Observations on how square pegs cannot fit round holes though John Paul II tried his darndest in his latest encycical Ecclesia de Eucharistia
Any Traditional Catholic who has read Pope John Paul II's fourteenth encyclical Ecclesia de Eucharistia released on Maundy Thursday, might feel as though they have spent time in the Agony of the Garden weeping with Our Lord.
I have several observations on his encyclical both pro and con. First, I must say, this encyclical, though it leaves so much to be desired, is 40 years too late, even 25 years too late. Perhaps had Karol Wojtyla written this in 1978 millions more souls would have been saved. This encyclical, of all his writings, has come closest to adhering to the Truths and Traditions of Holy Mother Church, but only close, not fully. And therein is the problem.
He has a habit of going just so far, and then veering away from what would seem to the sensus Catholicus of the faithful to be the logical conclusion. That fundamental is missing in so many of his works. What you are begging for him to say, he stops short of stating, skirting the issue and being oh-so politically correct that he seems to bend over backwards with terminology not to offend heretics.
What comes to mind are the lyrics from the hit show and now an award-laden movie "Chicago" in which the clever, but shady lawyer expresses how it's done. Instead of the jury as in the movie, we'll use the faithful who are being hoodwinked and deceived, lulled into a false sense of security and sense, when, in truth, it makes no sense!
Give 'em the old razzle-dazzle,
An example of this is calling Protestant churches "Ecclesial Communities;" and the indefectible Holy Sacrifice of the Mass as the "Eucharistic Celebration," "Eucharistic Sacrifice," "sacrament of the paschal mystery," "breaking of the bread," "sacrament for humanity," "Eucharistic 'amazement'," "celebration of the Eucharist," etc. Yet the only time the eternal sacrifice (which was not used as a term in his encyclical) refers to the "Holy Sacrifice of the Mass" is when he references, what else? Trent! Yes, the Council of Trent in paragraph 9 of the Introduction. That, in and of itself, is a breakthrough. However, at the same time, while he dabbled in the possibility of 'going there,' of reinforcing all that Trent set in stone, including reference to the "Holy Sacrifice of the Altar" in paragraph 10, he went just so far and then swerved right back into Vatican Two-speak. Oh, it's so frustrating! But then that's just John Paul giving the ol' razzle-dazzle to the conservatives to keep them on the leash and to prevent them from looking further into what he's really saying.
In describing the most august, sacred Mystery of the confecting the bread and wine into the body and blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior we don't get to the term used for centuries - "Transubstantiation" - until paragraph 15 on page 5 in printed form. Sadly, that is the only place it is ever mentioned in the 62 paragraphs covering 18 printed pages. In between all that is more razzle-dazzle.
Before we briefly analyze the encyclical, it is important to recognize how translation, once considered so precise and meticulous has rendered the bible the Pope referenced something foreign to the Douay-Rheims version of Sacred Scriptures, of which was referred to religiously by every Pope for centuries. Today the word is changed to the whim of the translator and there are almost as many versions of the bible as saints...well, maybe not saints, especially considering the glut of men and women so quickly canonized today without benefit of true scrutiny and the Devil's Advocate. But that is another matter, another editorial. Let us focus on the confusion wrought from various translations.
In paragraph two he quotes the Gospels with the following translation: "Take this, all of you and drink from it; this is the cup of my blood, the blood of the new and everlasting covenant. It will be shed for you and for all, so that sins may be forgiven." In referencing both the Douay-Rheims and Confraternity Edition in use before Vatican II, there is NO reference to "all" - no "pro omnibus" - only "for many" - "pro multis" as is key in the words of consecration. So is this a typo, a translation by liberal ICEL operatives, or what was intended? I ask this because in paragraph 16, he quotes Matthew 26: 28 correctly, "he poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins." Which is correct?
The answer to that is that the Latin version has "pro omnibus" in place of "pro multis."
The error is repeated in English, German, Italian, Spanish, and
Portuguese. It is corrected only in the Polish version and French, viz. "pour la multitude."
Here is the Latin passage:
Deinde calicem in manus vini sustulit eisque dixit: "Accipite et bibite
omnes: hic calix novum aeternumque testamentum est in sanguine meo, qui
pro vobis funditur et pro omnibus in remissionem peccatorum" (cfr Mark 14,
24; Luke 22, 20; 1 Corinthians 11, 25). The
abbreviation cfr will not excuse this. The text reads ....dixit,
"......pro omnibus...." It would seem to be an explicit misquotation of the words of
Our Lord. More of the deception that has permeated the sacred for lo these 40 years.
This is just another case of trying to cover one lie with another. Modern Rome also does this by trying to meld the infallible Decrees of Trent with the flawed documents of Vatican II, trying to justify the latter. He cites various saints' quotations on the Holy Eucharist, who, today, would not recognize the Blessed Sacrament as it is posited in the New 'Mass' of Paul VI. I daresay every saint would refute his words if he or she realized their very inspired words were being referenced to a sacrilege, not a sacrament.
Pope Saint Pius V in his Papal Bull De Defectibus ratified the Council of Trent and reaffirmed the serious sin of omitting or changing the Form of the Sacrament at the Consecration. His precise and infallible words are the greatest challenge to Novus OrdinArians for this holy Vicar of Christ decreed in section V, Defects of the form, paragraph 20:
"Defects on the part of the form may arise if anything is missing from the complete wording required for the act of consecrating. Now the words of the Consecration, which are the form of this Sacrament, are:
HOC EST ENIM CORPUS MEUM, and HIC EST ENIM CALIX SANGUINIS MEI, NOVI ET AETERNI TESTAMENTI: MYSTERIUM FIDEI: QUI PRO VOBIS ET PRO MULTIS EFFUNDETUR IN REMISSIONEM PECCATORUM
Now, in the 21st paragraph is the kicker which no VaticantwoArian can deny or rationalize. Pius states clearly and definitely:
"If the priest were to shorten or change the form of the consecration of the Body and the Blood, so that in the change of wording the words did not mean the same thing, he would not be achieving a valid Sacrament. If, on the other hand, he were to add or take away anything which did not change the meaning, the Sacrament would be valid, but he would be committing a grave sin.
One might offer the objection that the changes were "authorized" by Paul VI and Vatican II and therefore what a holy Sovereign Pontiff decreed no longer is valid. To that argument we offer the infallible words of Pius himself in his Apostolic Constitution Quo Primum in which he decreed:
"Let all everywhere adopt and observe what has been handed down by the Holy Roman Church, the Mother and Teacher of the other churches, and let Masses not be sung or read according to any other formula than that of this Missal published by Us. This ordinance applies henceforth, now, and forever, throughout all the provinces of the Christian world, to all patriarchs, cathedral churches, collegiate and parish churches, be they secular or religious, both of men and of women - even of military orders - and of churches or chapels without a specific congregation in which conventual Masses are sung aloud in choir or read privately in accord with the rites and customs of the Roman Church."
Yes, the emphasis is added by us to make sure all understand that "forever" means "per omnia saecula saeculorum" - not until another council or Pope come along. To further clarify for those who might not think he meant business, St. Pius concluded:
"We direct that printed copies of this same edict signed by a notary public and made official by an ecclesiastical dignitary possess the same indubitable validity everywhere and in every nation, as if Our manuscript were shown there. Therefore, no one whosoever is permitted to alter this notice of Our permission, statute, ordinance, command, precept, grant, indult, declaration, will, decree, and prohibition. Should know that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul."
For those who argue that Quo Primum was "merely disciplinary" I offer Fr. Moderator's reply from the TRADITIO Traditional
Roman Catholic Internet Site:
The form of a document, strictly speaking, does not determine its authority; it is the origin of the subject matter that determines its authority. Quo Primum is not perpetually authoritative because it is a Bull, but because it carries out the work of a dogmatic council (the Council of Trent) and confirms Catholic and Apostolic Tradition in an essential matter.
The Holy Mass is not merely "disciplinary." If it were, there would be nothing stopping a pope from imposing a Black Mass on the Church. The Holy Mass, that is, the Catholic and Apostolic Mass that we call the Traditional Latin Mass, is intimately wedded to the Deposit of Faith. As a matter of fact, it is the Mass that essentially teaches us the Faith from Apostolic times. There are a few Eastern rites that are Catholic and Apostolic as well, in their original Apostolic forms.
Martin Luther put it very succinctly: "Tolle missam, tolle ecclesiam" [Destroy the Mass, and you destroy the Church]. [original emphasis] The New Order has essentially destroyed the Mass, and in the wake of that, not unexpectedly, the Church has been significantly weakened, so that all too many of the Novus Ordo clergy are engaged in crime, heresy, and sacrilege, and many former Catholics have apostatized from the true Faith. Catholic and Apostolic doctrine has become so confused that a high-ranking cardinal (Ratzinger) has recently taught the startling heresy that Our Lord Jesus Christ is not the Messias.
No, the idea that the Holy Mass is merely "disciplinary" was condemned in its essence as the heresy of Modernism by Pope Pius IX and Pope St. Pius X, as well as their successors through John XXIII (www.traditio.com).
Sadly, though John Paul II references several holy Doctors of the Church including St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Teresa, St. John Chrysostom, and St. Alphonsus Liguori, as well as St. Ignatius of Antioch and St. Cyprian, but he makes no reference to St. Pius V or the Holy Doctors St. Robert Bellarmine and Saint Peter Canisius, contributing authors of the infallible Dogmatic Council of Trent.
Give 'em the old hocus-pocus
Bead and feather 'em.
How can they see with sequins in their eyes?
In paragraph 5 on "Mysterium fidei" John Paul writes: "When the priest recites or chants these words, all present acclaim: "We announce your death, O Lord, and we proclaim your resurrection, until you come in glory." First of all, you might not realize the pronoun is referring to the Divine because the VaticantwoArians have suppressed capitalizing all pronouns when referencing any of the Persons of the Trinity whereas in the past the Popes and saints went to great length to capitalize personal pronouns referring to the Almighty. I might add that another cherished tradition of past Pontiffs is sorely missing today and that is of the Apostolic "We" or "Us" that John Paul has totally abandoned and uses "I". Read the past decrees we have available at www.DailyCatholic.org/credo.htm and see for yourself.
Secondly, in referring to the priest reciting or chanting those words that contradicts St. Pius V's mandate that Mysterium fidei be said within the context of the words HIC EST ENIM... and to remove it, as mentioned above, is to bastardize the Holy Sacrifice.
Thirdly, those who "proclaim" the words "until you come in glory" are missing the fact that Jesus is already present - or supposed to be if confected correctly - in the Blessed Sacrament and to say we can't wait until you come when He's already there is an insult to the Lord. He refers to this again in paragraph 18. But then that's part of the 'bead and feather 'em' choreography so prevalent in the Novus Ordo services where something is always going on so that the faithful have no time to contemplate on Christ on the altar because, first of all, there is no altar any more - only a table. Secondly, how can they see the glory of the True Mystery in the eyes of their soul and believe through faith if there are so many distractions and 'sequins' that blind and lead to destruction of the Faith?
In paragraph 8, he reminisces about his experiences in celebrating Holy Mass. He begins with his parish church in Niegowic, Poland when "Holy Mass" was holy for it was the Tridentine Mass. And just when you think he's going to lean toward orthodoxy, he placates New Agers with the description of the Eucharist as having a "cosmic character. Yes, cosmic!" Then he transcends toward traditional thought with the only reference to the "Holy Sacrifice of the Mass" in conjunction with the Sacred Dogmatic Council of Trent. In fact he asks, "How can we not admire the doctrinal expositions of the Decrees on the Most Holy Eucharist and on the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass promulgated by the Council of Trent? For centuries those Decrees guided theology and catechesis, and they are still a dogmatic reference-point for the continual renewal and growth of God's People in faith and in love for the Eucharist." Our question is 'How can we not adhere to the doctrinal expositions of the Decrees on the Most Holy Eucharist and on the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass promulgated by the Council of Trent?' According to the Decrees of Trent they are not only still a dogmatic reference-point' but always the final definitive dogmatic reference-point! This was further enriched by the First Vatican Council and glossed over at Vatican II when the intended ambiguous, razzle-dazzle terminology of rationalism and relativism replaced the absolutes of Dogma and Doctrine, giving rise to a liberal interpretation that has evolved into ecumaniacal Modernism. Another question we might ask is that if John Paul II is so enamored by those Decrees which guided theology and catechesis, why hasn't he followed Trent as he is mandated to do by the Solemn Papal Oath which every Sovereign Pontiff is supposed to take and has (except for John Paul I and his successor) for the past 1300 years, which reads in whole:
"I vow to change nothing of the received Tradition, and nothing thereof I have found before me guarded by my God-pleasing predecessors, to encroach upon, to alter, or to permit any innovation therein;
To the contrary: with glowing affection as her truly faithful student and successor, to safeguard reverently the passed-on good, with my whole strength and utmost effort;
To cleanse all that is in contradiction to the canonical order, should such appear; to guard the Holy Canons and Decrees of our Popes as if they were the divine ordinance of Heaven, because I am conscious of Thee, whose place I take through the Grace of God, whose Vicarship I possess with Thy support, being subject to severest accounting before Thy Divine Tribunal over all that I shall confess;
I swear to God Almighty and the Savior Jesus Christ that I will keep whatever has been revealed through Christ and His Successors and whatever the first councils and my predecessors have defined and declared.
I will keep without sacrifice to itself the discipline and the rite of the Church. I will put outside the Church whoever dares to go against this oath, may it be somebody else or I.
If I should undertake to act in anything of contrary sense, or should permit that it will be executed, Thou willst not be merciful to me on the dreadful Day of Divine Justice.
"Accordingly, without exclusion, We subject to severest excommunication anyone -- be it Ourselves or be it another -- who would dare to undertake anything new in contradiction to this constituted evangelic Tradition and the purity of the orthodox Faith and the Christian religion, or would seek to change anything by his opposing efforts, or would agree with those who undertake such a blasphemous venture."
How many truly understand the significance of this solemn oath? The fact that the Pope himself must declare as anathema anyone who would dare go against this oath no matter who - even himself and submit to the "severest excommunication" anyone who dare to undertake anything new in contradiction to this constituted evangelic Tradition and the purity of the orthodox Faith and the Christian religion, or would seek to change anything by his opposing efforts, or would agree with those who undertake such a blasphemous venture." Isn't it interesting that the one who adhered totally to this solemn oath though he was never Pope was excommunicated? I am, of course referring to Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre who will forever and rightly remain the albatross to John Paul II's 25-year regime. Folks, I'm going to call a spade a spade: the wrong man was censured. According to the Solemn Papal Oath you would have to agree if you are truly Roman Catholic and subscribe to the fact this oath is made before God.
With that in mind the question must also be asked if suppressing the Holy Mass mandated by Trent and St. Pius V as valid forever is not changing the received Tradition? Note where it says "to encroach upon, to alter, or to permit innovation therein." There has been nothing but innovation when it comes to the Eucharistic celebration, as he calls it, and so much has been altered that two of the Popes he references - Pope Leo XIII and Pius XII would in no way recognize the modern Novus Ordo "Mass" as the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. So cleverly he slips in Paul VI with those two orthodox Pontiffs in order to condone all that Giovanni Montini wrought which was the wreckovation of the eternal sacrifice in issuing on April 3, 1969 his own Missale Romanum - the "abomination of desolation" as Christ foretold in Matthew 24: 15. But again with so much 'sand in their eyes' how can today's indifferent, dazed and dumbed-down 'feathered' NOstriches see?
After beading and feathering the reader with these niceties of Tridentine thought he reverts back to the very documents of Vatican II that opened the Pandora's Box for veering from the True Faith - Lumen Gentium and Sacrosanctum Concilium, to name just a few.
He rightfully expresses the importance of Eucharistic Adoration in paragraph 10 and again in paragraph 25 of Chapter Two, "The Eucharist Builds the Church." But he credits not the Essence of the Eucharist for this but the liturgical reform inaugurated by the Council in effecting a "more conscious, active and fruitful participation in the Holy Sacrifice of the Altar on the part of the faithful." Lost is the truth that this has only created more confusion, more Protestantizing and liberalizing of the liturgy, ritual and meaning. Lex orandi, lex credendi. With one stroke of the pen he could have directed that every pastor make available the Exposition of the Blessed Sacrament. But no, he just says "It is the responsibility of Pastors to encourage, also by their personal witness, the practice of Eucharistic adoration..." Yet many of these pastors and their shepherds have lapsed into indifference that they no longer believe in the true presence. Could that be the result of the wreckovation of the Holy Sacrifice? Nah.
Give 'em the old flim-flam flummox,
Fool and fracture 'em.
How can they hear the truth above the roar?
In Chapter One, "The Mystery of Faith" paragraph 12 he reverts back to the Mass as a Eucharistic Sacrifice. Why he could only mention "Holy Sacrifice of the Mass" once in over 20 pages when the subject matter is the Blessed Sacrament and which can only be confected through Transubstantiation during the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is beyond Traditional minds. John Paul cites Scripture and St. John Chrysostom in reinforcing the Dogma of the Holy Eucharist but then in the next paragraph lapses into the heresy of Lumen Gentium when he quotes that they - the faithful (buzzword: the "People of God") - "offer the divine victim to God, and offer themselves along with it." In truth, it is the priest - the alter Christus who offers the 'divine victim' - the Immolated Lamb - Christ the Son to the Father on behalf of the faithful or, as modernists are quick to term, 'assembly,' a very Protestant term. That is why the priest faced away from the people and towards the altar. With the advent of the abominable New 'Mass' the altars were stripped and torn down. This consequently necessitated the relocating of the 'holy home' of God - the Tabernacle - wherein rests the consecrated Hosts where Christ is present body and blood, soul and divinity. In lieu of the altar, a table was set up giving leeway for the assembly to invade the sanctuary and transform it from a sacrosanct zone to one of perpetual motion and commotion - the old flim-flam flummox - where there was no longer a demarcation point between the priest and laity...between the consecrated ordained one - the alter Christus - and the "we are Christs" crowd.
In paragraph 14 John Paul tries to validate the New 'Mass' by equating Trent to the Novus Ordo directives which is like trying to stuff square pegs into round holes. They don't fit. Throughout he brings up Trent more than in all of his previous encyclicals combined, but he's really only fooling the reader and fracturing them because you have two different rites - one Divinely ordained, the other man-made and concocted by those intent on destroying the meaning of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass as the architect Bishop Annibale Bugnini admitted and as has been documented by Masonic letters to their man on the inside - 'Buan' - the code name for Bugnini. His accomplice the French Jesuit Father Joseph Gelineau , an avowed Marxist priest also affirmed the intention of those who drew up this new rite, this new religion. This has been further corroborated by some of the Protestant ministers who took part in the 'Mass Destruction' in drawing up the New Order, and who have since fessed up to the motives behind the wreckovation. But it would seem it's too late, the faithful have already been fractured by indoctrination of the new religion with a new Catechism, a new Code of Canon Law, and a new liturgy all designed to purge the Holy Roman Catholic Church of her Truths and Traditions which had been guarded so faithfully up until the 'anything goes' era of the sixties.
In paragraph 20 we run into that old bugaboo Gaudium et spes, which along with Lumen Gentium serve as contradictions to Pope Pius IX's Syllabus of Errors. John Paul has become so very comfortable in spouting humanistic terms of peace, justice and solidarity. Catholic readers will notice that there is no reference to Mark 16: 15-16 in which Christ calls for conversion through Baptism. They will also notice no mention of proclaiming the Social Kingship of Christ even though the entire encyclical should be about the King of Kings present in the Mystery of the Blessed Sacrament and the importance of individual conversion for, after all, our first purpose in life is personal salvation for we will not stand with the community when we go before the Almighty Judge for our particular judgment, but stand alone and account for our stewardship in how we treated, first: GOD, and second, our neighbor. Vatican II has inverted this order placing importance of man above the Almighty, contradicting Catholic thought and doctrine.