THIS IS MY BODY.  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 FORGIVENESS OF SINS."  
  
4)  THE NEW "FORM" INTRODUCED VIA THE ALL-ENGLISH CANON  
  
                          Text of the New Form  
  
31.  When the new, all-English Canon made its debut upon the  
American scene last October, there were some Catholics who  
showed immediate concern that the very words of the  
Consecration had been changed.  
  
32.  The new text reads: "This is my body.  This is the cup of  
my blood, the blood of the new and everlasting covenant - the  
mystery of faith.  This blood is to be shed for you and for  
all men so that sins may be forgiven."  
  
                      Some Preliminary Observations  
  
33.  That the new phraseology is not the same as the ancient  
form is immediately evident.  In some places a synonym (more  
or less) replaces the former word; for example, the  
commonplace word CUP appears instead of the word CHALICE.  And  
SHALL BE SHED becomes rendered as: IS TO BE SHED.  
  
34.  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.  
  
35.  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.  
  
36.  For a plain understanding of what is to follow we must  
comprehend the language of St. Thomas.  When he uses the  
expression, "substantial part of the sacramental form," or  
simply, "substance of the form," what is meant is the  
NECESSARY PART of the form.  The alteration we are going to  
examine, as outlined in paragraph 34 above, occurs in the  
"SUBSTANCE OF THE FORM," as was shown above in paragraphs 24,  
25 and 29, quoting St. Thomas.  
  
37.  By "essential sense of the words," it should be  
understood that St. Thomas means, "THE BASIC MEANING OF THE  
WORDS."  
  
5)  HOW DOES CHANGING THE FORM INVALIDATE A SACRAMENT?  
  
                   Changes Caused by Omission of Words  
  
38.  The OMISSION of words in the form of a sacrament does not  
always invalidate the sacrament.  But the sacrament remains  
valid IF AND ONLY IF the words left out do not belong to the  
SUBSTANCE of the form; that is, the essence or necessary part  
of the form.  Thus we saw in paragraph 20 above that the  
omission of the word FOR in the form: FOR THIS IS MY BODY,  
does not invalidate the sacrament, because the word FOR is not  
in the SUBSTANCE of the form.  
  
39.  But it goes without saying that if the SUBSTANCE of the  
form is altered by the omission, then the sacrament is  
invalidated.  As St. Thomas says: "Now it is clear, if any  
substantial part of the sacramental form be suppressed, that  
the essential sense of the words is destroyed; and  
consequently the sacrament is invalid."  (Summa Th., III, Q.  
60, Art. 8)  
  
                   Changes Caused by Addition of Words  
  
40.  If words are ADDED to the form of a sacrament, and these  
words introduce a change in the basic meaning (essential  
sense) of the form, then the sacrament is necessarily invalid.   
Thus the form for baptism used by the Arians was: "I baptize  
thee in the name of the Father Who is greater, and of the Son  
Who is less."  
  
41.  Another example of the addition of words which would  
render a sacrament invalid would be: "I baptize thee in the  
Name of the Father... etc., and of the Blessed Virgin Mary."   
That is, if by saying this one intended to place the Mother of  
God on a par with the Blessed Trinity.  
  
42.  If the words added INVOLVE NO CHANGE OF SENSE, then the  
sacrament remains valid.  Thus the Greeks use the form: The  
servant of God, N ... is baptized in the name of the Father,  
etc.  
  
                 Changes Caused by Substitution of Words  
  
43.  The type of change which we are concerned with in the  
present discussion is one of SUBSTITUTION.  For the  
newly-introduced form has substituted, FOR YOU AND FOR ALL MEN  
SO THAT SINS MAY BE FORGIVEN, for the words: FOR YOU AND FOR  
MANY UNTO THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS.  Now a substitution always  
necessarily involves an omission AND an addition; for the  
standing phrase is omitted and the new phrase is added.  
  
44.  A SUBSTITUTION is permissible if the part inserted is  
exactly equivalent to the part taken out.  The form we use for  
the Sacrament of Confirmation contains: I CONFIRM THEE WITH  
THE CHRISM OF SALVATION.  But some say: I CONFIRM THEE WITH  
THE CHRISM OF SANCTIFICATION.  St. Thomas explains, "Holiness  
is the cause of salvation.  Therefore it comes to the same  
whether we say CHRISM OF SALVATION or OF SANCTIFICATION."  
(Summa Th., III, Q. 72, Art. 4)  However, to substitute the  
word FAITH instead of SALVATION, for example, would most  
probably render the sacrament invalid.  
  
                        The Criterion We Must Use  
  
45.  Let us consider the following teaching of the Angelic  
Doctor: "The other point to be considered is the meaning of  
the words.  For since in the sacraments, the words produce an  
effect according to the sense which they convey, as stated  
above, we must see whether the change of words destroys the  
essential sense of the words: because then the sacrament is  
clearly rendered invalid." (Summa Th, III, Q. 60, Art. 8)  
  
46.  That the change of words introduced in the new "form" has  
destroyed the "essential sense" of the words in the ancient,  
established form will be clearly demonstrated below in Part 7.  
But first of all, one more preliminary topic win be treated in  
the next part (6).  
  
6)  NECESSITY OF USING OUR LORDS WORDS FOR THE EUCHARIST  
  
                   The Source of Power in These Words  
  
47.  From some examples given above it was seen that as  
regards the sacraments of Baptism and Confirmation a slight  
variation in wording is permissible, provided that the  
essential sense of the words of the form is not affected.  But  
in the sacrament of the Most Holy Eucharist a special case  
presents itself.  Here there must be no variation whatsoever.  
  
48.  In all the sacraments EXCEPT THE HOLY EUCHARIST the  
minister has an act to perform in addition to pronouncing the  
required words of the form.  For example, pouring water in  
Baptism, anointing with chrism in Confirmation, and in Holy  
Orders the imposition of hands, etc., which constitute the  
matter of that sacrament.  But in the sacrament of the Holy  
Eucharist the priest has NO ACT to perform EXCEPT THE  
PRONOUNCING OF THE NECESSARY WORDS. (Summa Th., III, Q. 78,  
Art. 1)  
  
49.  Moreover, the power of the form of this sacrament is  
derived SOLELY from the fact that the words spoken by the  
priest are the EXACT WORDS of Our Lord.  "But the form of this  
sacrament is pronounced as if Christ were speaking in person,  
so that it is given to be understood that the minister does  
nothing in perfecting this sacrament, except to pronounce the  
words of Christ."  (Summa Th., III, Q. 78, Art. 1)  
  
50.  "Ambrose says (De Sacram. iv): `The consecration is  
accomplished by the words and expressions of the Lord Jesus.  
... (W)hen the time comes for perfecting the sacrament, the  
priest uses no longer his own words, but the words of  
Christ.'"  (Summa Th., III, Q. 78, Art. 1)  
  
                  Our Lord's Words in the Ancient Form  
  
51.  It cannot be doubted that the ancient, established form  
for the consecration of the wine comprises the words of Our  
Lord.  But inasmuch as there are always those pseudo-Catholics  
who relish questioning everything - the revered Traditions of  
the Church and Holy Scripture not excluded - the following  
proofs are presented.  
  
52.  PROOF FROM HOLY SCRIPTURE.  As St. Thomas observes,  
"Nevertheless nearly all these words can be culled from  
various passages of the Scriptures."  (Summa Th., III, Q. 78,  
Art. 3)  In point of fact, the only words of this form which  
are not to be found in the Holy Scriptures are the following:  
(a) AND ETERNAL, and (b) THE MYSTERY OF FAITH.  
  
53.  But Tradition reveals to us that these words, AND ETERNAL  
and THE MYSTERY OF FAITH were also from Our Lord.  "The words  
added, namely, ETERNAL and MYSTERY OF FAITH, were handed down  
to the Church by the apostles, who received them from Our  
Lord."  (Ibid)  
  
54.  And, elsewhere in discussing the question, "Whether the  
Words Spoken in This Sacrament Are Properly Framed?"  (Summa  
Th., III, Q. 83, Art. 4), the Angelic Doctor makes this  
observation, "We find it stated in De Consecr., dist. 1, that  
`James, the brother of the Lord according to the flesh, and  
Basil, bishop of Caesarea, edited the rite of celebrating the  
Mass.'"  
  
55.  To summarize: The words which had always been used for  
the form of the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist were THE WORDS  
OF OUR LORD AND SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST, as proved from Holy  
Scripture and Tradition.  These words were used by the  
Apostles themselves.  It is by virtue of these words that the  
form for this sacrament DERIVES ITS POWER AND EFFICACY.  
  
                   Putting Words into Our Lord's Mouth  
  
56.  The new "form" for the consecration of the wine alleges  
that Our Lord said: "to be shed for you and for ALL MEN ...  
etc." There is no evidence - either in Holy Scripture or in  
the Traditions handed down - that Our Lord actually said this  
when instituting the Holy Eucharist.  
  
57.  Moreover, ALL THE EVIDENCE is that He did NOT say: "for  
all men," when instituting the Most Holy Sacrament.  St.  
Matthew (26,28) writes that He said, "FOR MANY."  And also St.  
Mark (14,24) records that Our Lord said, "FOR MANY."  But  
NOWHERE in Holy Scripture - neither in St. Paul nor the  
Evangelists - do we find that Our Lord said, "for all men."  
Now whom are we to believe?  Are we to believe St. Mark  
and St. Matthew, WHO WAS ACTUALLY THERE at the Last Supper  
(and both of whom were DIVINELY INSPIRED to write what they  
wrote)?  Or, are we to believe an "enlightened" clique of  
mid-twentieth-century Modernists and Innovators?  
  
58.  Even in ordinary writing or oratory, careful scholars are  
diligent in using the EXACT WORDS of another person whenever  
attributing to him a quotation.  HOW MUCH MORE DILIGENCE IS  
DEMANDED WHEN ATTRIBUTING A DIRECT QUOTE TO JESUS!  "It is not  
lawful to add even words to Holy Scripture as though such  
words were a part thereof, for this would amount to forgery."  
(Summa Th., III, Q. 60, Art. 8)  
  
59.  Now, the authors of this new Canon boldly claim that Our  
Lord SAID SOMETHING that He clearly and obviously DID NOT SAY.  
(In Part 12 it will be shown that Our Lord COULD NOT have said  
what they claim He did.)  The text of this new Canon reads  
precisely: "He ... gave the cup ... AND SAID:".  The  
"quotation" IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING includes the BOGUS PHRASE:  
"for all men so that sins may be forgiven."  THIS IS A  
FORGERY, and those who are responsible for it must be deemed  
guilty of a deliberate deception, unless they can prove that  
they are merely completely inept and most culpably negligent.  
  
60.  It might be remarked, in passing, that the phrase FOR YOU  
AND FOR ALL MEN grammatically is inelegant in that it is  
redundant.  By analogy, a speaker does not single out one  
person in a group and say, "This is for you and for all in  
this room," but rather would he say, "This is for you and for  
all OTHERS in this room." For it is obvious that the person  
who is singled out is automatically included in "all in this  
room."  Thus the Innovators even go so far as to attribute  
inferior rhetoric to Our Lord.  
  
61.  From the foregoing it is clear that, by tampering with  
the words of Our Lord, our Modernists are endangering the VERY  
SOURCE OF THE POWER of this sacrament.  
  
7)  THE NEW "FORM" DESTROYS THE SENSE OF THE PROPER FORM  
  
                 Two Distinct Aspects of Christ's Death  
  
62.  In order to comprehend clearly that the new "form" being  
used involves a change of essential sense (basic meaning) from  
the ancient and PROPER form, we must consider two distinct  
aspects of the Passion and Death of Our Divine Lord.  
  
63.  The first aspect is that of SUFFICIENCY; that is, for  
what and for whom did Christ's Passion SUFFICE?  The second  
aspect is that of EFFICACY; that is, for what and for whom was  
Christ's Passion EFFICACIOUS (effective)?  
  
                        The Aspect of Sufficiency  
  
64.  It is a truth of our Faith that Christ died for all men  
without exception.  "And He is the propitiation for our sins:  
and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world."  
(1 John 2,2)  Another truth of our Faith is that not all men  
are saved, but some indeed suffer eternal damnation.  
  
65.  Hence we can say that Christ's Passion is the SUFFICIENT  
cause of the salvation of all men.  In the words of St.  
Thomas, "Christ by His Passion delivered us from our sins  
causally - that is, by setting up the cause of our  
deliverance, from which cause all sins whatsoever, past,  
present, or to come, could be forgiven: just as if a doctor  
were to prepare a medicine by which all sicknesses can be  
cured even in the future."  (Summa Th., III, Q. 49, Art. 2)  
  
66.  And this is the meaning of the truth, "Christ died  
for all men."  His Passion is SUFFICIENT for the salvation of  
all, "from which cause all sins ... COULD be forgiven."  
  
                         The Aspect of Efficacy  
  
67.  Now we are led to consider another truth of our Faith.   
Although it is related to the truth discussed just above, this  
other truth is NOT THE SAME truth as above, but a distinct  
truth.  Just as the doctrines of the Immaculate Conception,  
Virgin Birth, Perpetual Virginity and Divine Maternity are  
DISTINCT TRUTHS, defined at different times - although they  
are intimately related insofar as they all derive from the  
singular role of the Most Blessed Virgin Mary in God's  
Redemptive Plan.  
  
68.  This other truth we are led to consider is that the  
EFFICACY, or effectiveness, of Christ's Passion is not  
communicated to all men, but only unto those who are actually  
saved; that is, TO THE ELECT.  This truth is closely connected  
with the doctrine of man's free will, a mystery, and with the  
doctrine of the MYSTICAL BODY OF CHRIST, also a mystery.  
  
69.  These two distinct aspects of Christ's Passion and Death  
(each conveying its own particular truth) - to wit, the  
standpoints of SUFFICIENCY and EFFICACY - are clearly  
DISTINGUISHED in this passage from a decree of the Council of  
Trent: "But, though He died for all, yet all do not receive  
the benefit of His death, but those only unto whom the merit  
of His passion is communicated." (Session VI, Ch. 3)  
  
       The Ancient, Established Form Conveys the Sense of Efficacy  
  
70.  It will now be made quite clear that the ancient and  
PROPER form of the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist refers to  
the shedding of Christ's Precious Blood from the standpoint of  
EFFICACY only.  This form terminates with these words: WHICH  
SHALL BE SHED FOR YOU AND FOR MANY UNTO THE FORGIVENESS OF  
SINS.  
  
71.  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.  
  
72.  Secondly, the words FOR MANY are selective in their  
connotation, as opposed to FOR ALL MEN, which phrase denotes  
universality.  At this point it will be most instructive to  
rely once again upon the lucid teaching of the Angelic Doctor.   
The following argument is drawn from Summa Th., III, Q. 78,  
Art. 3; - and this particular article is very much to the  
point of our discussion, for the topic treated therein is:  
what is the proper form for the consecration of the wine?  
  
73.  According to his characteristic manner of exposition, St.  
Thomas at first suggests a number of "objections," and  
subsequently he demonstrates the errors contained in these  
"objections."  The following objection is posed: "Obj. 8.   
Christ's Passion sufficed for all; while as to its efficacy it  
was profitable for many.  Therefore it ought to be said: WHICH  
SHALL BE SHED FOR ALL, or else FOR MANY, without adding FOR  
YOU."  
  
74.  For clarity's sake, let us examine this "objection" by  
rephrasing it.  It may be reworded thus: The proper form for  
the consecration should treat of Christ's Passion from EITHER  
the standpoint of sufficiency, OR the standpoint of efficacy.   
Now to treat of it from the standpoint of sufficiency demands  
the form, WHICH SHALL BE SHED FOR ALL.  But if the standpoint  
of efficacy is what is meant, then the form should be simply:   
FOR MANY, without adding FOR YOU (which is redundant).  
  
75.  The subtle error in this "objection" is thus exposed and  
refuted by St. Thomas: "Reply Obj. 8.  The blood of Christ's  
Passion has its efficacy not merely in the elect among the  
Jews, to whom the blood of the Old Testament was exhibited,  
but also in the Gentiles ... And therefore He says expressly,  
FOR YOU, the Jews, AND FOR MANY, namely the Gentiles ... "  
  
76.  Beginning his reply, "The blood of Christ's Passion has  
its EFFICACY," St. Thomas totally ignores the aspect of  
SUFFICIENCY, and thus he implies that it goes without saying  
that the proper sense of Christ's words here is that of  
EFFICACY.  Moreover, his reply speaks only of "the elect."   
Thus, FOR YOU means not only the Apostles to whom Christ was  
speaking - and, in fact, Judas, THOUGH PRESENT, was not  
included in FOR YOU - , but it means all THE ELECT among the  
Jews.  NOT ALL THE JEWS, but only "the elect" among the Jews.   
And this phraseology, needless to say, denotes only the aspect  
of EFFICACY.  And the phrase AND FOR MANY encompasses the  
Gentiles; again it is understood, of course, that St. Thomas  
is referring only TO THE ELECT among the Gentiles.  
  
77.  Therefore according to the Angelic Doctor's explanation,  
the correct sense or meaning of the form for the consecration  
of the wine is: WHICH SHALL BE SHED FOR YOU (the elect among  
the Jews) AND FOR MANY (the elect among the Gentiles) UNTO  
(effecting) THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS.  And from this it should  
be abundantly clear that this form denotes the shedding of  
Christ's Blood from the aspect of its efficacy, rather than  
its sufficiency.  
  
78.  "As Christ's Passion benefits all" says St. Thomas  
elsewhere, "... whereas it produces no effect except in those  
who are united with Christ's Passion through faith and  
charity, so likewise this sacrifice, which is the memorial of  
our Lord's Passion, has no effect except in those who are  
united with this sacrament through faith and charity...  Hence  
in the Canon of the Mass NO PRAYER IS MADE FOR THEM WHO ARE  
OUTSIDE THE PALE OF THE CHURCH."  (Summa Th., III, Q. 79, Art.  
7, emphasis added)  
  
79.  But if no prayer is made ANYWHERE in the Canon of the  
Mass for those outside the Church, least of all should the  
words "for all men" be placed in the very form for the  
Consecration!  For, as shall be explained later, this Most  
Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist is uniquely THE Sacrament of  
the Mystical Body of Christ, of which Body NOT all men are  
members.  
  
             The New "Form" Conveys the Sense of Sufficiency  
  
80.  The "form" introduced in the new, all English Canon  
terminates thus: IS TO BE SHED OR YOU AND OR ALL MEN SO THAT  
SINS MAY BE FORGIVEN.  Unlike the ancient, established, and  
proper form, the above phraseology fails to convey the sense  
of EFFICACY, and denotes only the sense of SUFFICIENCY.  
  
81.  The very words, "so that sins MAY be forgiven," denote  
only the notion of possibility, for the verb "MAY" is the  
permissive form.  To describe sufficiency, St. Thomas uses the  
words, "from which cause all sins ... COULD be forgiven."  The  
word "MAY" is akin to "COULD", except that "COULD" is even  
stronger in that it denotes power, capability, or ability, and  
not mere possibility.  
  
82.  Secondly, as stated earlier, the phrase "for all men," by  
its universality, cannot denote anything but the aspect of  
SUFFICIENCY.  Thus it is proved that the new "form" in no way  
conveys the same meaning as the ancient and proper form.  
  
83.  It is important to note, in passing, that if the words  
ALL MEN had been substituted for the word MANY, without  
changing anything else, the "form" would have read: WHICH  
SHALL BE SHED FOR YOU AND FOR ALL MEN UNTO THE FORGIVENESS OF  
SINS.  This "form" is heretical.  Since UNTO denotes efficacy,  
this "form" says that the benefits of Christ's Passion are  
actually communicated to ALL MEN UNTO the forgiveness of  
sins.  And this is contrary to faith.  
  
                         Summary and Conclusion  
  
84.  We have considered the Passion and Death of Christ from  
two standpoints, each of which contains a separate and  
distinct truth.  Christ died for ALL MEN without exception so  
that all their sins MAY be forgiven.  And this is the aspect  
of SUFFICIENCY.  However, Christ's Passion is not profitable  
for all men, because we know DE FIDE that not all men attain  
eternal salvation.  Thus MANY men, but not all men, have  
communicated to them the benefits of His Passion unto the  
forgiveness of sins, and this is the aspect of EFFICACY or  
effectiveness.  
  
85.  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.  
  
86.  "For since in the sacraments, the words produce an effect  
according to the sense which they convey, as stated above, we  
must see whether the change of words destroys the essential  
sense of the words: because then the sacrament is clearly  
rendered invalid."  (Summa Th., III, Q. 60, Art. 8)  
  
8)  WHAT IS MEANT BY "THE REALITY" OF A SACRAMENT?  
  
87.  Earlier in this monograph this quotation of St. Thomas was  
cited, "Some heretics in conferring sacraments do not observe  
the form prescribed by the Church: and these confer neither  
the sacrament nor the reality of the sacrament."  What does  
the Angelic Doctor mean by "the reality" of a sacrament?  For  
a clear understanding of what is to follow in this monograph,  
it is imperative that this fundamental concept - that is, "the  
reality" of a sacrament - be grasped.  
  
                 Three Distinct Elements in a Sacrament  
  
88.  In the sacraments there are three distinct elements that  
must be regarded.  (1) There is the element which is SACRAMENT  
ONLY; that is, the outward sign, or matter and form,  
considered by itself.  In other words, the external rite of  
the sacrament.  (2) Next there is the REALITY OF THE SACRAMENT  
- this is what St. Thomas calls "RES SACRAMENTI" -; and by  
this is meant the crowning effect or principal fruit of the  
sacrament.  In other words, "the reality" of the sacrament is  
the GRACE PROPER to the particular sacrament.  It is that  
which IS SIGNIFIED by the external rite, which is that which  
SIGNIFIES.  And (3) there is the element which contains  
something of both the first two elements; that is, it contains  
something of the SACRAMENT and something of the REALITY.  This  
element we call "the reality and the sign."  Consequently, it  
follows that this element both SIGNIFIES and IS SIGNIFIED.  
  
                          Baptism As An Example  
  
89.  A clear insight into the meaning of the preceding  
paragraph can be gained by considering the Sacrament of  
Baptism as an example.  (1) In Baptism the element which is  
SACRAMENT ONLY is the outward sign, namely, the pouring of the  
water.  That is to say, the water AND the washing, coupled, of  
course, with the recitation of the proper words which  
constitute the form of this sacrament.  It is this element  
which DOES THE SIGNIFYING.  
  
90.  And (2) there is the element which is the REALITY ONLY;  
that is, the chief fruit or grace proper to the Sacrament of  
Baptism.  This crowning effect is the washing away of original  
sin (and, in the case of adults, actual sin also).  In the  
words of St. Thomas, this chief effect - the reality of this  
sacrament - is "inward justification."  This inward  
justification CAN BE LOST.  It is clear, then, that "the  
reality" is the element which IS SIGNIFIED.  
  
91.  And, finally, (3) the element which is BOTH SACRAMENT AND  
REALITY, sometimes called "the reality and the sign, is the  
Baptismal character imprinted on the soul.  This character  
CANNOT BE LOST; it is indelible.  It must be noted that this  
third element both SIGNIFIES and IS SIGNIFIED.  First of all,  
it signifies (or is the sign of) the aforesaid inward  
justification.  And, lastly, it is signified by the aforesaid  
outward washing.  
  
9)  WHAT IS "THE REALITY" OF THE SACRAMENT OF THE HOLY  
    EUCHARIST?  
  
                           The Three Elements  
  
92.  St. Thomas Aquinas teaches, "We can consider three things  
in this sacrament: namely, that which is sacrament only, and  
this is the bread and wine; that which is both reality and  
sacrament, to wit, Christ's true body; and lastly that which  
is reality only, namely, the effect of this sacrament."   
(Summa Th., III, Q. 73, Art. 6)  
  
93.  Now, what is "the effect of this sacrament," THE REALITY  
of the Holy Eucharist?  "Now ... the reality of the sacrament  
is the unity of the mystical body, without which there can be  
no salvation."  (Summa Th., III, Q. 73, Art. 3)  
  
94.  THE KEY IDEA in what is to follow is the unique  
relationship between the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist and  
the Mystical Body.  Let us reiterate this idea, using the  
words of Abbe Anger: "In the Eucharist the sign is the  
consecrated species; the `reality and the sign' is the true  
Body of Christ; and the `reality' is the Mystical Body or the  
grace uniting the soul with Christ and with the members of  
Christ."  (Anger-Burke, "The Doctrine of the Mystical Body  
of Christ, According to the Principles of the Theology of St.  
Thomas," by Abbe Anger, and translated from the French by Rev.   
John J. Burke, C.S.P., S.T.D., p. 107).  
  
          Examples To Illustrate "The Reality" of The Eucharist  
  
95.  We read in John (6,24): "Then Jesus said to them: Amen,  
amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of  
man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you."   
But, since we believe that infants who have been baptized and  
who die before receiving the Eucharist are saved, how do we  
explain Christ's words: "Except you eat ... you shall not  
have life in you."?  
  
96.  This is answered as follows.  By Baptism a person "is  
ordained to the Eucharist, and therefore from the fact of  
children being baptized, they are destined by the Church to  
the Eucharist; and just as they believe through the Church's  
faith, so they desire the Eucharist through the Church's  
intention, and, as a result, receive ITS REALITY."  (Summa  
Th., III, Q. 73, Art. 3, emphasis added)  
  
97.  Therefore infants, though they do not receive the  
SACRAMENT of the Eucharist, nevertheless receive THE REALITY  
of the sacrament, namely, union with the MYSTICAL BODY.  
  
98.  Similarly, one who with the right disposition, though he  
be unable to receive Holy Communion, makes a "spiritual  
communion," thereby receives THE REALITY of the sacrament, but  
not the sacrament itself.  
  
10)  THE UNIQUE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE EUCHARIST AND THE  
     MYSTICAL BODY  
  
               All Sacraments Related to The Mystical Body  
  
99.  It is true that all the sacraments are related in some  
way to the Mystical Body, but the relationship thereto by the  
Eucharist is unique.  "All the sacraments are instituted for  
the well-being of the Mystical Body ... (But) the Holy  
Eucharist, feeding all with nourishment divine, SEALS THE  
CLOSE UNION both of the members with their Head and of the  
members with one another.  ... The other sacraments give  
grace.  The Holy Eucharist gives the very Author of grace.   
The other sacraments are rivers of grace.  The Holy Eucharist  
is the source itself."  (Anger-Burke, pp. 88-9, emphasis  
added)  
  
100.  "In the Catholic doctrine of the sacraments everything  
converges, everything looks towards the Eucharist, effective  
symbol of the unity of the Mystical Body."  (Anger-Burke, p.  
163)  
  
            Unique Relationship of the Most Blessed Sacrament  
  
101.  The Blessed Sacrament is necessary for the unity of the  
Mystical Body.  As St. Thomas says, "That there be a perfect  
union of Head and members a sacrament was necessary which  
would hold Christ, which would give us not merely a share in  
His powers but His own essential Self."  (Quoted from  
Anger-Burke, p. 106)  
  
102.  "The Holy Eucharist brings us to the very heart of our  
subject ... it is that by which the Mystical Body is actually  
constituted."  (Anger-Burke, p. 104)  
  
103.  "This is the unity of Christ and His members, and of His  
members one with another.  This is what theologians term `the  
reality' of this sacrament.  This is the fruit of the Holy  
Eucharist.  (Anger-Burke, p. 117)  
  
104.  "The Holy Eucharist is the center of the doctrine of the  
Mystical Body ...  The Holy Eucharist is called `union with'  
and indeed that is what it effects ...  By it we are united to  
Christ ...  By it we are also united one to another and  
brought into one sole body."  (Anger-Burke, p. 128)  
  
105.  And finally, "Everything touching the Eucharist leads us  
back to the Mystical Body."  (Anger-Burke, p. 107)  
  
                       The Words of Pope Pius XII  
  
106.  In his encyclical on the Mystical Body (Mystici  
Corporis Christi), Pope Pius XII could not have failed to  
mention this essential relationship of the Eucharist with the  
Mystical Body.  "Nor is that enough; for in the Holy Eucharist  
the faithful are nourished and grow strong at the same table,  
and in a divine, ineffable way are brought into union with  
each other and with the divine Head of the whole Body."  
  
107.  And elsewhere in this same encyclical the Pontiff says,  
"It seems to Us that something would be lacking ... if We did  
not add here a few words on the Holy Eucharist, wherein this  
union during this mortal life reaches, as it were, a climax.  
  
108.  "Through the Eucharistic Sacrifice Christ Our Lord  
wished to give special evidence to the faithful of our union  
among ourselves and with our divine Head ...  For here the  
sacred ministers act in the person not only of our Savior but  
of the whole Mystical Body."  
  
                           Summary and Preview  
  
109.  The Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist bears a distinct and  
unique relationship to the Mystical Body of Christ.  For "THE  
REALITY" of this sacrament is the union of the Mystical Body.   
The other sacraments are also related to the Mystical Body,  
but not in the distinct, unique manner as is the Holy  
Eucharist.  "EVERYTHING TOUCHING ON THE EUCHARIST LEADS US  
BACK TO THE MYSTICAL BODY."  
  
110.  But what is the Mystical Body?  Who are the members of  
the Mystical Body?  Do ALL MEN belong to the Mystical Body?   
In the form for the Most Blessed Sacrament - at the very  
moment of the Consecration - should the words "FOR ALL MEN" be  
brought in?  By saying "FOR ALL MEN" instead of "FOR MANY," is  
some part of the essential signification of the sacrament  
suppressed or perverted?  Does the phrase "FOR ALL MEN" run  
counter to the "REALITY" of this sacrament?  These are some of  
the questions that shall be treated of in Parts 11 and 12.  
  
11)  WHO BELONGS TO THE MYSTICAL BODY?  
  
111.  To give an exhaustive treatment of the doctrine of the  
Mystical Body, which is a great mystery of our Faith, is not  
the purpose of this part.  Nor is this author even capable of  
such a task.  On the contrary, the purpose here is simply to  
get a concise, working "definition" of the Mystical Body; and,  
further, to ascertain whether "ALL MEN" can, in any sense, be  
considered to be members of the Mystical Body.  All quotations  
in this part are from the encyclical, Mystici Corporis  
Christi.  
  
            The One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic, Roman Church  
  
112.  The Mystical Body consists of THE HEAD Who is Jesus  
Christ, God; and OF THE MEMBERS, who are those united to the  
Head.  "If we would define and describe this true Church of  
Jesus Christ - which is the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic,  
Roman Church - we shall find no expression more noble, more  
sublime or more divine than the phrase which calls it `the  
Mystical Body of Jesus Christ'"  (Pope Pius XII)  
  
                     The Visible Church Is Necessary  
  
113.  "It was possible for Him personally, immediately to  
impart these graces to men; but He wished to do so only  
THROUGH A VISIBLE CHURCH ... and thus through that Church  
dispensing the graces of the Redemption ...  HENCE THEY ERR IN  
A MATTER OF DIVINE TRUTH, who imagine the Church to be  
invisible, intangible, a something merely `pneumatological',  
as they say, by which many Christian communities, though they  
differ from each other in their profession of faith, are  
united by a bond that eludes the senses."  (Emphasis added)  
  
114.  "For this reason We deplore and condemn the pernicious  
error of those who conjure up from their fancies an imaginary  
Church, a kind of Society that finds its origin and growth in  
charity, to which they somewhat contemptuously oppose another,  
which they call juridical."  
  
           Unbelievers and Unbaptized Persons Are Not Members  
  
115.  "Only those are really to be included as members of the  
Church who have been baptized and PROFESS THE TRUE FAITH and  
who have not unhappily withdrawn from Body-unity or for grave  
faults been excluded by LEGITIMATE AUTHORITY."  (Emphasis  
added)  
  
         Heretics, Schismatics, Apostates Automatically Excluded  
  
116.  "For not every sin, however grave and enormous it be, is  
such as to sever a man automatically from the Body of the  
Church, as does schism, or heresy or apostasy."  
  
               Loyalty and Adherence to The Pope Required  
  
117.  "They, therefore, walk the path of dangerous error, who  
believe that they can accept Christ as the Head of the Church,  
while they reject genuine loyalty to His Vicar on earth."  
  
                               Conclusion  
  
118.  From all the words of His Holiness Pope Pius XII cited  
in this Part, it is quite clear that IN NO SENSE can we  
consider that "ALL MEN" belong to the Mystical Body of Christ.  
  
12)  THE NEW "FORM" SUPPRESSES WHAT IS ESSENTIAL, AND  
    SIGNIFIES FALSELY  
  
                Christ Could Not Have Said: "for All Men"  
  
119.  In Part 7, it was argued that the "form" of the Holy  
Eucharist included in the new, all-English Canon is defective;  
and by virtue of this defect in the form, which destroys the  
essential meaning of the true words of the proper form, the  
sacrament is rendered invalid.  
  
120.  From the VERY CHOICE OF WORDS by which the new "form"  
assumes its invalidity - namely, the substitution: FOR ALL  
MEN, etc. - additional evidence of its invalidity may be  
adduced.  For these ersatz words, "for all men" attack THE  
REALITY of the sacrament, which is the Mystical Body.  
  
121.  The Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist is not a sacrament  
"for all men"; it is THE SACRAMENT "for you and for many."  
"The additional words FOR YOU AND FOR MANY," teaches THE  
CATECHISM by Decree of THE HOLY COUNCIL OF TRENT, "are taken,  
some from Matthew, some from Luke, but were joined together by  
the Catholic Church under the guidance of the Spirit of God."  
  
122.  "With reason, therefore, were the words FOR ALL not  
used," continues THE CATECHISM, "as 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.  And this is the  
purport of the Apostle when he says: CHRIST WAS OFFERED ONCE  
TO EXHAUST THE SINS OF MANY; and also the words of Our Lord in  
John: I PRAY OR THEM: I PRAY NOT FOR THE WORLD, BUT FOR THEM  
THOU HAST GIVEN ME, BECAUSE THEY ARE THINE."  
  
123.  ALWAYS THIS WAS UNDERSTOOD to be the meaning of this  
form; that is to say, that the sense of EFFICACY, and not  
SUFFICIENCY, must be conveyed.  St. Alphonsus writes, "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 Savior 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."  (St.   
Alphonsus de Liguori, Treatise on THE HOLY EUCHARIST)  
  
124.  As recorded in John (chs. 14-17), IMMEDIATELY AFTER  
instituting the Holy Eucharist, Our Lord gave a lengthy  
discourse to the Apostles in which He expounded the doctrine  
of HIS MYSTICAL BODY.  "I am the vine; you the branches."  
(John, 15,5)  Significantly, Judas Iscariot was not present  
for this discourse, for he had already departed to betray The  
Master.  AND HEREWITH LIES AN IDEA OF VITAL IMPORT!: Jesus at  
this time DID NOT PRAY FOR ALL MEN.  "I pray for them: I PRAY  
NOT FOR THE WORLD, but for them whom thou hast given me."  
(John, 17,9)  What further evidence is necessary to prove that  
Our Lord did not say, "for all men," as the authors of the  
new, bogus Canon SACRILEGIOUSLY claim?  
  
125.  And since this new "form" contains a lie and a  
sacrilegious mutilation of the words of Christ as recorded in  
Holy Writ, HOW CAN IT CONCEIVABLY be a valid form for this  
Most Holy of Sacraments?  "The Holy Ghost never inspires  
anything that is not conformable to Holy Writ.  If there were  
the slightest divergence, that, alone by itself, would suffice  
to prove so evidently the work of the Evil One that were the  
whole world to assure me it was the Holy Ghost, I would never  
believe it."  (Words of St. Teresa, quoted from Christendom,  
Feb. 1968)  "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a  
gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let  
him be anathema."  (Gal. 1,8)  
  
                Sacraments Must Contain What They Signify  
                      and Signify What They Contain  
  
126.  In his Bull Apostolicae Curae (1896), Pope Leo XIII  
ruled Anglican Orders to be invalid on two counts: namely, by  
virtue of "defect in form" and "defect in intention," either  
defect alone being sufficient grounds for invalidity.  
  
127.  "Moreover," the Bull states, "it is well known that the  
sacraments of the New Law, being sensible signs which cause  
invisible grace, must both signify the grace which they cause  
and cause the grace which they signify.  Now this  
signification, though it must be found in the essential rite  
as a whole, that is, in both matter and form together, belongs  
chiefly to the form."  
  
128.  One aspect of the Anglicans' defective form centered  
around a change they made, which change might at first sight  
seem to be only minor or ACCIDENTAL in nature.  Nevertheless,  
Pope Leo ruled that this particular change AWAY FROM THE  
PROPER, PRESCRIBED FORM entailed the suppression of some of  
the essential signification of the sacrament.  
  
129.  This was the change referred to just above: In their  
"new form" for the Sacrament of Holy Orders, the Anglicans  
deleted any special reference to the Sacrament of the Holy  
Eucharist.  Included in their "form" however, was the phrase:  
AND BE THOU A FAITHFUL DISPENSER ... OF HIS HOLY SACRAMENTS,  
and also: TAKE THOU AUTHORITY ... TO MINISTER THE HOLY  
SACRAMENTS.  
  
130.  The Pontiff decreed that by failing EXPLICITLY TO  
MENTION the Holy Eucharist, this "form" failed to  
contain some signification essential for the sacrament of Holy  
Orders.  "It is, then, impossible" said Pope Leo, "for a form  
to be suitable and sufficient for a sacrament if it suppresses  
that which it ought distinctively to signify."  
  
131.  The Anglican Hierarchy countered by claiming that their  
wording - to wit, "of His Holy Sacraments" - AUTOMATICALLY  
INCLUDED the Holy Eucharist.  This argument was answered by  
the Catholic Bishops of England as follows: "(N)or, although  
the sacrifice is intimately connected with one of the  
Sacraments, do the words BE THOU A FAITHFUL DISPENSER ... OF  
HIS HOLY SACRAMENTS draw special attention to that particular  
Sacrament, still less bring into prominence its sacrificial  
aspect."  (A Vindication of The Bull `Apostolicae Curae')  
  
 External Rite of The Eucharist Must Signify The Mystical Body  
  
132.  The Bishops' Vindication, just quoted, also states: "The  
essential part (of the form) must contain within itself all  
that is essential to the due conveyance of THE GRACE OR POWER  
attached to the Sacrament."  (Emphasis added)  Now the "grace  
or power" (that is,"THE REALITY" or GRACE PROPER) of the Holy  
Eucharist is, as we have seen, the union of the Mystical Body.   
Therefore the Mystical Body MUST be signified in the external  
rite of this sacrament.  
  
133.  But where is this signification to be found?  First of  
all, in the MATTER, the bread and wine, the Mystical Body is  
symbolized.  As many have observed (see, for example, Summa  
Th., III, Q. 74, Art. 1), the many MEMBERS of the Mystical  
Body, and their union, are signified by the many grains of  
wheat which compose the bread and the many grapes that  
go into the wine.  
  
134.  But Pope Leo has reminded us that the signification  
"belongs chiefly to the form"; and the Bishops' Vindication  
further states that the signification "must be found in the  
ESSENTIAL PART, in the matter and form morally united  
together."  Therefore we must attempt to discover WHERE IN THE  
FORM of the Sacrament the Mystical Body is signified.  
  
                               An Opinion  
  
135.  Some theologians, it must be noted, are of the opinion  
that the words "THIS IS MY BODY.  THIS IS THE CHALICE OF MY  
BLOOD," and these words taken alone, "signify perfectly and  
effect the sacrament."  A different opinion has been held by  
many others, notably St. Thomas and St. Pius V.  
  
136.  Now I would like to proffer AN OPINION on this subject.   
It seems that the words "THIS IS MY BODY.  THIS IS MY BLOOD,"  
and these words alone, do NOT signify "THE REALITY" of the  
Sacrament (The Mystical Body), but rather do they signify "THE  
REALITY AND THE SIGN," which is Christ's TRUE Body.  And,  
needless to say, Christ is not the Mystical Body; He is the  
Head of the Mystical Body.  
  
137.  Therefore, THIS IS MY BODY.  THIS IS MY BLOOD," alone,  
signify only The Head, Christ, but fail to signify THE MEMBERS  
of the Mystical Body.  But the WHOLE Mystical Body, Head AND  
members, must be signified in the form for this Sacrament, as  
observed just above in par. 132.  "But now there are many  
members indeed, yet one body."  (I Cor. 12,20)  And also: "Nor  
again (can) the head (say) to the feet: I have no need of  
you."  (I Cor. 12,21)  
  
138.  As a consequence it seems evident that this latter  
signification, of the MEMBERS of the Mystical Body, is to be  
found in the words, "FOR YOU AND FOR MANY."  
  
139.  Most certainly this EXACT phraseology is not required to  
convey this signification (more on this below), and 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 of the institution of the  
Holy Eucharist contain this signification of the members of  
the Mystical Body.  
  
140.  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."  And, finally, we see that St. Paul  
also hands down a form which contains this essential  
signification: "Take ye, and eat: this is my body, which shall  
be delivered FOR YOU." (I Cor. 11,24)  
  
                    The New "Form" Signifies Falsely  
  
141.  If the opinion stated above be correct, then the words,  
"for you and for ALL MEN," not only FAIL TO CONVEY this  
essential signification of the Mystical Body, but, on the  
contrary, THEY SIGNIFY FALSELY!  
  
142.  It may be reiterated that this "form": FOR YOU AND FOR  
ALL MEN SO THAT SINS MAY BE FORGIVEN, not only is not  
heretical, but, as stated earlier, it conveys A CERTAIN  
PARTICULAR TRUTH.  But in the context in which it has been  
placed, in the "form" for The Eucharist, it conveys a  
FALSEHOOD, and also an implicit heresy: the denial of the  
doctrine of The Mystical Body of Christ.  A paradox indeed!  
And it is the work of the Father of Lies to CONVEY A FALSEHOOD  
BY STATING A TRUTH!  
  
                     Identical Wording Not Required  
  
143.  One very elementary fact weighs quite heavily against  
those who assert that "THIS IS MY BODY.  THIS IS MY BLOOD,"  
and these words alone, are all that is necessary to effect the  
Sacrament.  If they could produce JUST ONE EXAMPLE of a  
liturgy (however ancient) whose form for consecration ACTUALLY  
USES ONLY THESE WORDS, then their opinion could at least claim  
some justification.  But THERE IS NO SUCH LITURGY on which  
they can rest their case.  On the contrary, every liturgy  
universally accepted as having a valid consecration form  
contains additional words which SIGNIFY THE MYSTICAL BODY.   
And this fact weighs quite heavily in favor of my opinion.   
Some examples of these other liturgies are given below.  But,  
before going ahead a point must be clarified.  
  
144.  After Pope Leo XIII had declared Anglican Orders  
invalid, the Anglican Hierarchy argued that there are  
liturgies which Rome has always acknowledged as having a valid  
form for the Sacrament of Holy Orders, but which do not employ  
the exact form used in the Roman Rite.  
  
145.  This objection was answered by the Catholic Bishops of  
England: "But you are also mistaken in thinking that matters  
have been left by Our Lord in so much uncertainty, and that  
there is no one definite form which has prevailed in the  
Catholic Church, both in the East and in the West.  If,  
indeed, you mean merely that no IDENTICAL FORM OF WORDS has  
always and everywhere been in use, but that, on the contrary,  
several different forms of words have been recognized by the  
Holy See as sufficient, you say what all will admit, and the  
Bull nowhere denies.  The Bull, however ... is requiring, not  
that the form should always consist of the same words, but  
that it should always be conformed TO THE SAME DEFINITE TYPE."  
(Vindication of the Bull `Apostolicae Curae'; emphasis in the  
original)  
  
146.  Consequently, although there is some variation in the  
wording in the examples which follow next, it is quite clear  
that they all conform to the "same definite type"; that is to  
say, they all contain the essential signification of THE  
MYSTICAL BODY. (The parenthesized comments are mine.)  
  
                      The Doctrine of the Apostles  
  
147.  St. Justin Martyr does not give a text used for the  
eucharistic rite.  But the Doctrine of the Apostles, a very  
ancient text, contemporary, at the latest, with St. Justin  
gives the following: "As to the Eucharist, we give thanks in  
this wise.  First for the chalice: WE THANK THEE, OUR FATHER,  
FOR THE HOLY VINE (a reference to Christ, the Head of the  
Mystical Body: I am the vine) OF DAVID ...  For the bread: WE  
THANK THEE, OUR FATHER ... AS THE ELEMENTS OF THIS BREAD,  
SCATTERED ON THE MOUNTAINS, WERE BROUGHT TOGETHER INTO A  
SINGLE WHOLE (a reference to the union of the members of the  
Mystical Body), MAY THY CHURCH (the Mystical Body) IN LIKE  
MANNER BE GATHERED TOGETHER FROM THE ENDS OF THE EARTH INTO  
THY KINGDOM."  And the passage which follows most certainly  
excludes the notion of "all men": "Let no one eat or drink of  
your Eucharist if he is not baptized in the Name of the Lord,  
for it was of this the Lord said, GIVE NOT THAT WHICH IS HOLY  
TO DOGS."  (Source: Msgr. L. Duchesne, Christian Worship: Its  
Origin and Evolution, 1903, pp. 52-3)  
  
                         The Alexandrine Liturgy  
  
148.  From the Euchologion of Sarapion, Bishop of Thmuis, a  
friend and correspondent of St. Athanasius, we have the  
following form: "Take ye and eat, this is My Body, which is  
being broken for you (the members of the Mystical Body) for  
remission of sins.  ... (A)nd as this bread had been scattered  
on the top of the mountains and gathered together came to be  
one, so also gather Thy holy Church (the same symbolism of the  
union of the Mystical Body as found in the Doctrine of the  
Apostles) out of every nation and every country and every city  
and village and house and make one living Catholic Church."   
And for the chalice: "Take ye, drink, this is the new  
covenant, which is My Blood, which is being shed for you (the  
members of the Mystical Body) for remission of sins."   
(Source: Duchesne, op. cit, p.77)  
  
                        The Canons of Hippolytus  
  
149.  The so-called Canons of Hippolytus, dating from the  
third century, contain this form: This is my blood which is  
shed FOR YOU (the members of the Mystical Body).  (Source:  
Joseph A. Jungmann, The Mass of the Roman Rite, v.2, p. 195)  
Although this has nothing to do with the authenticity and/or  
validity of Hippolytus' form, it is interesting to note (as  
does Jungmann elsewhere) that Hippolytus "allowed himself to  
be chosen by his followers as an anti-pope."  But from the  
fact that he subsequently was martyred for the Faith, "we may  
rightly conclude that before his death he returned to the  
unity of the Church."  (Jungmann, The Early Liturgy, p. 53)  
  
                 "De Sacramentis" of the Pseudo-Ambrose  
  
150.  Interestingly, the form given in De Sacramentis, dating  
from about the year 400, does not say "FOR YOU," but instead  
says simply "FOR MANY," which, of course, conveys the  
essential signification of the members of the Mystical Body.   
"Take ye all and eat of this: for this is My Body, which is  
broken for many (pro multis)."  (Source: Duchesne, op. cit, p.  
178)  
  
                      Eastern Liturgies in General  
  
151.  "Strangely enough," comments Rev. John O'Brien, "nearly  
all the Oriental liturgies mention the mingling of water with  
the wine in the form of consecration."  (John O'Brien, A.M., A  
History of the Mass and Its Ceremonies in the Eastern and  
Western Church, 1881, p. 333)  Actually this is not strange  
at all, for this is a well-known symbolism of THE MYSTICAL  
BODY.  St. Thomas calls this to our attention in the following  
passage: "Thirdly, because this (that is, the mingling of  
water and wine - Auth.) is adapted for signifying the effect  
of this sacrament (which effect, of course, is the union of  
the Mystical Body -Auth.), since as Pope Julius says: We see  
that the people are signified by the water, but Christ's blood  
by the wine."  (Summa Th., III, Q. 74, Art. 6)  
  
152.  The Armenian form contains the following: "This is my  
Body, which for you and for many is given for remission and  
pardon of sins."  
  
153.  In the Liturgy of St. Basil we find: "This is my Body,  
which is broken for you unto the remission of sins."  And for  
the wine: "This is my Blood of the New Testament, which is  
shed for you and for many for the remission of sins."  
  
154.  The Coptic Liturgy of St. Cyril has: "For this is my  
Body, which shall be broken for you, and for many shall be  
given for the remission of sins."  As O'Brien observes, "The  
form according to the Liturgy of St. James is almost word for  
word like this; and ... the Liturgy of St. Chrysostom differs  
hardly in anything from our own."  (O'Brien, op. cit, p. 335)  
  
155.  It is in an Ethiopic Liturgy, called the Athanasian,  
that we find a unique and perhaps the most eloquent  
signification of the Mystical Body.  "This bread is my Body,     
from which there is no separating.  This cup is my Blood, from  
which there is no dividing.."  Clearly the Body "from which  
there is no separating" can mean ONLY THE MYSTICAL BODY.  For  
since we are united to Christ's TRUE Body only at the time of  
Holy Communion, it is incorrect to say of us that "there is no  
separating" from Christ's TRUE Body.  
  
                      Gallican and Mozarabic Rites  
  
156.  "In the ancient Gallican books," says Duchesne, "the  
account of the institution of the Eucharist is always omitted,  
or is merely indicated by the first words of it.  The  
celebrant must have known it by heart.  The following is the  
Ambrosian text: ... ".  (Duchesne, op. cit., p. 215)  The  
forms of consecration of both bread and wine in the Ambrosian  
text are, of course, identical in wording to those of the  
Roman Rite.  
  
157.  For the consecration of the bread, the Mozarabic Missal  
adheres to the text of St. Paul (I Cor. 11,24), and thereby  
expresses the signification of the members of the Mystical  
Body through the words, "FOR YOU": This is my body which shall  
be delivered for you.  And for the wine it has the familiar  
"for you and for many (pro vobis et pro multis)."  (Source:  
Duchesne, op. cit, p. 216)  
  
                                 Summary  
  
158.  We have seen that in instituting the Holy Eucharist  
Christ could not have said "FOR ALL MEN," for this would  
totally contradict His very last discourse to His Apostles, in  
which he expounded the doctrine of His Mystical Body and in  
which He said, I PRAY NOT FOR THE WORLD.  
  
159.  Also we have seen (par. 132) that the form for the  
Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist MUST contain some essential  
signification of the whole Mystical Body, Head and members.   
That the MATTER of the Sacrament contains this symbolism was  
pointed out.  
  
160.  The author expressed his opinion that in the Roman Rite  
this vital signification of the members of the Mystical Body  
is to be found in the words, FOR YOU AND FOR MANY.  But by  
saying, FOR YOU AND FOR ALL MEN, the new, all-English Canon  
thwarts this essential signification and at the same time  
actually conveys a false signification.  
  
161.  Against the opinion of those who aver that the words  
THIS IS MY BODY.  THIS IS MY BLOOD, taken alone, suffice for  
the sacrament, the following evidence was submitted: (a) These  
words do not signify the Mystical Body, but Christ's true  
Body; (b) Every scriptural account of the Eucharist's  
institution contains some additional words referring to the  
Mystical Body; (c) No authentic and valid consecration form,  
anywhere, contains only the words THIS IS MY BODY.  THIS IS MY  
BLOOD; and (d) All consecration forms accepted as valid  
contain words with signification of the Mystical Body.   
Numerous examples from different liturgies were cited as  
examples.  
  
                               Conclusion  
  
162.  It is impossible for me to PROVE that my opinion, stated  
above, is correct.  Neither can those in opposition to it  
PROVE the correctness of their opinions.  The sacraments are  
great mysteries.  God alone KNOWS what is really essential for  
effecting them.  But for our salvation He has made known to us  
certain things, sufficient things.  And that is why there is  
such supreme wisdom in this warning given by the Catholic  
Bishops of England: "(I)n adhering rigidly to the rite handed  
down to us we mn always feel secure; whereas, if we omit or  
change anything, we may perhaps be ABANDONING JUST THAT  
ELEMENT WHICH IS ESSENTIAL."  (Vindication of the Bull  
`Apostolicae Curae'; emphasis added)  
  
13)  ANSWERING SOME OBJECTIONS  
  
163.  This Part will consist of the raising of some possible  
objections to or arguments against some of the points set  
forth in this monograph, followed by the author's attempt to  
answer the said objections or arguments.  
  
                             First Objection  
  
164.  Objection 1: Taken as a whole, your monograph seems to  
lack balance, for you don't show both sides of the issue.   
Your arguments are based principally, either directly or  
indirectly, on the theology of St. Thomas.  Even Anger's book  
from which you quote is based on St. Thomas' theology.   
Furthermore, your weightiest authority, "The Catechism of the  
Council of Trent," was ordered published by Pope Pius V,  
who, being a Dominican, was probably himself biased in favor  
of St. Thomas.  
  
                        Reply to First Objection  
  
165.  Reply Obj. 1: My purpose in this monograph is not to  
"show both sides."  It is up to the "Liturgical Commission" to  
attempt a defense of their new, bogus "Canon."  
  
166.  Secondly, until a noisy and dedicated clique of  
Modernists and "Progressives" undertook the task of  
downgrading St. Thomas, he had always been regarded as the  
authority par excellence.  In their encyclicals, decrees,  
etc., no Pope of memory has failed to quote the Angelic Doctor  
at one time or another.  As to Pope Pius V, he is, of course,  
a canonized saint; and therefore it follows that his only  
"biases" were towards those things which are good.  
  
                            Second Objection  
  
167.  Objection 2: Nevertheless, isn't it true that the  
position of St. Thomas which you have adopted (namely,  
claiming the necessity of all the words THIS IS THE CHALICE OF  
MY BLOOD ... UNTO THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS) is still only an  
opinion?  
  
                        Reply to Second Objection  
  
168.  Reply Obj. 2: Yes; at least it was only an opinion when  
St. Thomas wrote it.  HOWEVER, much more weight was added to  
it when The Catechism by Decree of THE HOLY COUNCIL OF TRENT,  
an ecumenical council, adopted the same position.  "The  
ecumenical councils," wrote Pope Leo XIII, "have always been  
careful to hold Thomas Aquinas in singular honor.  In the  
councils of Lyons, Vienna, Florence, and the Vatican one might  
almost say that Thomas took part and presided over the  
deliberations and decrees of the Fathers."  "But the chief and  
special glory of Thomas," continues the Pontiff, "one which he  
has shared with none of the Catholic Doctors, is that the  
Fathers of Trent made it part of the order of the conclave to  
lay upon the altar, together with the code of sacred Scripture  
and* the decrees of the Supreme Pontiffs, the Summa of Thomas  
Aquinas, whence to seek counsel, reason, and inspiration."  
(Encyclical letter Aeterni Patris)  
  
                             Third Objection  
  
169.  Objection 3: Undoubtedly there has been no greater  
exponent and exegete of St. Thomas than the Dominican Cardinal  
Cajetan.  Called a "lamp of the Church" by Pope Clement VII,  
Cajetan reputedly could quote the entire Summa from Memory.   
Yet Cajetan disagreed with St. Thomas ON THIS VERY POINT! -   
namely, that all the words which follow THIS IS THE CHALICE OF  
MY BLOOD are essential for the form.  
  
                        Reply to Third Objection  
  
170. Reply Obj. 3: Yes, and when Pope St. Pius V ordered  
Cajetan's works to be published in 1570, he commanded this  
particular opinion to be expurgated!  THIS WAS CHRIST ACTING  
THROUGH PETER.  
  
                            Fourth Objection  
  
171.  Objection 4: The "Catholic Dictionary and Encyclopedia"  
by Addis and Arnold states (p. 216): "Probably the mere words  
`This is my body,' `This is my blood' would suffice for  
validity."  
  
                        Reply to Fourth Objection  
  
172.  Reply Obj. 4: Though it is difficult to agree even with  
"probably" let us assume, purely for the sake of argument,  
that this conjecture is correct.  From time immemorial up  
until just recently all Roman Catholics everywhere always had  
CERTAINTY - the certainty of faith - that by the words of  
consecration THE REAL PRESENCE of Our Lord in the Blessed  
Sacrament was effected.  Now are we to be satisfied with  
PROBABLY?  
  
                             Fifth Objection  
  
173.  Objection 5: A very authoritative source, namely,  
Noldin's Summa Theologiae Moralis, states that THIS IS THE  
CHALICE OF MY BLOOD or else THIS IS MY BLOOD, and these words  
ALONE, are necessary in the consecration of the chalice.  "Et  
haec quidem SOLA in consecratione calicis sunt essentialia,"  
(III, De Sacramentis, par. 120)  
  
                        Reply to Fifth Objection  
  
174.  Reply Obj. 5: In Part 12 above, my opinion contrary to  
this was proffered; however let us assume, for argument's  
sake, that this opinion of Noldin is correct.  Nevertheless  
the point is that in the present situation IT HAS NO BEARING  
for the following reasons.  
  
(a) The priest does not say only these words, but he says  
more.  And at least part of this "more" that he says in the  
new "form" is a mutation, or rather a MUTILATION of the  
PROPER, ESTABLISHED FORM.  Secondly,  
  
(b) as was pointed out earlier in the present monograph, a  
sacrament can very easily be invalidated by the ADDITION of  
words, EVEN IF ALL THE NECESSARY WORDS ARE PRONOUNCED.  
  
175.  Thirdly, (c) the mutilation in question (to wit, "FOR  
ALL MEN SO THAT, etc.") is a forgery of Christ's words  
recorded in Holy Writ, which forgery conveys a meaning TOTALLY  
FOREIGN TO AND IN CONFLICT WITH the true meaning of THE  
REALITY of this sacrament, which is the union of the Mystical  
Body.  
  
176.  Furthermore (d) the same authority Noldin goes on to say  
in paragraph 122 that the words of consecration must be  
pronounced WITHOUT MUTATION EITHER OF THE ESSENTIAL PART OR  
THE INCIDENTAL PART.  "Verba consecrationis proferenda sunt  
SINE MUTATIONE TUM SUNSTANTIALI TUM ACCIDENTALI,"  (Noldin's  
emphasis)  
  
177.  Also, (e) St. Alphonsus calls to our attention the  
following from the rubrics of the Missal: "If anyone  
abbreviates or changes something of the form of consecration,  
and the words do not signify the same thing, he does not  
confect the Sacrament."  ("Si quis autem aliquid diminueret  
vel immutaret de forma consecrationis, et verba idem non  
significarent, non conficeret sacramentum.")  
  
178.  And, finally, therefore (f) even if we grant, for  
argument's sake, that the words THIS IS MY BLOOD, alone, would  
suffice for the consecration of the wine, it is amply manifest  
from all sources that the "essential part" (whatever it may  
be) COUPLED WITH A MUTATION at least places the validity of  
the sacrament in doubt.  Moreover, it is also universally  
agreed that this is always a GRAVE sin on the part of the  
priest.  Thus St. Alphonsus states: "graviter tamen peccaret  
qui aliqua ex reliquis omitteret vel mutaret"; that is,  
"nevertheless he would gravely sin who would omit or change  
anything of the remaining words."  (By "remaining words" St.  
Alphonsus means here all those words which follow THIS IS THE  
CHALICE OF MY BLOOD.)  
  
                             Sixth Objection  
  
179.  Objection 6: Even if the form is now in invalid, as you  
are claiming, it would seem that the good intentions of the  
priest and the recipients would make up for this deficiency.  
  
                        Reply to Sixth Objection  
  
180.  Reply Obj. 6: That is absurd.  If the "form" used for a  
sacrament is an invalid form, then NOTHING can make the  
sacrament valid, AS A SACRAMENT.  According to the line of  
reasoning in this Objection, one may now receive the sacrament  
of Penance by merely having the good intention of going to  
Confession.  The sacraments are held to be "ex opere operato"  
and if the aforesaid Objection were true, a sacrament would,  
no longer be a sacrament.  
  
                            Seventh Objection  
  
181.  Objection 7: Your whole thesis is based on a fundamental  
misunderstanding.  Don't you know that in the language of Holy  
Scripture the word "MANY" is often to be taken as meaning  
"ALL"?  "According to the best authorities, and Pope Benedict  
XIV among others," says Rev. John O'Brien, "the word `many' is  
here to be taken as meaning ALL, a mode of expression by no  
means uncommon in the Holy Scripture.  St. Thomas Aquinas also  
interprets it in this way.  If taken in any other sense it  
would hardly be possible to keep free of the Calvinistic error  
that our Lord died only for a certain class of persons."  
(O'Brien, op. cit, p. 331)  
  
                       Reply to Seventh Objection  
  
182.  Reply Obj. 7: This TOTALLY erroneous paragraph penned by  
Father John O'Brien is disturbing enough.  Even MORE  
DISTURBING is the fact that the book wherein it appears was  
published in 1881 and BEARS THE IMPRIMATUR of John Cardinal  
McCloskey.  Now, in the first place, Father O'Brien's claim  
would make a mockery of Saint Pius V and his CATECHISM by  
Decree of THE HOLY COUNCIL OF TRENT.  The reader will recall  
that earlier in this monograph we quoted a passage from this  
CATECHISM which begins thus: "With reason, therefore, were the  
words FOR ALL not used." (!)  Or wasn't this saintly Pope  
aware that the word MANY "is here to be taken as meaning  
ALL."??  
  
183.  That Father O'Brien would actually use Benedict XIV and  
St. Thomas as authorities to prove his point is INCREDIBLE!   
Because they both held EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE of what Father  
O'Brien is trying to "prove."  This quotation of St. Alphonsus  
(who has never been suspected of being a Calvinist) needs  
repeating here: "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 Savior 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.  ... THIS IS THE EXPLANATION OF ST.  
THOMAS, AS QUOTED BY BENEDICT XIV."  (Emphasis added)  
  
184.  Readily is it granted that any "theologian" who has not  
grasped the fundamental difference between the aspects of  
SUFFICIENCY and EFFICACY most certainly would himself be prone  
to fall into "Calvinistic errors" as well as a whole host of  
OTHER errors.  WITNESS THE EXAMPLE OF THE ALL-ENGLISH CANON.   
Now in this present situation the majority of the American  
Bishops CLEARLY AND OBVIOUSLY ARE TOLERATING (and, indeed,  
in some cases ABETTING,) unorthodox theologians of this  
caliber.  No truly ORTHODOX Roman Catholic WHO IS DESIROUS OF  
SAVING HIS SOUL can sit by idly and tolerate this assault FROM  
WITHIN upon THE Faith and upon the ONE, TRUE, HOLY, CATHOLIC,  
APOSTOLIC, ROMAN CHURCH.  
  
                            Eighth Objection  
  
185.  Objection 8: Don't the American Bishops have the right  
and the authority to introduce a new form for the  
consecration?  
  
                        Reply to Eighth Objection  
  
186.  Reply Obj. 8: "As for the alleged right of local  
Churches to reform their rites freely, we are not aware in  
what quarter you have sought for illustrations of its exercise  
... (T)o remodel the existing rites in the most drastic  
manner, is a proposition for which we know of no historical  
foundation, and which appears to us absolutely incredible.   
Hence Cranmer, in taking this unprecedented course, acted, in  
our opinion, with the most inconceivable rashness."  
(Vindication of the Bull `Apostolicae Curae')  
  
                             Ninth Objection  
  
187.  Objection 9: (This "objection" is placed within  
quotation marks because it comprises the exact words a certain  
Archbishop wrote to me after I had called to his attention the  
mutilation: FOR ALL MEN, ETC. in the new consecration "form.")  
"IT IS INTERESTING TO NOTE HERE THAT THE FORM OF CONSECRATION  
USED IN THE MASS GOES BACK EVEN BEFORE THE GOSPELS TO THE  
PRIMITIVE LITURGY WHICH WAS USED IN THE CHURCH BEFORE THE  
GOSPELS AND BEFORE THE EPISTLES OF ST. PAUL WERE WRITTEN."  
  
                        Reply to Ninth Objection  
  
188.  Reply Obj. 9: This is an old artifice, the Anglican  
Schismatics having used exactly the same pretext.  "They knew  
only too well," said Pope Leo XIII, "the infinite bond which  
unites faith with worship, `the law of belief with the law of  
prayer' (LEX CREDENDI, LEX ORANDI) and so, UNDER THE PRETEXT  
OF RESTORING IT TO ITS PRIMITIVE FORM, they corrupted the  
order of the liturgy in many ways, TO ADAPT IT TO THE ERRORS  
OF THE INNOVATORS."   (Bull Apostolicae Curae, emphasis added)  
  
189.  Elaborating further in the Vindication of the Bull, the  
English Bishops said, "It could not have been, as you seem to  
suggest, because the Reformers wished to go back to what was  
primitive, FOR THEY CUT OUT WITH AN UNSPARING HAND the most  
ancient as well as the most modern portions of the Catholic  
rite."  (Emphasis added)  
  
                             Tenth Objection  
  
190.  Objection 10: What if the present Pope or some  
subsequent pope should declare that this new "form" is  
perfectly all right?  
  
                        Reply to Tenth Objection  
  
191.  Reply Obj. 10: This no bona fide pope could do, for the  
Church never contradicts Herself.  Any claim that the Pope  
himself has canonized this new "form" would have to be  
investigated carefully.  Now IF IT WERE TRUE that some pope,  
with full knowledge and understanding and consent, had  
approved it, then FAITH and REASON would dictate to us that we  
had on our hands at best another Liberius, and at worst  
another Honorius.  Let us hear Father Francis Clark, "The ONLY  
formulae that INFALLIBLY AND NECESSARILY contain the essential  
significance of a sacrament are those which have been  
CANONIZED BY BEING INSTITUTED BY CHRIST and HIS Church for  
that purpose.  Such words, when EXACTLY REPRODUCED, are  
removed beyond the reach of ambiguity or private distortion."  
  
192.  "Where, however," Father Clark continues, "a new  
liturgical form is introduced and NO SUCH CANONIZED FORMULA is  
employed (AND SINCE IT SIGNIFIES FALSELY, THE FORM: "FOR ALL  
MEN SO THAT, ETC." CANNOT BECOME CANONIZED LEGITIMATELY -  
AUTH), there cannot be certainty of its validity until its  
credentials have been established, and it has been  
acknowledged, expressly or implicitly, by THE UNIVERSAL  
CHURCH."  (Francis Clark, S.J., Anglican Orders and Defect of  
Intention, pp. 182-3, emphasis added)  
  
                           Eleventh Objection  
  
193.  Objection 11: You cannot hold responsible all those  
priests who are using the new Canon.  They are only obeying  
their Bishops.  
  
                       Reply to Eleventh Objection  
  
194.  Reply Obj. 11: When all the Bishops of England were  
saying, "Aye, my Lord, my King" - save one, the courageous St.  
John Fisher - all those priests who followed into heresy and  
schism were, of course, "ONLY OBEYING THEIR BISHOPS."  
  
195.  According to Cardinal Newman, on the eve of the Council  
of Nicaea, when all the world was "going Arian," EIGHTY  
PERCENT OF THE BISHOPS were fully prepared FORMALLY to deny  
the Divinity of Christ.  This wholesale apostasy was averted  
only because Almighty God chose to raise up at that moment His  
instrument, that eloquent and incomparable soldier of Jesus  
Christ, St. ATHANASIUS.  
  
196.  A writer in The Wanderer (Feb. 22, 1968) repudiates  
comparisons between the conduct of our present-day Bishops and  
that of the 16th century English Bishops who were "an apostate  
Hierarchy" and "had PREVIOUSLY broken off communications with  
Rome and were excommunicated."  Perhaps this writer is  
awaiting a formal announcement in The New York Times.  If our  
Bishops have INVALIDATED ONE OF THE SEVEN SACRAMENTS  
INSTITUTED BY OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST, they have thereby, in  
effect, denied that Sacrament.  By denying this particular  
Sacrament one corrupts the dogmas of THE REAL PRESENCE,  
TRANSUBSTANTIATION as defined by the Council of Trent, and the  
doctrine of THE MYSTICAL BODY OF CHRIST.  St. Thomas Aquinas  
defines HERESY as "a species of unbelief, belonging to those  
who profess the Christian faith, but corrupt its dogmas."  
(Summa Th., II-II, Q. 11, Art. 1)  
  
                            Twelfth Objection  
  
197.  Objection 12: your arguments simply cannot be right.  It  
defies all reason that so many Bishops, priests and laymen  
could go so far astray.  
  
                       Reply to Twelfth Objection  
  
198.  Reply Obj. 12: That magnificent Pope of our own century,  
the intrepid Saint Pius X, warned us and FORETOLD to us,  
"Their real aims, their plots, the line they are following are  
well known to all of you, ... What they propose is a UNIVERSAL  
APOSTASY still worse than the one which threatened the century  
of Charles (Borromeo), from the fact that it CREEPS INSIDIOUS  
AND HIDDEN IN THE VERY VEINS OF THE CHURCH and with extreme  
subtlety pushes erroneous principles to their extreme  
conclusions.  
  
199.  "But both have the same origin in `the enemy who,' ever  
alert for the perdition of men, `has oversowed cockle among  
the wheat' (Matt. 13, 25); OF BOTH REVOLTS THE WAYS ARE HIDDEN  
AND DARKSOME, with the same development and the same fatal  
issue. ... Truly a spectacle full of sadness for the present  
and OF MENACE FOR THE FUTURE ... especially for those who  
foment with the most activity or who TOLERATE WITH THE MOST  
INDIFFERENCE this pestiferous wind of impiety."  (Encyclical  
letter Editae Saepe, May 26, 1910, emphasis added)  
  
200.  This same Saint Pius X, the humble Giuseppe Sarto, when  
congratulated by his Mother upon his appointment as Bishop of  
Mantua, replied to her: "Mother, you do not realize what it  
means to be a Bishop.  I shall lose my soul if I neglect my  
duty."  MAY ALMIGHTY GOD RAISE UP FOR US TODAY ATHANASIUSES  
AND JOHN FISHERS!  
  
                          Thirteenth Objection  
  
201.  Objection 13: What course can a priest take?  Can't he  
be forced under obedience to use the new Canon?  
  
                      Reply to Thirteenth Objection  
  
202.  Reply Obj. 13: In all cases of doubt, the MORE CERTAIN  
course MUST be taken.  The ancient form of consecration in  
Latin is by all means the MOST certain.  
  
203.  No priest can be forced to use this new "Canon,"  He can  
always have recourse to the decree Quo Primum, issued on July  
19, 1570, by Pope Saint Pius V, which states inter alia:  
  
     "We determine and order by this Our decree, to be valid  
     IN PERPETUITY, that NEVER shall anything be added to,  
     omitted from or changed in this Missal ...      
  
     "Specifically do We warn all persons in authority, of  
     whatever dignity or rank, CARDINALS NOT EXCLUDED, and  
     command them as a matter of strict obedience never to use  
     or permit any ceremonies or Mass prayers OTHER THAN THE  
     ONES CONTAINED IN THIS MISSAL ... (This decree, in its  
     entirety, is printed in every OFFICIAL altar missal.)  
  
     "AT NO TIME IN THE FUTURE can a priest, whether secular  
     or order priest, EVER BE FORCED to use any other way of  
     saying Mass.  And in order ONCE AND FOR ALL to preclude  
     any scruples of conscience and FEAR OF ECCLESIASTICAL  
     PENALTIES AND CENSURES, We declare herewith that it is by  
     virtue of OUR APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY that We decree and  
     prescribe that this present order and decree of Ours is  
     to last IN PERPETUITY, and NEVER AT A FUTURE DATE CAN IT  
     BE REVOKED OR AMENDED LEGALLY...  
  
     "And if, nevertheless, ANYONE WOULD EVER DARE  
     ATTEMPT any action contrary to this order of Ours,  
     HANDED DOWN FOR ALL TIMES, let him know that he has  
     INCURRED THE WRATH OF ALMIGHTY GOD, AND OF THE BLESSED  
     APOSTLES PETER AND PAUL."  (Emphasis added throughout)  
  
                                 THE END  
  
  
                               APPENDIX 1  
          A COMPARISON OF THE CONSECRATION PRAYERS AS FOUND IN:  
  
          (1)  The Original Latin  
          (2)  The Literal English Translation from the  
               Latin (Source: St. Joseph's Daily Missal  
               1951)  
          (3)  The New, All-English Canon (Oct. 22, 1967)  
          (4)  The Anglican Schismatics' "Book of Common  
               Prayer" (1549)  
       
     The symbol (*) denotes an omission.  Numbers denote  
footnotes, which appear at the end of this Appendix.  
  
ORIGINAL   LITERAL ENGLISH   NEW ALL-ENGLISH   BOOK OF COMMON  
 LATIN       TRANSLATION      CANON - 1967     PRAYER - 1549  
  
Qui         Who, the day      The day before    who, in the  
pridie      before He         he suffered       same night  
quam        suffered,                           that he was  
pateretur,                                      betrayed,  
  
accepit     took bread        he took bread     took bread,  
panem  
  
in sanctas  into His holy         (*)              (*)  
ac vener-   and venerable  
abiles      hands,  
manus suas,  
  
et eleva-   and having        and looking up       (*)  
tis oculis  raised His eyes   to heaven,  
in coelum   to heaven,  
  
ad te Deum  unto Thee, O      to you, (*)          (*)  
Patrem      God, His Al-      his almighty  
suum omni-  mighty Father,    Father,  
potentem  
  
tibi        giving thanks     he gave you       and when he  
gratias     to Thee,          thanks and        had blessed,  
agens                         praise [1]  
  
benedixit,  He blessed it,     (*) [2]          and given  
                                                thanks,  
  
fregit,     broke it,         He broke the      he brake it,       
                              bread,  
  
deditque    and gave it to    gave it to his    and gave it to  
discipu-    His disciples,    disciples         his disciples  
lis suis,  
  
dicens:     saying:           and said:         saying,  
  
Accipite    Take ye all       Take this and     Take, eat,  
et mandu-   and eat of        eat it, all of  
cate ex     this:             you;  
hoc omnes  
  
Hoc est     For this is       (*) [3] this is   (*) [3] this  
enim        my Body.          my body.          is my body.  
Corpus  
Meum.  
  
Simili      In like manner,        (*)          Likewise  
modo  
  
postquam    when the supper   When supper was   after supper,  
coenatum    was done,         ended,  
est,  
  
accipiens   taking also       he took the       he took the  
et hunc     this goodly       cup [4]           cup [4]  
praecla-    chalice  
rum [4]  
Calicem  
  
in sanctas  into His holy         (*)              (*)  
ac venera-  and venerable  
biles       hands,  
manus suas,  
  
item tibi   again giving      Again, he gave   and when he  
gratias     thanks to         you thanks and   had given  
agens       Thee,             praise, [5]      thanks,  
  
benedixit,  He blessed it,         (*)             (*)  
deditque,   and gave it to    gave the cup to  he gave it to  
discipulis  His disciples,    his disciples    them, saying,  
suis,       saying: Take      and said: Take       (*)  
dicens:     ye all, and       this and drink  
Accipite,   drink of this:    from it, all of  
et bibite                     you;  
ex eo Omnes:  
  
Hic est     For this is the   (*) this is the  for this is  
enim Calix  chalice of my     cup of my blood,     (*)  
Sanguinis   Blood, of the     the blood of     My Blood  
  
mei, novi   new and eternal   the new and      of the new  
et aeterni  covenant; the     everlasting      Testament,  
testamen-   mystery of faith, covenant -           (*)  
ti, mys-    which shall be    the mystery of  
terium      shed for you and  faith.  This     which is shed  
fidei,      for many unto     blood is to be   for you, and  
qui pro     the forgiveness   shed for you     for many, for  
vobis et    of sins.          and for all      remission of  
pro multis                    men so that      sins:  
effundetur                    sins may be  
in remis-                     forgiven.  
sionem  
peccatorum.  
  
Haec        As often as you   Whenever you     Do this as oft  
quoties-    shall do these    do this, you     as you shall  
cumque      things, in        will do it in    drink it, in  
feceritis,  memory of Me      memory of me.    remembrance  
in mei      shall you do                       of me.  
memoriam    them.  
facietis.  
  
[1]  This curious addition of the words "and praise" is  
discussed in Appendix 2.  
  
[2]  St. Matthew (26,26) writes "and blessed," and St. Mark  
(14,22) gives: "and blessing."  Ignoring these divinely  
inspired sources, the new Canon not only omits the word  
"blessed," at both consecrations, but also the actual  
blessings of the host and chalice have been removed from the  
rubrics.  In the form for the bread the Anglican Schismatics  
retained the word "blessed," but they omitted it for the wine.   
From their rubrics they also removed the actual blessing of  
both species.  The heretic-schismatic, ex-Dominican friar  
Martin Bucer explained that Christ's presence "is merely  
in the receiving, and not in the bread and wine, which in no  
way are changed in their nature, but being symbols ... "  
Therefore, Bucer suggested that "the little black crosses" be  
omitted.  (Quoted from E. D. Estcourt, "The Question of  
Anglican Ordinations Discussed," p. 325)  
  
[3]  The Schismatics, understandably, and the authors of the  
new all-English Canon both omit the word, for, which was  
"derived from Peter the apostle."  
  
[4]  Not just any cup, but "This" (hunc) particular chalice.   
The "Catholic Encyclopedia" comments thus on the words: "this  
goodly chalice."  "Hunc praeclarum calicem, a dramatic  
identification of the Mass with the Last Supper," (v. 3, p.  
263, 1908 ed.)  The new all-English Canon and the Schismatics'  
version - with identical phraseology - say simply, "He took     
the cup."  How dramatic!  Incidentally, as Father Jungmann  
points out in "The Mass of the Roman Rite" (v. 2, p. 199 and  
again on p. 203), the expression, "goodly chalice," is taken  
from Psalm 22:5.  Thus the claim of the "new-breed liturgists"  
that their changes reflect an attempt towards becoming "more  
scriptural" is quite preposterous.  
  
[5]  See Appendix 2.  
  
  
                               APPENDIX 2  
                       "LEX CREDENDI: LEX ORANDI"  
  
     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 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.  
  
EXAMPLE 1: Using a "good" word for an evil purpose.  
  
     To see how the 16th-century Heretics-Schismatics employed  
the principle, "lex credendi: lex orandi" in order to "move  
the simple from the superstitious opinions of the Popish  
Mass," (Ridley), we need look no farther than the example  
furnished by their taking up a very good and "pious" word,  
SPIRITUAL, in order to use it for a most evil purpose.  
     All the quotations which follow immediately below are  
taken from the writings of these 16th-century "Reformers."  In  
every instance their use of the word "SPIRITUAL" denotes the  
DENIAL OF THE REAL PRESENCE of Our Lord in the Blessed  
Sacrament; body, blood, soul and divinity.  This is because  
they are using the "good" word SPIRITUAL, and applying it to  
the SACRIFICE OF THE MASS and to THE EUCHARIST.  (The reader  
is asked to bear with me through these examples which follow,  
for there is an important point to be made.)  
     (1) Wycliffe: "The Body of Christ is given, taken, and  
eaten in the Supper only after an heavenly and SPIRITUAL  
manner.  And the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received  
and eaten in the Supper is faith."  
     (2) Ridley: "He left the same in mystery to the faithful  
in the Supper, to be received after a SPIRITUAL communication,  
and by grace."  
     (3) Coverdale: "(W)e think not our Lord Jesus Christ to  
be so vile that He may be contained in corruptible elements.   
Again, lest the force of this most sacred mystery should be  
diminished, we must think that it is wrought by the secret and  
wonderful power of God, and that His Spirit is the bond of  
this partaking, which is for that cause called SPIRITUAL."  
     (4) Cranmer: "Although Christ be not corporally in the  
bread and wine ... He is effectually present, and effectually  
worketh, not in the bread and wine, but in the godly receivers  
of them, to whom He giveth His own flesh SPIRITUALLY to feed  
upon."  
     (5) Again Cranmer in replying to Gardiner: "Therefore ...  
we do not pray absolutely that the bread and wine may be made  
the body and blood of Christ, but that therewith in spirit and  
in truth we may be SPIRITUALLY nourished."  
     (6) Latimer: "Then we be assured that we feed upon Him  
SPIRITUALLY."  
     (7) The Liturgy, of King Edward VI: "For us He hath not  
only give His body to death and shed His blood, but also doth  
vouchsafe in a sacrament and mystery to give us His said body  
and blood SPIRITUALLY, to feed and drink upon."  
     " ... (F)or then we SPIRITUALLY eat the flesh of Christ  
and drink His blood, then we dwell in Christ and Christ in  
us."  
     "He hath left in these holy mysteries as a pledge of His  
love, and a continual remembrance of the same, His own blessed  
body and precious blood, for us SPIRITUALLY to feed upon, to  
our endless comfort  and consolation."  
     (8) Grindall: "This is the SPIRITUAL, the very true, the  
only eating of Christ's body."  
     (9) Jewell: "Thus, SPIRITUALLY, and with the mouth of  
faith, we eat the body of Christ and drink his blood."  
     (10) Beacon: "He is also eaten or received SPIRITUALLY  
when we believe in Christ."  
     (11) "The Book of Common Prayer" (1549): "but also doth  
vouchsafe in a Sacrament and mystery to give us his said body  
and blood to feed upon them SPIRITUALLY."  
     "Thou hast vouchsafed to feed us in these holy mysteries  
with the SPIRITUAL food of the most precious body and blood of  
thy Son."  
     More examples could be given (there is no shortage of  
them), for indeed it is difficult to find ANY ONE of the  
16th-century Heretics who FAILED to use the word "SPIRITUAL,"  
when writing of the Sacrifice of the Mass and The Eucharist.  
     But this very pious-sounding word, "SPIRITUAL" did not  
fool those who were true, ORTHODOX Catholics.  Finally, the  
Fathers of the Council of Trent condemned for all times the  
heresy contained in this use of the word "SPIRITUAL": "If  
anyone says that Christ received in the Eucharist is received  
SPIRITUALLY only, ... let him be anathema."  (Canon 8, Session  
XIII)  
  
     THE NEW, ENGLISH CANON OF THE MASS MISTRANSLATES THE  
PRAYER "QUAM OBLATIONEM" TO IMPLY A SPIRITUAL OFFERING.  This  
prayer, which IMMEDIATELY PRECEDES THE CONSECRATION PRAYERS,  
should read: "Do thou, O God, deign to bless what we offer,  
and make it approved, effective, right, and wholly pleasing in  
every way ..."  The bogus, HERETICAL "Canon" now reads  
instead: "Bless and approve our offering; make it TRULY  
SPIRITUAL and acceptable."  
     Obviously this is not just a "pious" use of the word  
SPIRITUAL.  For at no time did this particular word EVER  
appear in "the holy canon, which is so free from error that it  
contains nothing that does not in the highest degree savor of  
a certain holiness and piety."  (Council of Trent, Ch. 4,  
Session 22)  
     "Lex credendi: lex orandi."  Here is "orandi": "BLESS AND  
APPROVE OUR OFFERING; MAKE IT TRULY SPIRITUAL."  Can  
"CREDENDI" be far behind?  Can it be very long before "the  
simple people are moved" away from the belief in THE REAL  
PRESENCE?  
  
EXAMPLE 2: A Sacrifice of "Praise and Thanksgiving."  
  
     In the new, English "Canon" we find in two places (that  
is, prior to the consecrations of both the bread and the wine)  
the SEEMINGLY uncalled-for insertion of the words: AND PRAISE.   
The original Latin reads simply, "gratias agens," GIVING  
THANKS.  Why does the new, English "Canon" say, "he gave you  
thanks AND PRAISE"?  
     It is true that the Mass is a sacrifice of PRAISE,  
petition, THANKSGIVING, and atonement; but, obviously, that is  
beside the point here.  The simple words, GIVING THANKS, are  
quite proper and appropriate in this place, for they have  
their basis in Holy Writ.  Four different accounts - to wit,  
Matt. (26,27); Mark (14,23); Luke (22,19) and I Cor. (11,24) -  
all have either "He gave thanks" or else "giving thanks."  
There is a special MEANINGFULNESS in these words, inasmuch as  
"giving thanks" is in Greek: EUCHARIST.  Hence these very  
words, when recited by the priest just before the two  
consecrations, remind us of the Sacrament of the EUCHARIST.  
     There is NO Scriptural account that makes mention that  
Our Lord on the occasion of instituting the Holy Eucharist  
gave thanks AND PRAISE.  So, what is the explanation for this  
CHANGE made in the Canon of the Mass?  Could it be another  
implementation of "lex CREDENDI: lex ORANDI"?  
     As applied TO A SACRIFICE, this particular phraseology -  
that is, the words "praise" and "thanksgiving," taken together  
- did, in fact, convey a SINGULAR AND ESPECIAL SIGNIFICANCE to  
the 16th-century Heretics-Schismatics.  According to the  
scholarly Canon Estcourt, "Luther led the attack.  He DENIED  
THE CATHOLIC DOCTRINE of the Sacrifice of the Mass in ANY  
OTHER SENSE than as the sacrifice of PRAISE AND THANKSGIVING."  
(E. E. Estcourt, The Question of Anglican Ordinations  
Discussed, p. 281, emphasis added)  
     But let us hear it from the Hieresiarchs themselves.   
First of all, Luther: "The Mass may be called a sacrifice, IF  
IT BE UNDERSTOOD as a sacrifice of PRAISE AND THANKSGIVING,  
not of a work, nor propitiatory."  (De Usu Sacram, Euch.  
salutari, emphasis added)  
     And by Cranmer, Luther's English counterpart, we are  
informed: "When the old fathers called the mass or supper of  
the Lord a sacrifice, they meant that it was a sacrifice of  
LAUDS (i.e., "praise") and THANKSGIVING ... BUT THEY MEANT IN  
NO WISE THAT IT IS A VERY TRUE SACRIFICE FOR SIN."  (Cranmer,  
On the Lord's Supper, emphasis added)  
     Thus to the Schismatics the Mass was a sacrifice of  
"PRAISE AND THANKSGIVING" which, in their argot, meant a BARE  
COMMEMORATION of the Sacrifice of Calvary, or a SPIRITUAL AND  
SYMBOLIC sacrifice.  But NOT A REAL SACRIFICE, nor a sacrifice  
of PROPITIATION.  This point Cranmer made quite clear, "And  
yet have I denied that it is a sacrifice propitiatory for  
sin."  
     So well-known and infamous was the connotation the  
Schismatics had attached to the words "praise and  
thanksgiving" WHEN APPLIED TO THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS, the  
Fathers of the Council of Trent ONCE AND FOR ALL TIMES  
pronounced this solemn curse on this heresy: "If anyone says  
that the Sacrifice of the Mass is one only of PRAISE AND  
THANKSGIVING ... let him be anathema."  (Canon 3, Session  
XXII)  
     "Lex credendi: lex orandi."  Here is "orandi": He  
gave you thanks AND PRAISE.  
  
EXAMPLE 3: "Ein' feste Burg ist unser Gott."  
  
     At the peak of his rebellion, Martin Luther penned the  
hymn, Ein' feste Burg ist unser Gott.  It was "the  
production," says the historian Ranke, "of the moment in which  
Luther, engaged in a conflict with a world of foes, sought  
strength in the consciousness that he was defending a divine  
(sic) cause which could never perish."  "Ein' feste Burg ist  
unser Gott" was called by Heine "The Marseillaise of the  
Reformation."  
     This battle-hymn of rebellion AGAINST THE CATHOLIC CHURCH  
is now appearing on "hymn cards" IN CATHOLIC CHURCHES.  (St.   
Thomas Aquinas Church in Palo Alto, California, for example.)  
And as CATHOLICS sing this hymn, "A Mighty Fortress Is Our  
God" do they yet realize that they are echoing the great  
hieresiarch in his apostasy, his rebellion AGAINST THE ONE,  
TRUE, HOLY, CATHOLIC, APOSTOLIC ROMAN CHURCH which was  
founded by the SON OF GOD?  
     "Lex credendi: lex orandi."  Here is "orandi": THE  
MARSEILLAISE OF THE REFORMATION.  
  
EXAMPLE 4: "And I will go in to the table of God."  (New  
American version of Psalm 42, v. 4)  
  
     "The destruction of the altars was a measure SO DISTINCT  
IN ITS MEANING that we have NEVER BEEN ABLE TO CONCEIVE HOW  
THAT MEANING COULD BE MISUNDERSTOOD.  The measure meant a  
bitter hatred of the Mass, and a hatred DIRECTED AGAINST THE  
MASS ITSELF, not merely against some obscure abuse ...  Surely  
if these reformers HAD DESIRED ONLY TO REMOVE AN ABUSE, but  
were full of reverence for the great Christian Sacrifice  
itself, they would not have destroyed and desecrated the  
altars, AND SUBSTITUTED TABLES IN THEIR PLACE, alleging as  
their reason, in unqualified terms, that `the form of a table  
shall more move the simple from the superstitious opinions of  
the Popish Mass unto the right use of the Lord's Supper.  For  
THE USE OF AN ALTAR IS TO MAKE SACRIFICE ON IT; THE USE OF A  
TABLE IS TO SERVE MEN TO EAT UPON IT.'  (Ridley's Works)."  
(Emphasis added)  
     The foregoing were the words of the Roman Catholic  
Bishops of England in 1898. (Source: A Vindication of the Bull  
`Apostolicae Curae', par. 38, titled "The Destruction of  
Altars")  
  
                "THE LAW OF BELIEF IS THE LAW OF PRAYER."  
  
  
                               APPENDIX 3  
                     ANSWERING SOME MORE OBJECTIONS  
  
     REVEREND WM. G. MOST of the Dept. of Latin and Greek at  
Loras College, Dubuque, Iowa, having read the First Edition of  
this monograph (published Mar. 1968), has raised some  
"objections." This Appendix presents many of Father Most's  
arguments, followed by the author's attempt to answer them.  
  
                               Objection A  
  
     Father Most states: "But the really critical defect in  
Omlor's work is in his handling of the words `FOR MANY.'  He  
argues that this phrase is substantially different from the  
phrase `FOR ALL MEN.'  Now it does seem, at first sight, that  
these phrases are substantially different.  However, there are  
two ways to find out what is the truth about them.  
     "The first way is the most essential way: to SEE WHAT THE  
MAGISTERIUM OF THE CHURCH TEACHES ...  Now Vatican II did  
authoritatively teach what this phrase means.  In the decree  
on the missions, par. 3, the Council said, in explaining the  
words of Mark (10,45) ...  `THE SON OF MAN ... CAME THAT ...  
HE MIGHT GIVE HIS LIFE AS A REDEMPTION FOR MANY, THAT IS, FOR  
ALL.'  In other words, the Council explicitly equates the  
phrase `FOR MANY' with `FOR ALL,' and does so precisely in the  
context of the redemption."  
     "He [Omlor] has shown himself not only deficient in  
scholarship, but, what is worse, lacking in respect for the  
Magisterium.  Perhaps he had not seen the statement of Vatican  
II on `many.'"  
  
                          Reply to Objection A  
  
     The above Objection appears first in this series of  
"objections," because it describes what Father Most calls "the  
really critical defect" in my work.  Therefore at the very  
outset I would like to show that this so-called "really  
critical defect" does not exist at all.  Then the other less  
critical "defects" (which should be easier to rebut) will be  
more readily laid to rest.  
     The word MANY, according to St. Augustine, "is sometimes  
used in Scripture for ALL,"  ("The City of God," Book XX, Ch.  
23)  Now SOMETIMES, of course, does not mean ALWAYS.   
Therefore from this ONE PARTICULAR EXAMPLE in Holy Scripture  
in which Vatican II says that MANY is to be taken as meaning  
ALL, one cannot generalize that the "Council explicitly  
equates the phrase FOR MANY with FOR ALL" in EVERY case.  
     But if the word MANY in Holy Scripture SOMETIMES is to be  
taken as meaning ALL, and other times means precisely what it  
reads - namely, "many" as opposed to "all" -, how are we to  
know the meaning of this word "MANY" in any given passage of  
Holy Scripture?  For Catholics the answer is this: the sole  
infallible guide to the interpretation of Holy Scripture is  
the Holy See.  
     As Father Most suggests, in doing research on the  
SACRAMENTAL FORM FOR THE CONSECRATION OF THE WINE I must  
frankly admit that I somehow overlooked the Vatican II DECREE  
ON THE MISSIONS.  For if one wishes to learn the correct  
interpretation of the words "FOR MANY" in the form for the  
Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist, which are taken from Matt.  
(26,28), it seems that one does not ordinarily consult  
paragraph 3 of Vatican II's Decree on the Missionary Activity  
of the Church, where, as it turns out, an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT   
passage - namely, Mark (10,45) - is explained, though only in  
passing.  
     On the contrary, one ordinarily attempts to seek out the  
most authoritative source available which actually gives an  
explanation of the PASSAGE IN QUESTION.  Now, in our case, the   
passage in question is clearly expounded in "THE CATECHISM by  
Decree of THE HOLY COUNCIL OF TRENT".  We find on p. 227 of  
this Catechism (the edition translated by John A. McHugh, O.P.  
and Charles J. Callan, O.P., published in 1934 by Joseph F.  
Wagner, Inc.), under the heading, EXPLANATION OF THE FORM USED  
IN THE CONSECRATION OF THE WINE, the following:  
  
          "The additional words FOR YOU AND FOR MANY,  
          are taken, some from Matthew, some from Luke,  
          but were joined together by the Catholic  
          Church under the guidance of the Spirit of God.  
          They serve to declare the fruit and advantage  
          of His Passion.  For if we look to its value,  
          we must confess that the Redeemer shed His  
          blood for the salvation of all; but if we look  
          to the fruit which mankind have received from  
          it, we shall easily find that it pertains not  
          unto all, but to many of the human race.  When  
          therefore (our Lord) said: FOR YOU, He meant  
          either those who were present, or those chosen  
          from among the Jewish people, such as were,  
          with the exception of Judas, the disciples  
          with whom He was speaking.  When He added,  
          AND FOR MANY, He wished to be understood to  
          mean the remainder of the elect from among  
          the Jews or Gentiles.  
  
          "With reason, therefore, were the words FOR ALL  
          not used, as 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."  
  
     The original Latin text for the last paragraph just  
above, taken from a volume printed at the Propaganda Press in  
Rome (Superiorum Permissu) in the year 1839, reads as follows:  
  
     "Recte ergo factum est, ut pro universis non  
     diceretur, cum hoc loco tantummodo de fructibus  
     passionis sermo esset, quae salutis fructum  
     dilectis solum attulit."  
  
     Let us examine the credentials of this Catechism.  (All  
quotations in this paragraph are taken from the Introduction  
of the above-mentioned volume, translated by McHugh and  
Callan.)  Pope Saint Pius V appointed "a number of expert  
theological revisors to examine every statement in the  
Catechism from the viewpoint of doctrine."  (p. xxv)  Pope  
Gregory XIII "desired even books of Canon Law to be written  
in accordance with its contents."  (p. xxxiii)  Pope Clement  
XIII said that "no other catechism can be compared with it,"  
and he called it "a norm of Catholic teaching."  (p. xxxiii)  
It was endorsed by Pope Leo XIII (to get closer to the present  
time) "for the richness and exactness of its doctrine," and  
this Sovereign Pontiff called it "a precious summary of all  
theology, both dogmatic and moral."  (pp. xxxiii-xxxiv)  Saint  
Pius X prescribed that pastors in instructing the faithful  
"should use the Catechism of the Council of Trent."  (p.  
xxxiv)  St. Charles Borromeo was the president of the  
Catechism Committee and he "called to its service the greatest  
masters of the Latin tongue of that age."  (p. xxv)  "Besides  
the Supreme Pontiffs who have extolled and recommended the  
Catechism, so many Councils have enjoined its use that it  
would be impossible here to enumerate them all."  (p. xxxiv)  
     But, it may still be argued, even so this Catechism,  
extraordinary though it is, is still not the Holy See Itself  
speaking.  Very well then, let us see what was taught by THE  
HOLY FATHER HIMSELF regarding the proper interpretation of  
these words FOR MANY, as found in the sacramental form for the  
consecration of the wine.  
     Pope Benedict XIV, adhering to St. Thomas Aquinas and the  
Catechism of the Council of Trent, OFFICIALLY AND  
AUTHORITATIVELY interpreted the words PRO MULTIS ("for many")  
in Book II, Chapter XV, par. 11 of his work entitled "De  
Sacrosancto Missae Sacrificio".  In order to understand his  
explanation clearly, beyond the shadow of a doubt, let us  
first recall that St. Thomas originally gave an explanation  
of these words FOR MANY (his explanation was discussed at  
length earlier in this monograph in pars. 73-77) in which he  
(Thomas) EXPLICITLY REFUTED the argument that the words "FOR  
ALL MEN" ought to be used instead of "FOR MANY."  
     Commenting on this, Pope Benedict XIV says: "And so,  
having agreed with the same Angelic Doctor, We explain those  
words FOR MANY accordingly, though it is granted that  
[sometimes] the word MANY, after a manner of speaking in the  
Holy Scriptures, may signify ALL."  To illustrate his point  
the Pontiff next cites a certain example (from Romans 5) where  
without a doubt the word many does indeed signify all.  (Ubi  
sine dubitatione vox multi omnes significat.)  
     Returning to the words FOR MANY in the passage in  
question (from Matt. 26, 28), the Pontiff explains: "Therefore  
We say that the Blood of Christ was shed for all, shed for all  
however AS REGARDS SUFFICIENCY (Benedict's emphasis: quoad  
sufficientiam), and for the elect only AS REGARDS EFFICACY  
(again Benedict's emphasis: quoad efficaciam), as the Doctor  
Thomas explains correctly: `The blood of Christ's Passion has  
its efficacy not merely in the elect among the Jews, ... but  
also in the Gentiles ...  And therefore He says expressly, for  
you, the Jews, and for many, namely the Gentiles ... '"  [End  
of quotation from Pope Benedict XIV.]  
     The above passage from St. Thomas, which I quoted earlier  
in this monograph (par. 75) and which Pope Benedict XIV  
quotes, saying that Thomas "explains correctly" (bene  
explicat) the words "for many" in the words of consecration  
used at Holy Mass, is taken from Thomas' Summa Theologica,  
III, Q. 78, Art. 4, Reply to Objection 8.  It is important to  
observe that what Thomas is "EXPLAINING CORRECTLY" here is his  
REBUTTAL OF THE CLAIM THAT THE WORDS `FOR ALL' OUGHT TO BE  
USED!  Thus we see that the Sovereign Pontiff Benedict XIV,  
the Vicar of Christ on earth and the ULTIMATE AUTHORITY OF THE  
INTERPRETATION OF HOLY SCRIPTURE, has quoted the Angelic  
Doctor in order to TEACH US AUTHORITATIVELY that the word  
"many" in this particular instance is NOT to be taken as  
meaning "all men."  
     (Note: It was St. Alphonsus de Liguori who directed me to  
this passage from Benedict XIV.  The following paragraph is  
taken from his treatise on "The Holy Eucharist".  It may be  
found on p. 44 of the edition published by the Redemptorist  
Fathers, 1934, translated 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 Savior 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."  
  
                               Objection B  
  
     Father Most states: "Omlor is so supremely confident that  
he has proved the invalidity of the English form of  
consecration that he rejects in advance any papal teaching  
that would approve such a Canon.  Really, Omlor is here  
following a Protestant, not a Catholic principle.  He makes  
himself the judge of the Pope, whose orthodoxy is to be  
determined by conformity to Omlor, instead of Omlor learning  
what is orthodox from the teaching of the Pope."  
      
                          Reply to Objection B  
     
     In the Preface to this monograph I wrote: "That the  
arguments presented herein are beyond question or challenge I  
do not claim.  Assuredly they will not be the `last word' on  
the subject."  Also I wrote: "I will take as my own these  
words of the same great St. Anselm: If there is anything that  
calls for correction I do not refuse the correction."  
Consequently, to accuse me of being "so supremely confident"  
is gratuitous.  
     What Fr. Most is objecting to here is that I wrote (par.  
191) that no bona fide pope could canonize the mutilated  
consecration "form," because the Church cannot contradict  
Herself.  In saying this I most certainly am not making myself  
"the judge of the Pope," nor am I insisting that his  
"orthodoxy is to be determined by conformity to OmIor."  On  
the contrary, I am insisting that the orthodoxy of ANY  
Catholic is DETERMINED SOLELY upon the basis of his acceptance  
or nonacceptance of ALL the doctrines and traditional  
teachings - WITHOUT EXCEPTION - of the Roman Catholic Church.   
This is a Catholic, not a Protestant principle!  
     Now, the sacramental form for the Holy Eucharist IN OUR  
ROMAN RITE has always contained "pro vobis et pro multis  
effundetur in remissionem peccatorum": "for you and for many  
unto the forgiveness of sins."  For all these centuries the  
unchanged, traditional teaching of the Church, EXPLICITLY and  
IMMUTABLY ratified by the Sovereign Pontiff Himself, has been  
this: with reason, therefore, are the words "for all men" NOT  
to be used instead of "for many."  And this is the exact  
substitution that the Innovators of this "new rite" have made.   
Father Most's advice to learn "what is orthodox from the  
teaching of the Pope" would be more fittingly directed to  
these Innovators.  
     Let us digress a moment.  MODERNISM is not just a heresy;  
it is, in the words of St. Pius X, THE SYNTHESIS OF ALL  
HERESIES, the ultimate aim of which is UNIVERSAL APOSTASY.  A  
key dogma of the Modernists (who are still very much alive and  
in our midst today) is the so-called "evolution of doctrine."  
In describing this thoroughly heretical and subversive  
Modernist dogma, St, Pius X said: "First of all, they lay down  
the general principle that in a living religion everything is  
subject to change, and must in fact be changed.  In this way  
they pass to what is practically their principal doctrine,  
namely evolution."  "To the laws of evolution," continues  
Pius, "everything is subject under penalty of death - dogma,  
Church, worship, the Books we revere as Sacred, even faith  
itself."  "Thus, then, Venerable Brethren, for the Modernists,  
both as authors and propagandists, there is to be nothing  
stable, nothing immutable in the Church."  (Encyclical  
Pascendi Dominici Gregis)  
     According to Cardinal Gibbons ("Faith of Our Fathers,"  
Ch. XI), the decision of the Holy Father concerning the proper  
interpretation of Holy Scripture is "final, irrevocable and  
infallible."  Now, inasmuch as the Sovereign Pontiff Benedict  
XIV has INFALLIBLY interpreted the Scriptural passage (Matt.  
26, 28) used in the consecration at Holy Mass, even a  
Modernist would be hard put to explain this recent COMPLETE  
REVERSAL in terms of "evolution of doctrine."  This discussion  
of "MANY" and "ALL MEN" is not a fatuitous exercise, a mere  
quibbling over words.  UNDERLYING THIS ATTEMPTED CHANGE IS AN  
ATTACK UPON HOLY MOTHER CHURCH HERSELF.  And it must not go  
unchallenged!  
     For we are not discussing here a "disciplinary" matter  
(such as the rules for Holy Communion fast, Friday abstinence,  
etc), which may be changed.  What is at stake here is a matter  
which, in its very nature, is unchangeable: the interpretation  
of Holy Scripture.  Also at stake are the preservation of a  
TRUE sacramental form and the validity of the Holy Sacrifice  
of the Mass.  
     Amply clear, then, should be the reason why no pope could  
possibly canonize the form: FOR ALL MEN, ETC.  For this would  
mean that his infallible interpretation of Holy Scripture  
would be in conflict with the infallible interpretation of  
Benedict XIV's, which is a contradiction in terms.  THE TRUE  
CHURCH NEVER CONTRADICTS HERSELF!  Father Most is quite  
correct in saying that I "reject this in advance," just as I  
would most surely "reject in advance" the possibility that  
any bona fide pope would ever allow that `I christen you  
William' (for example) is a valid form for the Sacrament of  
Baptism.  
  
                               Objection C  
  
     Father Most: "His appeal to St. Thomas and the Catechism  
of the Council of Trent is insufficient by far to prove his  
case for two reasons: 1) Neither one explicitly states the  
invalidity of the English form of consecration - Omlor merely  
tries, for insufficient reason, to INFER such a conclusion  
from the words of St. Thomas and the Catechism."  
  
                          Reply to Objection C  
  
     No one could be expected to enumerate EXPLICITLY all  
INvalid forms for a sacrament, since there is an infinitude of  
INvalid forms.  There is, however, only one VALID form for any  
given sacrament.  Concerning the form for the Sacrament of the  
Holy Eucharist, the CATECHISM by Decree of THE HOLY COUNCIL  
OF TRENT is quite explicit and emphatic:  
     "We are then FIRMLY TO BELIEVE ["certo credendum est" in  
the Latin text] that it consists in 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, to the remission of sins."  (P. 225, edition translated  
by McHugh and Callan, emphasis added)  And two paragraphs  
later, on the same page, we read: "Concerning this form no one  
can doubt."  [The original Latin text being: "Verum de hac  
forma nemo dubitare poterit"].  On page 151 of the same  
Catechism, under the heading "The Sacraments in General," we  
also read: "In this the Sacraments of the New Law excel those  
of the Old that, as far as we know, there was no definite  
form of administering the latter, and hence they were very  
uncertain and obscure.  In our sacraments, on the contrary,  
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."  
(Emphasis added)  
     From all the above, much may be "INFERRED," for quite  
sufficient reasons.  However, concerning the invalidity of the  
English form of consecration we do not have to "infer"  
anything.  Despite Fr. Most's assertion, the Trent Catechism  
(as pointed out several times earlier) actually does  
EXPLICITLY say: "With reason, therefore, were the words FOR  
ALL not used," which, of course, is what the new English  
"form" does use.  
  
                               Objection D  
  
     Father Most, continuing with his second reason, states:  
"2) The approval of the Church given to St. Thomas by no means  
asserts that he is free from all error.  Most theologians not  
only admit errors in him, but even think he denied the  
Immaculate Conception.  Similarly, the Catechism of the  
Council of Trent was never checked by the Council, nor issued  
by it."  
  
                          Reply to Objection D  
  
     I reply that if Father Most is really confident about his  
reason 1) - namely, that my conclusions are erroneously  
"inferred" from St. Thomas and the Trent Catechism -, then why  
does he find it necessary to attempt to discredit them also?   
Is it possible that my appeal to these sources really isn't  
"insufficient by far to prove" my case?  (Incidentally, I do  
not claim to have "proved" anything.  My position is quite  
clearly stated in my Preface and Father Brey's is stated in  
his Foreword.)  
  
                               Objection E  
  
     Concerning the new, English consecration "form," Fr. Most  
claims that "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 its fruits."  
  
                          Reply to Objection E  
  
     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 added)  
     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 Objection C.  
     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."  
  
                               Objection F  
  
     Fr. Most: "[T]his form of consecration was approved ...  
(temporarily) by the Supreme Authority of Rome."  
  
                          Reply to Objection F  
  
     This is an ipse dixit, presented entirely gratuitously   
without an iota of proof.  In reply, I will quote Owen Francis  
Dudley, "A gratuitous assumption is sufficiently met by a  
gratuitous denial."  Six months after this "Canon" has been in  
use Triumph magazine can still report: "Rome is not just  
withholding its approval of the wretched version ...  
introduced in the Catholic Masses last fall; the ICEL  
[International Committee on English in the Liturgy] has now  
been put on notice that approval will not be forthcoming."  
(Apr. 1968, p. 7)  (Granted, this is also an ipse dixit,  
but the burden of proof is solely on the Innovators.)  Not  
only has Triumph not retracted this, but in the May issue (p.  
37) a significant ipse dixit of Fr. Frederick McManus (Liturgy  
Director) is reported: "Ultimately, the approval of the Holy  
See will probably be dispensed with, since it doesn't figure  
in the Constitution on the Liturgy." (!)  
  
  
                               APPENDIX 4  
              INVALID CONSECRATION OF THE WINE INVALIDATES  
       OR AT LEAST CASTS DOUBT UPON THE CONSECRATION OF THE BREAD  
                        By Rev. Lawrence S. Brey  
  
     1)  INTRODUCTION.  EVEN IF the Consecration of the Wine  
is invalid by reason of defect of form, and therefore the  
entire Mass is invalid, does the priest nevertheless truly  
consecrate the BREAD in such a Mass?  Even if the wine does  
not become truly consecrated, would we not at least have  
validly consecrated Hosts, the true Eucharistic Body of  
Christ, provided that the Consecration of the Bread be  
performed using the proper matter and form?  And therefore  
could not our people at least be certain they are receiving  
the true Body and Blood of Jesus at Communion time in such a  
Mass?  
     The answer to these questions is a qualified no, for one  
could not be CERTAIN that the hosts are truly consecrated; at  
least there is a real and practical DOUBT.  In fact, some  
theologians hold with CERTAINTY that under such circumstances  
the bread is NOT validly consecrated.  
     2)  NO SACRIFICE WITHOUT BOTH CONSECRATIONS.  In the  
first place, the SACRAMENT of the Body and Blood of the Lord  
was given to us ONLY AND EXCLUSIVELY in the context of the  
SACRIFICE of the Body and Blood of Christ.  "As often as the  
sacrifice is offered, the consecration of both species is  
required, according to the Will and institution of Christ.   
For Christ at the Last Supper, consecrating each (both)  
species, commanded: `do THIS in commemoration of Me'  (Cf. I  
Cor. 11, 24-25) ... (and) the very notion of sacrifice ...  
demands the consecration of both species."  (De Eucharistia,  
Noldin-Schmitt, S.J., in "SUMMA THEOLOGIAE MORALIS," III  
Innsbruck, 1940)  
     For the Consecration re-enacts and commemorates the  
Sacrifice of the Cross, in that the separate consecration of  
both species produces the mystical separation of Christ's Body  
and Blood.  "The consecration of both species is required by  
Divine Law for the essence of the Sacrifice: this We know from  
Christ's very (words of) Institution, and from the precept and  
practice of the Church, so that it is necessary in order that  
a true representation of the Sacrifice of the Cross be had."  
(Brevior Synopsis Theologiae Dogmaticae, Tanquerey- Bord,  
Paris, 1952)  
     3)  IF NO SACRIFICE, THEN NO SACRAMENT.  Nor is there any  
indication anywhere that Christ willed the SACRAMENT of the  
Eucharist to be confected apart from the propitiatory  
SACRIFICE of the Mass.  Indeed, the notion of the SACRAMENT in  
the Eucharist, according to the Will of Christ, CANNOT BE  
SEPARATED FROM THE NOTION OF THE SACRIFICE."  (Noldin-Schmitt,  
loc. cit)  Indeed, in practice, Church law absolutely forbids,  
without any exception, the consecration of only one species  
without the other.  Canon 817 of the Code of Canon Law states:  
"It is forbidden, even in extreme cases of necessity, to  
consecrate one species without the other ... "  The  
Roman Missal, in its section, "De Defectibus," prescribes that  
a Mass interrupted after the Consecration of the Host (because  
of illness or death of the celebrant) must be continued by  
another priest, i.e., that the wine must be consecrated to  
complete and effect the Sacrifice  (Cf. De Defectibus, X, 3)  
     4)  CONSECRATION OF ONLY ONE SPECIES RENDERS VALIDITY AT  
LEAST DOUBTFUL.  As for the validity of the Consecration of  
the Bread in a case where the Wine is for some reason not  
consecrated, theologians agree that such a Consecration of the  
Bread would be valid ONLY if the celebrant had the intention  
of performing the second Consecration (that of the Wine), but  
had become incapacitated or for some reason unable to perform  
it.  "One species is validly consecrated without the other, IF  
the celebrant has the intention of offering sacrifice [but  
then is interrupted] ...  But it is never licit to consecrate  
one species if the celebrant foresees a defect in the other  
species, because from the Will of Christ the Consecration of  
the Eucharist must simultaneously be also the complete  
Sacrifice, which certainly would not be the case unless both  
species are consecrated."  (Epitome Theologiae Moralis  
Universae, ed. Dr. Carolo Telch, Innsbruck, 1924)  
     Thus, if the celebrant did NOT have the INTENTION of  
PROPERLY consecrating the wine, the Consecration of the Bread  
would be in DOUBT.  Some theologians, indeed, hold that it is  
CERTAIN, in such a case that the bread would NOT be truly  
consecrated.  For, a priest not having the intention of  
consecrating the wine (or of properly consecrating it) would  
ipso facto not have the intention of offering the true  
Sacrifice or of consecrating according to the Mind of Christ.  
     5)  DE LA TAILLE'S OPINION.  Maurice de la Taille, S.J.  
is one such modern theologian of note, who believed that such  
a single consecration of bread (alone) would be CERTAINLY  
INVALID.  In his treatise on the Mass, he observes: "[T]he  
conclusion of St. Thomas stands: that the determination of the  
propitiatory virtue enters into the form of the second  
consecration [by means of the words: WHICH SHALL BE SHED FOR  
YOU AND FOR MANY UNTO THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS], but not of the  
first [i.e., the consecration of the Bread].  Moreover,  
because in the Roman Canon no such determination of  
propitiatory intention is expressed over the Body, for this  
reason St. Thomas very rightly taught that our form of  
consecration in the Mass in respect of the Blood would be  
deficient, and so ineffective, if the rest of the words [i.e.,  
WHICH SHALL BE SHED OR YOU AND FOR MANY UNTO THE FORGIVENESS  
OF SINS] were not added."  (De la Taille, "The Mystery Of  
Faith," Book II, p. 444, n. 1)  
     "But this which we have shown to be sufficient to  
indicate the propitiatory intention [i.e., the more  
determinate form: WHICH SHALL BE SHED OR YOU AND FOR MANY UNTO  
THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS] IS ALSO ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY FOR THE  
COMPLETION OF THE FORM: for, meantime, until this designation  
is given [expressing the purpose or end for which Christ shed  
His Blood], the formula does not yet express all that must be  
expressed, AND SO DOES NOT ACCOMPLISH ANYTHING: for here in  
reality the effect and what is signified by the formula are  
indivisible."  (De la Taille, op. cit., p. 443, emphasis  
added)  
     "What then would happen," asks de la Taille, "if a  
priest, while consecrating the Body by the Roman rite, had the  
intention of pronouncing over the chalice only the words: THIS  
IS THE CHALICE OF MY BLOOD?  According to our argument HE  
WOULD NOT SO CONSECRATE EVEN THE BODY VALIDLY.  The reason is  
that no one consecrates the Body validly unless he has at  
least the intention of consecrating the Blood also ...  
because no one consecrates validly without having at least the  
implicit intention of offering sacrifice.  But the priest who  
excludes the intention of applying this more determinate form,  
of which we have been speaking, in respect of the Blood,  
actually thereby EXCLUDES THE INTENTION OF VALID CONSECRATION,  
from what we have said above.  Therefore he excludes the  
intention of offering the sacrifice.  HENCE HE DOES NOT EVEN  
CONSECRATE THE BODY VALIDLY."  (De la Taille, op. cit., pp.  
444-5, n. 1, emphasis added)  
     6)  THE CASE OF THE NEW ENGLISH CANON.  Now, if the new  
English form of Consecration has been so mutilated (and this  
appears to be the case) as to change the meaning and intent of  
the form of consecration and to alter SUBSTANTIALLY the  
meaning of the PROPITIATORY ELEMENT of the form (by  
substituting "for all men so that ..."), thus invalidating the  
Consecration of the Wine, we have a situation tantamount to  
that described by de la Taille.  The celebrant, even though he  
uses the complete (English) form of consecration, is thereby  
using a "form" with a MUTILATED PROPITIATORY ELEMENT, and  
therefore he neither truly intends to nor does he actually  
offer true Sacrifice.  And thus his consecration of even the  
Bread is DOUBTFUL; and, according to some theologians (as we  
have seen), he CERTAINLY DOES NOT validly consecrate the  
Bread.  
     Adding more weight to this thesis is the following  
consideration: Such a "Mass" (involving only one consecration  
instead of the dual consecration) would be entirely foreign to  
the intent of Christ and His institution of the Sacrament and  
Sacrifice via the valid dual Consecration of Bread and Wine.  
Such a "Mass" would indeed be a SACRILEGIOUS MONSTROSITY.  It  
is difficult to conceive that Christ would permit the presence  
of His Eucharistic Body to be effected under such  
circumstances.  
     7)  CONCLUSION.  IN PRACTICE, then, those who are aware  
of the fact that there is AT LEAST A REAL DOUBT as to the  
valid consecration of hosts "consecrated" in Masses using the  
"new English Canon" (or any other "Canon" embodying similar  
mutilations of the Consecration form), could not in conscience  
participate in such a "Mass" or receive Communion with a host  
consecrated at such a Mass.  
  
                                        L.S.B.  
                                        May 5, 1968  
                                        Feast of St. Pius V  
  
  
                               APPENDIX 5  
          A SOLEMN DECREE OF THE ECUMENICAL COUNCIL OF FLORENCE  
  
     A decree of the Council of Florence, promulgated by Pope  
Eugene IV, sets forth "the form of the words, which in the  
consecration of the body and blood of the Lord the holy Roman  
Church CONFIRMED BY THE TEACHING AND AUTHORITY OF THE APOSTLES  
had ALWAYS been accustomed to use."  
     It is clear that NEITHER POPE NOR COUNCIL can ever  
substantially change the matter or form of any of the seven  
sacraments, since these were established by Christ Himself.   
But, even if it is granted that some MINOR (i.e.,  
"accidental") change of words in the form could be made, in  
order LAWFULLY to make such a change - a minor,  
non-substantial change - it would require a SOLEMN papal  
pronouncement or a solemn decree of an ecumenical council;  
that is to say, something of equal or greater authority than  
the aforementioned decree of the Council of Florence.  
     Needless to say, no such weighty authority has canonized  
the CHANGE IN THE FORM incorporated in the new vernacular  
"Canons."  Nor can any LEGITIMATE authorization ever be  
forthcoming, for these changes are substantial and not merely  
"accidental."  They are MUTILATIONS.  
     The aforementioned decree of the Council of Florence  
(1438-1445) follows:  
  
          "But since in the above written decree of the  
          Armenians the form of the words, which in the  
          consecration of the body and blood of the Lord  
          the holy Roman Church confirmed by the teaching  
          and authority of the Apostles had always been  
          accustomed to use, was not set forth, we have  
          thought that it ought to be inserted here.  In  
          the consecration of the body the Church uses  
          this form of words: `For this is My body; in  
          the consecration of the blood it uses the  
          following form of words: `For this is the  
          chalice of My blood, of the new and eternal  
          testament, the mystery of faith, which shall  
          be shed for you and for many unto the  
          remission of sins'"  
  
  
                               APPENDIX 6  
                      A LETTER OF POPE INNOCENT III  
  
     When asked about the origin of certain words in the form  
for the Consecration of the Wine, Pope Innocent III replied by  
means of a letter in which he stated, "Therefore, we believe  
that the form of words, AS IS FOUND IN THE CANON, THE APOSTLES  
RECEIVED ROM CHRIST, AND THEIR SUCCESSORS FROM THEM."  
     But the form of words, as is found in the new, vernacular  
"canons," the present-day successors of the Apostles are  
willing to receive from the International Committee on English  
in the Liturgy!  
     Excerpts from Pope Innocent's letter follow:  
  
[From the letter "Cum Marthae circa" to a certain John,  
Archbishop of Lyons, Nov. 29, 1202]  
  
     You have asked (indeed) who has added to the form of the  
words which Christ Himself expressed when He changed the bread  
and wine into the body and blood, that in the Canon of the  
Mass which the general Church uses, which none of the  
Evangelists is read to have expressed ...  In the Canon of the  
Mass that expression, "MYSTERIUM FIDEI," is found interposed  
among His words ...  Surely we find many such things omitted  
from the words as well as from the deeds of the Lord by the  
Evangelists, which the Apostles are read to have supplied by  
word or to have expressed by deed ...  From the expression,  
Moreover, concerning which your brotherhood raised the  
question, namely "mysterium fidei," certain people have  
thought to draw a protection against error, saying that in the  
sacrament of the altar the truth of the body and blood of  
Christ does not exist, but only the image and species and  
figure, inasmuch as Scripture sometimes mentions that what  
is received at the altar is sacrament and mystery and example.   
But such run into a snare of error, by reason of the fact that  
they neither properly understand the authority of Scripture,  
nor do they reverently receive the sacraments of God, equally  
"ignorant of the Scriptures and the power of God"  [Matt.  
22:29] ...  Yet "mysterium fidei" is mentioned, since  
something is believed there other than what is perceived; and  
something is perceived other than is believed.  For the  
species of bread and wine is perceived there, and the truth of  
the body and blood of Christ is believed and the power of  
unity and of love ...  
     We must, however, distinguish accurately between three  
things which are different in this sacrament, namely, the  
visible form, the truth of the body, and the spiritual power.   
The form is of the bread and wine; the truth, of the flesh and  
blood; the power, of unity and of charity.  The first is the  
"sacrament and not reality."  The second is "the sacrament,  
and reality."  The third is "the reality and not the  
sacrament."  But the first is the sacrament of a twofold  
reality.  The second, however, is a sacrament of one and the  
reality (is) of the other.  But the third is the reality of a  
twofold sacrament.  Therefore, we believe that the form of  
words, as is found in the Canon, the Apostles received from  
Christ, and their successors from them ...  
  
  
                               APPENDIX 7  
                       A REPLY TO MONSIGNOR BANDAS  
  
     Certain errors and misleading statements about the  
"English Canon question" were made by Msgr. R. G. Bandas in  
his "Questions And  Answers") column of `The Wanderer' (Jan.  
23, 1969).  This Appendix contains comments upon several items  
which appeared in this column.  
  
                                 Item 1  
  
     Monsignor Bandas states: The decree on the new three  
Canons and Prefaces was issued on May 23rd, 1968, by the  
Sacred Congregation of Rites ...  The decree says that the  
Holy Father approved the three Canons and permitted them to be  
published and to be used."  
     "This revised English Canon as well as the three new  
Canons have been fully approved by the Holy See; the Latin  
text is in Notitiae, the official publication of the  
Commission on the Liturgy (May-June, 1968)."  
  
                            Comment on Item 1  
  
     Some persons, priests and laymen alike, who have read  
earlier editions of "Questioning The Validity of the Masses  
using The New, All-English Canon," have said they are quite  
convinced regarding the factual evidence presented, and that a  
single obstacle hinders them from being COMPLETELY convinced  
that the "English Mass" is invalid.  This obstacle is that  
they have read, or heard, that the Pope has approved it.  
     From the very outset I have maintained that no bona fide  
pope could possibly ever approve this mutilated consecration  
form.  This I still maintain despite the above misleading  
claim of Msgr. Bandas, and despite the miscellaneous similar  
claims of others.  The truth is that the Holy Father has NEVER  
approved of the phrase, "for you and for all men so that sins  
may be forgiven."  Pope Paul, on the contrary, has approved NO  
DEVIATION WHATSOEVER from these words, "for you and for many  
unto the remission of sins."  
     Let us now examine Msgr. Bandas' evidence.  The decree of  
May 23, 1968, which he cites, says: "These texts ... the  
Supreme Pontiff Paul VI has approved and permitted to be  
published."  ("Hos autem textus ... Summus Pontifex Paulus PP.  
VI approbavit atque evulgari permisit.")  Just what are "these  
texts" which the Holy Father has approved and permitted to be  
published?  "These texts" are printed in the above-mentioned  
issue of Notitiae, where the decree of approval also appears.   
"These texts," it must be noted, are printed IN LATIN, and it  
goes without saying that the Holy Father's EXPLICIT approval  
pertains only to these Latin texts.  His IMPLICIT approval  
would extend to FAITHFUL translations of them.  Let us see  
what "THESE texts" contain.  
     Four "Eucharistic Prayers" (Canons) have been approved,  
and their texts appear on pp. 168-179.  Atop page 163 we find  
the heading: Eucharistic Prayer I; and immediately below this  
heading there is one and only one line which reads simply, "Ut  
in Missali Romano" - AS IN THE ROMAN MISSAL!  Will any  
traditional, orthodox Roman Catholic criticize Pope Paul for  
approving the centuries-old Roman Missal?  So much for the  
first Canon.  
     Next we look into the three new Canons - that is,  
Eucharistic Prayers II, III and IV.  In all three cases we  
seek out this disputed phrase in the consecration form and  
what do we find?  ALL THREE TIMES (on pages 169, 172 and 178,  
respectively) we see printed in large boldface type the words:  
qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur in remissionem  
peccatorum.  Is this not the same ancient form from the Roman  
Missal which "the Apostles received from Christ, and their  
successors from them," to quote Pope Innocent III?  
     One final question.  What about that first English  
"Canon" that was foisted on English-speaking Catholics in  
October, 1967, and which is supposed to correspond now to  
"Eucharistic Prayer I"?  Completely aside from the question of  
validity for a moment, and considering this English "Canon" as  
a whole from beginning to end, it is evident that these "great  
translators" couldn't even discover the meaning of "Ut in  
Missali Romano."  
  
                                 Item 2  
  
     Msgr. Bandas says: "The New Testament, as we know, uses  
the words `many' and `all' interchangeably; for example Rom.  
5:18,19."  
  
                            Comment on Item 2  
  
     Had Monsignor Bandas qualified this statement with the  
word SOMETIMES, as St. Augustine correctly does, no one would  
disagree with him.  But his statement, as it stands, implies  
that this is ALWAYS or at least usually the case; and it is  
upon this unwarranted assumption that his "case" heavily  
relies.  In point of fact, the instances when "many" in Holy  
Scripture means "all" are relatively few, and it is absurd to  
build a case upon that which is the exception to the rule.  
     One cannot go through Holy Writ automatically plugging in  
"all men" whenever the word "many" occurs without frequently  
obtaining disastrous results.  For example, making this  
particular substitution in the Gospel of St. Luke (13,24)  
yields: Strive to enter by the narrow gate; for ALL MEN, I  
tell you, will seek to enter and will not be able.  This is  
not "good news."  
     Father William G. Most earlier made the same erroneous  
claim that Msgr. Bandas makes here; and since on that occasion  
I made reply at length (refer back to Appendix 3, Reply to  
Objection A), I will now but summarize.  
     That the word "many" in the form for consecrating the  
wine means strictly "many" and is not to be taken here as  
meaning "all men" is unequivocally maintained and clearly  
expounded by all the following:  
  
     (1)  The Catechism of the Council of Trent.  
  
     (2)  St. Thomas Aquinas in Summa Theologica, Part III,  
          Question 78, Article 4, Reply to Objection 8.  
  
     (3)  Pope Benedict XIV in "De Sacrosancto Missae  
          Sacrificio" Book II, Chap. XV, par. 11, where he  
          quotes verbatim the entire Reply of St. Thomas  
          mentioned just above.  
  
     (4)  St. Alphonsus de Liguori in his treatise on The  
          Holy Eucharist (p. 44 of Grimm's translation),  
          where this brilliant and saintly Doctor of the  
          Church cites both Thomas and Benedict.  
  
     These theological giants remain.  No one seems able to  
find four equally compelling sources that maintain the  
opposite, nay, not even one!  To find four equally compelling  
sources PERIOD is quite a task.  
  
                                 Item 3  
  
     Monsignor Bandas: "This formula [i.e., the English  
version of the form for consecrating the wine] is a  
translation from the Roman Canon except that for the word  
`many' it substitutes the term `all men.'"  
  
                            Comment on Item 3  
  
     By stating that it is a translation "EXCEPT THAT," Msgr.   
Bandas is here admitting that the words "all men" actually are  
NOT a translation, but, as he accurately says, a SUBSTITUTION.  
  
                                 Item 4  
  
     Monsignor Bandas: "To determine which rendering [i.e.,  
"all men" or "many"] we are to prefer ... "  
  
                            Comment on Item 4  
  
     What WE "prefer" is totally irrelevant.  What Our Lord  
said, as recorded in Holy Scripture, is all that is important.   
That Msgr. Bandas would make such a "Liberal-Modernist-  
mentality" statement is astonishing.  If everyone is allowed  
to do what he "prefers," A will prefer this, B will prefer  
that, and C will prefer something else again.  Some newbreed  
priests, I fear, will prefer no consecration form at all.  
       
                                 Item 5  
  
     Msgr. Bandas says: "The doctrine that the Blessed Savior  
offered the Sacrifice on Calvary for all men is clearly the  
teaching of the New Testament.  Thus we read: ... `He is a  
propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only but also for  
those of the WHOLE WORLD' (I John 2:2)."  
  
                            Comment on Item 5  
  
     This is quite true, but just what does it mean?  Surely  
Msgr. Bandas will not hereby help prove his position to anyone  
who understands the distinction between the SUFFICIENCY and  
EFFICACY aspects of the Passion, a distinction clarified quite  
early in this monograph (see pars. 64-69).  
     Paragraph 64 reads as follows: "It is a truth of our  
Faith that Christ died for all men without exception. `And He  
is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but  
also for those of the whole world.' (I John 2,2)  Another  
truth of our Faith is that not all men are saved, but some  
indeed suffer eternal damnation."  
     And in par. 69 I have quoted this one, single, elegant  
sentence from a decree of the Council of Trent (Session VI,  
Ch. 3) which clearly makes this important distinction: "But,  
though He died for all, yet ALL DO NOT receive the benefit of  
His death BUT THOSE ONLY unto whom the merit of his passion is  
communicated."  (Emphasis added)  
  
                                 Item 6  
  
     Monsignor Bandas quotes his adversary: "The Catechism of  
the Council of Trent ... makes a distinction which it is well  
to keep in mind: `Looking to the EFFICACY of the Passion, we  
believe that the Redeemer shed His Blood for the salvation of  
ALL MEN; ...'".  (Emphasis added by Msgr. Bandas)  
  
                            Comment on Item 6  
  
     This is inferior merchandise!  The passage Msgr. Bandas  
quotes here is from one of J. Donovan's earliest attempts at  
translating the Trent Catechism into English, and it contains  
a glaring fault.  In this rendition the idea of EFFICACY is  
seemingly made to relate to ALL MEN.  Of course, this is  
exactly wrong, for it is the SUFFICIENCY aspect of the Passion  
that encompasses all men, NOT the efficacy aspect.  
     It was Donovan's original ill-chosen translation of the  
Latin word "virtutem" to read "efficacy" that has created a  
problem here.  Apparently Donovan himself soon realized the  
great confusion this would likely engender (or else someone  
pointed it out to him), for his later, corrected editions all  
have the word "virtue" in this place.  (See, for example, the  
edition published by Jas. Duffy & Co., Dublin, 1908.  In their  
translation McHugh and Callan give "value," which perhaps  
lends even more clarity to the correct meaning of this  
passage.)  
     Thus misled (even "trained theologians" sometimes get  
misled) - and misled, moreover, on a vital distinction! -,  
Msgr. Bandas even italicizes the bogus word "efficacy" in  
order to stress his ERRONEOUS point.  No wonder he then goes  
on to pen this confused remark: "(T)he words `all men,' on the  
other hand, stress the efficacy-aspect [never!] of the  
Sacrifice of the Cross and [?] its sufficiency to redeem every  
soul in the whole world."  
     All the foregoing, however, is not the main criticism I  
wish to make here, as it is leveled at his ignorance only.   
JUST TWO SENTENCES BEYOND the one quoted by Msgr. Bandas, the  
Trent Catechism goes on to say: "WITH REASON, therefore, were  
the words `for all' NOT used, as 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 added)  
Having brought forth the Trent Catechism and having quoted a  
(defective) passage from it, Monsignor Bandas has undoubtedly  
led unwary readers to the notion that somehow this Catechism  
lends weight to his arguments, whereas IN TRUTH it explicitly  
and most thunderously condemns them!  This falls short of  
honest journalism.  
  
  
                         SOME CONCLUDING REMARKS  
  
     Those who are attempting to justify this mutilation of  
the very words of consecration have thus far succeeded only in  
setting up smokescreens of confusion; they have not faced up  
squarely to the real issues.  Seemingly plausible "evidence"  
(from scriptural quotations, etc.) is advanced by them, but  
the TRUE SIGNIFICANCE of this "evidence" (which eludes them)  
helps their case not a bit.  It was not my original plan to  
write at such length in this Appendix, but now it even seems  
necessary to add somewhat more to it in order to explain some  
ELEMENTARY but essential distinctions.  Because most of this  
aforesaid confusion has arisen (and more will undoubtedly be  
created in the future) due to the fact that vital theological  
distinctions are ignored.  
     Let us consider some examples of these distinctions, so  
carelessly disregarded.  REDEMPTION is NOT the same as  
SALVATION.  Although JUSTIFICATION is closely related to the  
FORGIVENESS OF SINS, there is yet more to justification.   
Furthermore, justification and the forgiveness of sins are  
each completely different from EXPIATION (atonement) and  
PROPITIATION.  
     Some of these doctrines encompass all men; that is, they  
may be said to be related to the SUFFICIENCY aspect of  
Calvary.  Others, however, fall under the EFFICACY aspect in  
that they pertain only to MANY and not to all men.  
     The word REDEEM means "pay the price for" or "buy back"  
or "ransom".  Very eloquently does St. Peter bring to our  
minds this idea of PAYING: "You were not redeemed with  
corruptible things as gold or silver ... but with the precious  
blood of Christ."  (I Pet. 11: 18-19)  REDEMPTION is  
absolutely universal: it applies to all men without exception.   
Every soul in hell now, including those that were there before  
Calvary, got REDEEMED on that first Good Friday.  Christ's  
Death was sufficient RANSOM even for them.  The PRICE of His  
Blood was sufficient and superabundant.  "We adore Thee, O  
Christ, and We bless Thee, because by Thy Holy Cross Thou hast  
REDEEMED THE WORLD" is to be taken quite literally.  
     Closely akin to redemption are the concepts:  
PROPITIATION, ATONEMENT (or EXPIATION).  Our Lord's  
propitiatory, expiatory Sacrifice on Calvary was also  
universal in its scope, for He atoned for all the sins of  
ALL men, past, present and future.  
     All these truths - redemption, expiation, propitiation -  
relate to the SUFFICIENCY aspect; they apply to all men.  Thus  
can we properly understand: "And He is the PROPITIATION for  
our sins and ... for those of the whole world."  (I John 2:2)   
Likewise the meaning of this passage is quite clear: ... Who  
gave Himself a REDEMPTION FOR ALL."  (I Tim. 2:6)  
     Two little side comments are appropriate here.  First of  
all, it is easily seen that nothing startling whatsoever was  
"proved" by Rev. Wm. G. Most's earlier argument that in the  
passage from Mark (10,45): " ... He might give His life as a  
redemption for many" the word MANY is to be taken as meaning  
all men.  (Refer back to Appendix 3, Objection A.)  Inasmuch  
as REDEMPTION does indeed pertain to all men, Fr. Most's  
assertion is surely acceptable; but, once again, so what is  
proved?  
     And the second aside concerns an "argument" presented by  
Msgr. Bandas in one place in his article.  It simply cannot be  
argued, as does Msgr. Bandas, that since Calvary was for all  
men [JUST WHAT DOES THIS MEAN?] and the Mass is the  
continuation of Calvary [AND AGAIN WHAT DOES THIS MEAN?],  
therefore the words "all men" may replace the word "many" in  
the consecration form!  This is a ludicrous  
oversimplification.  Although each and every Mass is the  
unbloody continuation of Calvary, no single Mass can be  
equally beneficial to all men.  There are some men, in fact,  
whose names cannot even be mentioned by the celebrant in the  
"Commemoration of the Living": "Hence were anyone to mention  
by name an infidel, a heretic, a schismatic, or an  
excommunicated person (whether a king, or a bishop, or any  
other), ... he would certainly violate the law of the Church."  
(De la Taille, The Mystery of Faith, v. II, p. 317)  Lastly,  
most theologians hold that Masses absolutely MAY NOT EVEN BE  
SAID for certain classes of persons, for example,  
EXCOMMUNICATI VITANDI.  (De la Taille, op. cit., p. 318)  
     Now, having mentioned some doctrines that pertain to all  
men (redemption, expiation, propitiation), let us next  
consider some that apply only to MANY.  SALVATION is not  
universal; only MANY and not all men are actually saved.   
Expressions such as "Christ The Savior of the world" must not  
be taken literally as though His Passion and Death actually  
brought salvation to all."  "He became TO ALL WHO OBEY HIM the  
cause of eternal salvation," we read in Heb. (5,9).  Albeit it  
is God's will that all be saved - "This is good and agreeable  
in the sight of God our Savior, Who wishes all men to be  
saved," (I Tim. 2:3-4) -, nevertheless there are some who  
habitually go against His will, disobey Him, and thus incur  
for themselves eternal damnation: "Therefore He hath mercy on  
whom He will; and whom He will, He hardeneth."  (Rom. 9:18)  
     And where does FORGIVENESS of sins fit into this picture?   
FORGIVENESS of sins must not be confused with EXPIATION of  
sins.  Although Christ on Calvary expiated all sins of all  
men, only MANY sins and MANY sinners are forgiven.  Christ by  
Ms Passion set up the cause by which all sins CAN be forgiven  
or COULD HAVE BEEN forgiven (cf. St. Thomas, Summa Th., III,  
Q. 49, Art. 2); but ACTUAL FORGIVENESS of all sins, past,  
present and future, most assuredly was not brought about  
thereby.  Had His Passion accomplished this, then there would  
be no Hell and no Sacrament of Penance.  
    Even during His lifetime Jesus forgave the sins of many,  
but not of all.  He forgave Mary Magdalen, but what of  
Herodias?  No evidence at all exists that He forgave the thief  
crucified at His left, whereas without a doubt He justified  
St. Dismas at His right.  Peter who denied Him was forgiven;  
but Judas who betrayed Him?  In fine, as everyone knows, only  
those "MANY" who have CONTRITION for their sins are forgiven.  
     Those malefactors who have tampered with Our Lord's words  
have, of course, disdained all these elementary but vital  
theological distinctions just discussed.  They have attempted  
to wed in one and the same phrase the words "all men"  
(sufficiency) with the FORGIVENESS OF SINS doctrine, which in  
actuality is related only to the aspect of efficacy.  The  
proper, ancient form for consecrating the wine, using Our  
Lord's own words, refers to the ACTUAL forgiveness of sins:  
"This is ... My Blood ... which shall be shed for you and for  
many UNTO THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS."  
     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 HERESY.  
     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."  
     To illustrate just once more how confused one can get by  
ignoring these elementary theological distinctions, let us  
consider one final item from the column of Monsignor Bandas.   
He presents several examples of Mass prayers which purportedly  
lend "liturgical" support to his claims in defense of the    
use of the Words "for all men."  One such example of his is:  
"Lamb of God Who TAKEST AWAY THE SINS OF THE WORLD."  Now just  
exactly how this is supposed to constitute "evidence" that  
"all men" may replace "many" in the consecration form escapes  
me.  These are the words of St. John the Baptist, announcing  
that Christ is the Sacrificial Lamb Who will REDEEM the world.   
The consecration form concerns the FORGIVENESS of the sins of  
many, while "takest away the sins of the WorId" means EXPIATE  
the sins of the world.  Indeed, the phrase, "Lamb of God who  
FORGIVEST the sins of the world" could be construed as heresy.   
And for this very reason it seems a likely candidate for  
incorporation into future versions of "English masses."  
  
                              Patrick Henry Omlor  
                              Menlo Park, California  
                              February 11, 1969  
                              Feast of Our Lady of Lourdes  
  
  
                                EPILOGUE  
  
     The author of this book has invited me to add a few words  
by way of "Epilogue" to this new, enlarged third edition.  But  
indeed, what is there to add?  Certainly, in the way of  
argumentation and evidence there is virtually nothing I can  
add.  As the Latin proverb says, Qui nimis probat, nihil  
probat ("he who proves too much proves nothing").  Therefore I  
will utilize this space allotted me to make but an  
observation, a suggestion, a reaffirmation and a supplication.  
     The observation is this: It should be pointed out that  
the ENGLISH versions of the three "new canons" (the  
"Anaphoras" introduced in the United States in January, 1969)  
all have the same mutilated consecration "form" as the  
original English "canon" (introduced in October, 1967): FOR  
ALL MEN SO THAT SINS MAY BE FORGIVEN.  Consequently all the  
facts, arguments and evidence in this present monograph also  
apply with equal force against these three recently-introduced  
"English Canons."  
     Secondly, my suggestion is that the readers of this  
Monograph restudy it carefully, particularly the key, critical  
issues raised in Part 12.  More and more it should become  
apparent that the essential concept of the Mystical Body is  
NOT signified in the words "for all men."  It is undisputed  
that "THE REALITY" of a sacrament must be signified in the  
sacrament, and it must be signified CHIEFLY by the words of  
the form.  If this signification should be deleted, then the  
sacrament CANNOT signify properly and it CANNOT be valid.  
   "THE REALITY" of the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist, being  
the union of the Mystical Body, is signified in these words:  
"FOR YOU AND FOR MANY."  As St. Thomas says, "Now, in the  
celebration of this sacrament words are used to signify ...  
things pertaining to Christ's Mystical Body, which is  
signified therein."  (Summa Th., III, Q. 83, Art. 5)  And  
elsewhere, citing the authority of St. Augustine, the same  
Angelic Doctor states: "In the Sacrament of the Altar, two  
things are signified, viz, Christ's true Body, and Christ's  
Mystical Body;" as St. Augustine says (Liber Sent. Prosper)  
(op. cit., Q. 60, Art. 3)  As was clearly demonstrated earlier  
in this monograph, "all men" are not members of Christ's  
Mystical Body, and hence these very words ALL MEN are contrary  
to the concept of the Mystical Body.  
     My reaffirmation is in regard to what I wrote (about a  
year ago) in the Foreword of this book.  My conviction about  
the probable invalidity of these "English masses" has but  
grown stronger with each succeeding month.  I cannot use a  
more forceful word than "probable," for no mortal (save by  
virtue of a private revelation) can say with CATEGORICAL  
CERTAINTY whether they are valid or not.  Yet the evidence  
indicates that the degree of probability in this case is  
extremely high and could conceivably lead to practical  
certainty.  GOD ALONE knows precisely whether we are now  
entering those times spoken of by Abbe Charles Arminjon in  
1881, citing the prophecy of Daniel:  
  
          "Daniel, speaking of the signs which will  
          announce the end of the justice of God and  
          the fall of kingdoms, ... tells us: `You  
          will recognize the great calamities are  
          near, when you will see the abomination of  
          desolation in the holy place and when the  
          perpetual sacrifice will cease.'  At the  
          time of the final desolation, there will  
          be a certain period then the unbloody  
          sacrifice will no longer be celebrated  
          over the entire extension of the earth.  
          Then there will no longer be a mediator  
          between the justice of God and man.  The  
          crimes and blasphemy will no longer have  
          a counterbalance; this will be the  
          moment when the skies will be filled  
          like a tent which no longer has a  
          traveler to shelter."  
          (From Conference Eight)  
  
     Although it is true that God alone knows, it is also true   
that He has given each of us an intellect with which to  
reason.  And not one scintilla of evidence or proof of the  
validity of the changed, mutilated "form" has been thus far  
advanced to oppose and counterbalance the mountain of still  
unrefuted evidence that it is invalid.  Finally, in all  
honesty, since the "new words" are so patently contrary to the  
words of Christ as found in Scripture, in 2000 years of  
liturgical usage and in the solemnly defined Form; and since  
the "new words" likewise delete a profound mystery (the  
Mystical Body) so intimately bound up with and expressed in  
the essence of the Eucharistic Sacrifice - HOW COULD THEY  
CONCEIVABLY constitute the valid Form, and how, indeed, could  
the Innovators and their accomplices escape "the wrath of  
Almighty God, and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul,"  
invoked by St. Pius V on anyone who would ever have the  
audacity to change the Roman Missal or the Holy Mass, let  
alone tamper with its very heart and essence, the Canon and  
Consecration?  
     "Take away the Mass: take away the Church" (tolle missam,  
tolle ecclesiam) has ever been the program of the Ancient  
Enemy.  As more and more clearly we recognize that the MASS is  
the heart at which Christ's present-day crucifiers aim, we  
should likewise realize that the Heart of the solution is  
MARY.  In the midst of the present almost UNIVERSAL APOSTASY  
foretold by Pope St. Pius X, the key to our perseverance  
in the days ahead is the Ever Virgin MARY and in our living in  
absolute consecration to her Immaculate Heart.  Thus, finally,  
my supplication is to her, our "sole refuge" and our last and  
"final weapon!"  REGNET JESUS PER REGNUM MARIAE!  
  
                                   Rev.  Lawrence S. Brey  
                                   February 19, 1969  
                                   Ash Wednesday  

• Main Page Back To Main Page
• E-Mail Discussion List

Copyright © 1997 -1999