During his second day in Poland, the Holy Father reiterated the need to be loyal to Sacred Scripture and be on guard against "interpretations that even take away the meaning of the Scripture, such as the interpretations promoted by some present literature and by individualist philosophies." His words in his homily at Pelplin, Poland coincided with Sunday's second reading from Paul to the Corinthians. We're speaking of the "interpretation" ICEL uses to refer to bread - as in the Bread of Life - as in the Holy Eucharist. What profound word did those brilliant scholars find to portray the meaning? Why "loaf" of course!!! Me thinks they've been loafing when it comes to truly studying the essence of the Word. How else do you justify the Douay Rheims and Catholic Confraternity translation of the following Scriptural passage from 1 Corinthians 10: 17 from "Because the bread is one, we though many, are one body, all of us who partake of the one bread" to "Because the loaf of bread is one, we, though many, are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf." Why do they need to change the whole context with the word loaf? Did they think the young wouldn't understand the concept of the Holy Eucharist and therefore needed to be reminded with their own cultural process of yeast? Loaf conjures up leavened bread and the loaves and fishes, not the Holy Viaticum. The Sacred Host must be unleavened. But good ol' ICEL figures it's time to praise the Lord and pass the Wonder Bread! One has to really wonder who is buttering up who at ICEL.
This organization called the International Committee for English in the Liturgy is one of the bad fruits of the "spirit of Vatican II" which has diluted and often changed the meaning of the Word and consequently confused the faithful while serving as a hearing board for the dissident groups within the Church. Notice we said "bad fruits" and that follows with what Jesus said in Matthew 7: 18, "A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Therefore, by their fruits you will know them." What we are stating is that the Second Vatican Council was of the Holy Spirit and can bear only good fruit. However, the "spirit of Vatican II" was not of the Spirit but rather His adversary known as lucifer and can bear only bad fruit. This has abundantly been proven over the past thirty years. What is meant by "spirit of Vatican II?" It means those who didn't get their way at the Council decided to take matters into their own hands and formulate a new liturgy and new rules, so to speak. They took advantage of the confusion and vast changes proposed after the Council in 1965 to include their own agendas under the guise that it came from the Council Fathers. When one researches and reads the Vatican II documents one can see 90% of the changes were not advocated by them but snuck in by unofficial sources that managed to get themselves "officialized" by liberal elements within the Church, headed by many bishops who railroaded drastic changes that have, to put it in the most basic of terms, protestantized the Roman Catholic Church.
Many say the confusion and chaos happened when the Mass was translated into English. They maintain that had we kept Latin these changes would never have taken place. That could be true but don't forget we had Latin Masses and the same teachings of the Church during the pontificate of Pope Alexander VI who spanned the fifteenth and sixteenth century and who was probably the most immoral pope in the history of the popes. The most accurate description of this Borgia pope was that he was the Bill Clinton of his time and because of Alexander's moral laxity the serpent of enlightenment and Protestantism slithered in. So to say the lack of Latin is the culprit wouldn't be fair. Besides, if one looks at the original Novus Ordo the meaning of the Mass was not changed. But the overused word coined by Pope John XXIII "aggiornamento," which is Italian for "renewal or revitalization," created a monster. Four hundred years after the Council of Trent decreed on December 4, 1563 that the Liturgy for the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass in Latin would be said "in perpetuity" a New Mass was instituted, called the Novus Ordo. This and subsequent changes that went into effect, in effect went against what Pope Saint Pius V perpetuated in his papal encyclical "Quo Primum" on July 14, 1570 in which the holy Pontiff published the final findings of an exhaustive study of archives of the Church assigned by the Tridentine Fathers of the Council in providing and "Preserving incorrupt the public worship of the Church" and "relating to the said sacred rites, thus restored the Missal itself to the pristine form and rite of the holy Fathers."
The most perplexing question in the whole aftermath of Vatican II has to be the validity of Pius V's encyclical for according to his words, and he is a saint and spoke these words as the holy pontiff at the time, that "in order that all everywhere may adopt and observe what has been delivered to them by the Holy Roman Church, Mother and Mistress of the other churches, it shall be unlawful henceforth and forever throughout the Christian world to sing or to read Masses according to any formula other than that of this Missal published by Us." Note, the Pope said" forever! That didn't mean until a Council decides something better comes along. Forever means just that, especially when it comes from the Vicar of Christ who is the living representative of the Alpha and Omega Himself - Jesus Christ. Confused? We have to admit we are, too. Numerous times in St. Pius V's landmark encyclical he used the word "to be said in perpetuity" which only reconfirms the "forever" aspect.
We have to admit even more consternation when we see the shifting of the liturgy to the Protestant flavor. This is especially true of the Lord's Prayer. In the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy that Pope Paul VI promulgated on December 4, 1963 the Novus Ordo released was merely a direct translation of the Latin Mass approved in "perpetuity" by St. Pius V. Pope Paul VI's approval was not a change from Pius' directive but merely a translation into the vernacular of the Mass approved by Trent. Yet it all went downhill from there. As an example, the Our Father in the Novus Ordo was not changed a bit. It ended with the priest breaking the Bread at the Libera Nos after the people finished "...but deliver us from evil." Nowhere, we repeat, nowhere was there the Protestant-created refrain "For the kingdom, the power, and the glory are Yours, now and forever." That was another invention of ICEL as was the change of the Domine, non sum dignus which is taken from the prayer of the centurion in Matthew 8: 8, "Lord, I am not worthy that You should come under my roof. Say but the word and my soul shall be healed." Somewhere along the way "anima mea" - "my soul" was eliminated as was roof, and shortened to "Lord, I am not worthy to receive you, but only say the word and I shall be healed." Not only that, but we only say it once whereas in the original Novus Ordo it was intended to be said three times as is the Agnus Dei. Speaking of the Agnus Dei, some of the faithful have been taught to say "Who takes away the sin of the world." Wrong. It is and always will be be peccata mundi translated to mean "sins of the world."
There are many other changes, some more subtle than others. But two of the most obvious were the "bookends" of the Holy Sacrifice with the elimination of Psalm 42 Introibo ad altare Dei at the beginning
of the Mass and the elimination of the Last Gospel of Saint John. Possibly one of the most devastating eliminations that allowed satan to penetrate the sanctuary, as Pope Paul VI attested to on his deathbed, was the disappearance of the powerful prayers ordered by Pope Leo XIII that included the "Salve Regina" or "Hail, Holy Queen" prayer and the Prayer of Saint Michael which was composed by Leo himself and which was to be prayed specifically for protection against the devil. Yet, for reasons we will never understand and which touch only the tip of the iceberg in respect to the infiltration of the Church by evil men, this powerful prayer was eliminated thus freeing satan and his evil spirits to "prowl about the world seeking the ruin of souls." Poor Leo must be turning over in his grave as the man with the pitchfork rejoices at the rotten fruit being harvested for the phyrric victory before he finally will be chained by link that binds - the Holy Rosary. That is why those prayer groups who continue to pray the St. Michael Prayer after each Mass followed with recitation of the Rosary help balance the apathy in the rest of the Church regarding satan's influence. Leo had intended to remind everyone of the devil's existence with his well-phrased words, but beelzebub has succeeded in pulling off the greatest deception of this century: that he doesn't exist. We're here to tell you he does and he's right under our noses. Leo knew this, Pius V knew this and John Paul II knows this. Paul VI realized it after it was too late and John XXIII, bless his soul, quite possibly never realized it for if he had, he quite possibly would never have published his motu proprio "Approprinquante concilio" in which he opened the Council to too many periti or experts, some of whom could rightfully be called spies for the opposition. Whatever happened from that moment on January 25, 1959 when John XXIII made the announcement at St. Paul's Outside-the-walls in Rome until today remains a mystery but we can tell you one thing, in light of the aftermath of Vatican II and the confusion and changes wrought, we are no aficionado of aggiornamento!