In your defense of your new-fangled "mass," you will have to whip up a good explanation for the trends which have developed as a result of it. Such an epochal thing is the introduction of a brand new "mass," so inspired as it is said to be, one would think the whole Church would be enjoying during these days a wondrous revival of fervor, a veritable "second spring" of spiritual vitality. There should be huge ordination classes; the seminaries should be bulging with priestly aspirants; the monasteries and convents should be multiplying in every quarter; every parish church should require more, not fewer, Masses; there should be holy hours, novenas, all-night vigils, and every other devotion to the Blessed Sacrament, this in ever-increasing numbers. In view of all that was claimed for the "New Mass," and in view of how urgently and ruthlessly it was imposed upon us, we should expect the people to be attending the "New Mass" daily in great hordes. But, one cannot help observing that none of these things has happened, but the very opposite. One does not hear that priests must be granted the privilege of offering as many as four Masses on Sundays; oh no! It seems that many priests are going through what is called a "crisis of identity." Poor fellows, they don't know what they are, priests or "presidents" or "presbyters" or what. And the only thing that will get them out of the confusion is for them to get married. And, as if to avoid some kind of plague, priests are running away, leaving to get married, escaping into retirement, taking up "social work," going to prison (for a more honest form of Revolutionism than their comrades in the parishes and other places), going to mental hospitals. Due to the "New Mass," the faithful are glad enough to go and watch the tiresome Thing on Saturday to avoid having it ruin their Sunday. These trends are not really to be blamed on the "New Mass," are they, Father? Shall we blame them on the War in Vietnam? How about the "Military-Industrial Complex?"

   Will you deny that the Second Vatican Council and its deformed "Brain-child," the "New Mass," have caused a general decline in the moral tenor of the Catholic people? Worse and more symptomatic, they have been largely responsible for the near stoppage in what should be considered the natural and normal growth of the Church. This growth is measured by three statistics: the number of births in Catholic families, the number of vocations to the religious life, and the number of conversions to the Faith. Many married people no longer believe in having children; the truth is, they no longer love children. (Let me hear nothing about the number of children which fulfills the obligation of marriage; every child is a gift of God.- Ps. 126:3). Priests have nothing to convert non-believers to. Their main business is subverting believers, and keeping them subverted. Finally, those in religion do not inspire enough vocations to keep their communities alive, much less increase their numbers. In fact, those who imagine themselves called to religion are looked upon with pity by the laity, for it is certain that after a few months in the seminaries and convents, they will have become embittered rebels, and, in many cases, ferocious Revolutionaries, hating their own heritage, defiant of all authority, and an unbearable disgrace to their heart-broken parents. I do not hesitate to forbid parents from allowing their children to go to those schools of Satan where the "New Religion" is taught, though, of course, I need not mention this since at such places the True Mass is not available. This sterility is certain proof for many contention that the "New Religion" and its impious Song-and-dance are self-worship. They breed nothing but selfishness and pride and an ugly, warped, and reprobate spirit, which despises and contends against Nature and Grace.

   On the subject of the "New Mass" itself, Father, I shall expect you to clear up my tender-souled scruples over its questionable validity. But, much more, there will be the necessity of a perfect reconciliation between the "theology" of the "New Mass" and the doctrines of the Church. I have particular reference to the decrees of the Council of Trent and its outspoken Catechism. Also, it will not be too much to ask you to elucidate the hidden harmony between the "Novus Ordo" and the clarion encyclicals of Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, Humani Generis, and Mediator Dei, To my stunted brain, the "New Religion" and its insipid Side-show stand in diametric opposition to all three of these, and to the teachings generally of this Pope. You will help me, won't you, Father? But I will want to know even more than this: If I am to "say" the "New Mass," I will have to be relieved of my prejudice against its purposeful mistranslations, its Revolutionary tonalties, and its pasted-together ritual.

2. I must warm you in advance, Father, that you must not defend the "New Mass" too ardently, else you will find yourself on the horns of an unmanageable dilemma. For, the more you make of the "New Mass," the more you will embarrass Pope Paul VI, who apparently has almost no regard for it at all. It is my oft-repeated accusation that upon him is the main responsibility for the unfunny Trick which this unholy Concatenation is. Ever since its appearance, it has been the setting for the anti-religious cavortings of certain of the clergy and lay people, and the audio-visual aid for the corruption of the young. Will you be able to explain why Pope Paul has proved utterly ineffective in putting a stop to these desecrations, Father - he who has proved himself so masterful in driving the True Mass from the churches? Yes, I know, Father, you will try to tell me that the Pontiff has condemned these irreverences, has even been known to weep over them publicly. You are easily deceived, Father, They are crocodile tears; it is an act. How could he, the Father of the people, expect his children to know how to behave at the "New Mass" when its very existence is a symbol of his own disregard for the True Mass and for all tradition and law? Once he "abrogated" the laws of the Church which were enacted to establish and protect the Liturgy from abuse, how could he seriously expect his own "Liturgy" to be immune from the same treatment, or worse? Of course he did not expect it to be, and he does not really mind that it is not. And you should have noticed, Father, that Pope Paul pauses amid his tears to appoint bishops whose most conspicuous qualifications for the episcopacy are their non-descriptness, accompanied by a positive loathing for anything which faintly resembles Orthodoxy. His making these nonentities bishops is a sure way of guaranteeing what unfailingly happens: no sooner do they arrive in their new dioceses than they set about bringing ruin to whatever has survived of recognizable Catholicism. This has happened too frequently to be accidental. But I am sure you will be able to give such phenomena a less distressing interpretation when we meet. Still, it would seem a wiser thing for you to let the Pope look to his own defense, Father. You will have all you can do to justify your own infidelity.

3. Every priest who has accepted the "New Mass" has done so on the presumption of the validity of Pope Paul VI's Apostolic Constitution, Missale Romanum. Whether you have ever thought about it or not, Father, this decree is the only thing which stands between you and all the documents of the Church which concern the True Mass. These documents are ratifications of the Apostolic Constitution of Pope St. Pius V entitled Quo Primum. Therefore, such a person as yourself can justify "saying" the "New Mass" provided

a) that it does not embody a substantial change in the Mass, as the Pope and all his underlings pretend;

b) that obedience to the "decree" Missale Romanum is morally permissible;

c) that this "decree" which enacts the changes in the Mass is licit; and

d) that this "decree" is valid.

Next issue: Chapter Eight - CONCLUSION

For installments to date, see Archives of The Great Sacrilege

See INTRODUCTION for an explanation of this work.

THE GREAT SACRILEGE by Fr. James F. Wathen, O.S.J. www.DailyCatholic.org