permission to reprint this
defining work has been granted by
Father James F. Wathen, O.S.J.
E-mail       Print
Chapter Five


Part One

    Here I can do no better than quote at some length the redoubtable Abbe Georges de Nantes, writing in the June, 1970, issue of his The Catholic Counter-Reformation. After this quotation, I will summarize the most important points in his disclosure.

       I have here under my eyes, the photocopies kindly supplied to a friend from the Bishop's House at Nancy (France), and guaranteed to conform to the originals by Chancellor Dautrey, on the date of 13th May, 1970, and under the seal of this Bishopric.

       In this document, Pope Paul VI cites his reform of the Mass within the continuity of the liturgical restoration of Pius XII and presents the new Ordo as a "revision" and an "enrichment" of the Roman Missa; and also as a "new arrangement of texts and rites, in such a way that they express more clearly the holy things which they signify."

       "The major innovation," according to his expression, is the introduction of new Canons (the Pope uses the word: Statuimus) which are presented as ancient, though they are in fact very modern; and the modification of the formula of Consecration itself, on the pretext of making them all identical: Jussimus… The term" mysterium fidei" is left out and placed within the context of an "acclamation", where it loses its original and full meaning. This rejection represents the work of very sinister influences.

       The innovations which are referred to as minor, are concerned with simplification, suppression, or restoration of prayers and rites, the changing round of the order of readings, and the very considerable modifications of the liturgical calendar.

       The Pope then makes his concluding remarks-but here we must make a distinction between the Latin text and its so-called French translation. (Tr's note-the relevant passages of the English text, as published in the English edition of Oss. Rom. 8th May, 1969, are identical with the French and have been used here.) The Latin text, the photocopy of the original text printed on the Vatican printing press and dated June, has two paragraphs here. The French text, photocopied from Documentation Catholique, in which it is quoted as a translation emanating from the Vatican Press Bureau, contains three, the second of which is an invention pure and simple. (Author's italics). It does not exist in the Latin text, which alone is the authoritative one…

       In the first paragraph of this conclusion of his discourse the Holy Father expresses his hope that the new Missal will be received by all as a sign and instrument of unity: "confidimus." It is through an unheard-of act of violence-abuse No. 1-that the "Press Bureau" (?) invented the false translation, which I am now going to read out to you: "In conclusion, we wish to give the force of law to all that we have set forth concerning the new Roman Missal." This conclusion, with its formally legislative tone, is a fabrication, inserted in the place where the Pope had merely written, according to the faithful translation made by Abbe Dulac: "Concerning all that we have just set forth regarding the new Roman Missal, We are pleased here to end by drawing a conclusion." And this conclusion refers to the confidence that all will find again in this Missal their mutual unity. Whoever has transformed this "confidence" into a "Law" has lied (Author's italics).

       Having made such a good start, and while they were about it, they invented a second paragraph which does not exist at all in the original Latin text, as photocopied by your Bishop's House, which I have here under my eyes. (Again the English text is identical with the French-Tr's note.) Here then is the fraud: "We order that the prescriptions of this Constitution go into effect November 30th of this year, the first Sunday of Advent." This is the essence of the text and it is a forgery. (Author's italics).

       The last paragraph, if you read it as the third in the French or Italian (or English) text, does indeed give the impression of wishing to impose an obligation even if the subject-matter, and the precise extent, of this obligation are left indeterminate. This is what it says: "We wish that these our decrees and prescriptions may be firm and effective now and in the future, notwithstanding, to the extent necessary, the apostolic constitutions and ordinances issued by our predecessors, and other prescriptions, even those deserving particular mention and derogation." Read in the context of the original Latin text, that is to say, freed from the encumbrance of the two forged texts preceding it, these simple words cannot be placed in comparison with detailed instructions and concessions, firm, and intended to last in perpetuity. Here we have a simple statement of the wishes of Paul VI, a directive bereft of any indication that would imply a strict obligation, and one which is not accompanied by any threat of sanctions. The definite obligation of having to follow the new Ordo, which is supposedly contained in the Apostolic Constitution, springs therefore from two sentences, of which the one is an invention pure and simple and the other one contains a manifest mistranslation of the authentic text. The forged text issued by the "Press Bureau" imposes an obligation: that is as much as to say that the true text imposes nothing of the kind. That was the thing to be proved! The Constitution Missale Romanum, in its authentic Latin text, does not impose an obligation. Paul VI does not impose an obligation to follow his Ordo Missae!

       However, a communication I received yesterday made me think that Msgr. Pirolley (the Bishop of Nancy), though himself deceived in the first place, has now been put on his guard. I have here a second photo-copy, handed out from (the) Bishop's House to another member of the diocese, of the famous text of the Pope's which is obliging the whole world to follow his new Mass. Well - they had more sense this time and, with the help of paste and scissors, they have produced a photocopy, in both Latin and French, of the last of these paragraphs alone - the two preceding ones have disappeared! We may well quote La Rochefoucauld when he said that "hypocrisy was (sic) a compliment paid by vice to virtue" Here is (the) Bishop's House at Nancy tacitly acknowledging the crime committed in Rome! This is a memorable date indeed!

       …There is nothing that can validly annul the Bull of St. Pius V. Paul Vi, in his Constitution, does not formally abrogate it, (Author's italics) and if he takes the risk, together with those who embrace his reform, of incurring the wrath of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, we still have to admit that he is not obliging anyone to follow him into this peril. He does no more than to express a simple and indefinite wish, together with the hope that all may find spontaneously a common unity in the practice of the new reformed form of worship." 60

      60. The Catholic Counter-Reformation in the XXth Century. No. 5, June, 1970. R. P. Georges de Nantes, Editor. Maison Saint-Joseph-10 Saint-Patres-les-Vaudes, France. Pp. 9-10.

    I am aware that the above quotation is difficult reading. The information it contains, however, has more than just historic significance, so it must be shown as clearly as possible what the passage says.

    On the 3rd of April, 1969, the Pope presented his "New Missal." The Apostolic Constitution, Missale Romanum is the text of the address he gave on that occasion. It has the same relationship to the "Novus Ordo Missae" as the Quo Primum has to St. Pius V's Missale Romanum. What I intend doing is first show the complete Latin text of the crucial conclusory paragraphs of the decree, then point out the sentence which was deliberately mistranslated, and finally indicate the fabricated insertion. You will see what remains of the "decree."

Next Thursday: Chapter Five - part two The Apostolic Constitution of Pope Paul VI, Missale Romanum

For installments to date, see Archives of The Great Sacrilege

See INTRODUCTION for an explanation of this work.

by Fr. James F. Wathen, O.S.J.
Return to Homeport