permission to reprint this
defining work was personally granted by
Father James F. Wathen, O.S.J. in 2001.
Chapter Four

Part Three


See EDITOR'S NOTE for an explanation of this work.

  "Thou shalt not live: because thou hast spoken a lie in the Name of the Lord."
                                                              Zachary 13:3

B. Mistranslations

    It serves no purpose for anyone to try dissociating the Latin "Novus Ordo" from its vernacular versions. The "New Mass" is one unified thing, one "ball of wax," as they say. This fact can be deduced from the following evidence. 1) There is perfect correspondence between the rites of the "Novus Ordo" and the errors in the translations. 2) There is little reason to quarrel with the translations, except where the Latin retained from the "Old Mass" is concerned, which is to say, the "new" Latin is as insipid as are the translations of it. 3) For all their faultiness and angularity, the translations are not the result of ignorance but of connivery; the charlatans who produced them made sure that certain ideas were not lost in the crossover. 4) There is great consistency in the errors among the various languages.

    It was never expected that the "New Mass" would be "said" in Latin to any great extent; the very idea is contrary to the "New Religion." To obscure responsibility for the action, the mechanics of the plot required that its composition be assigned to various hands, just as its introduction had to be spread over a period of time and its imposition worked out in stages. But despite the apparent collaborate authorship of the "New Mass", it possesses an essential unity, which is easily discernible. Two most important conclusions follow from this fact: First the principal responsibility for the whole sacrilegious villainy must ultimately be attributed to the presently-reigning Supreme Pontiff. Secondly, those who imagine that they keep their hands clean of the Great Sacrilege by using the Latin of the "Novus Ordo", or even "attending" it, are deluding themselves.

    Lest anyone accuse me of giving all the perfidious foxes who have done all this mischief too much credit let me say: In carrying out the Program, there has been a good deal of bungling, and one cannot claim that they have always kept that coolheadedness and sustained that audacity which Revolutionaries are taught are most essential for the game. They have not gotten away with it yet, you know; they have done some clumsy work and set off alarms all along the way. The most conspicuous evidence of their club-footedness has been their inability to render either "new" or "old" Latin into any language to the satisfaction of even the semi-literate. One could almost say that, were it not for their fidelity to their own subversive tenets, it would not be clear whether they knew either Latin or the vernacular.

    The "reformers" have left us in their despicable Effigy but a misshapen remnant of the Traditional Catholic Mass. It is a credit to their skill as carvers that they have been able to mutilate the Mass completely and still have something with which to deceive the people. Two main artifices were employed in this butchery. One was the very liberal use of mistranslation. The other was the retention of certain "innocuous" words and ideas which we, their dupes, were accustomed to. These two tools were used simultaneously, one in each hand.

    In the "New Mass," for example, there is what is called the "Penitential Rite." Most people take this as a slightly altered form of the Confiteor, simply reduced to a comfortable brevity. Let me quote the Confiteor alongside the new "Confession."



    I confess to almighty God, to Blessed Mary ever Virgin, to blessed Michael the archangel, to blessed John the Baptist, to the holy apostles Peter and Paul, to all the saints, and to you Brethren, that I have sinned exceedingly in thought, word and deed, through my fault, through my fault, through my most grievous fault.Therefore, I beseech blessed Mary ever Virgin, blessed Michael the Archangel, blessed John the Baptist, the holy apostles Peter and Paul, all the saints, and you, Brethren, topray to the Lord our God for me.

    Server (or ministers):

    May almighty God have mercyupon thee, forgive thee thy sins, and bring thee to life everlasting.

    Celebrant: Amen.


    I confess to almighty God, toBlessed Mary ever Virgin, to blessedMichael the archangel, to blessedJohn the Baptist, to the holy apostlesPeter and Paul, to all the saints, andto you, Father, that I have sinned ex-ceedingly in thought, word and deed, through my fault, through my fault,through my most grievous fault.Therefore, I beseech blessed Mary ever Virgin, blessed Michael the arch-angel, blessed John the Baptist, the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul, all thesaints, and you, Father, to pray to the Lord our God for me.


    May almighty God have mercyupon you, forgive you your sins, andbring you to live everlasting.




    May the almighty and merciful Lordgrant you pardon, absolution andremission of our sins.





    I confess to almighty God, and to you,my brothers and sisters, that I have sinnedthrough my own fault in my thoughts and inmy words, in what I have done, and in whatI have failed to do; and I ask blessed Mary,ever virgin, all the angels and saints, and you,my brothers and sisters, to pray for me to theLord our God.


    May almighty God have mercy on us, forgiveus our sins, and bring us to everlasting life.

    People: Amen

    Now, instead of first the priest, then the people making their confession of sinfulness to God, the Blessed Mary ever Virgin, the great St. Michael, the Apostles, and all the other saints in Heaven, the emphasis has been deftly shifted. And I assure you this was not done merely for the sake of efficiency. If you know anything about the "theology" of the "New Religion," you perceive how the true nature of sin has been subtly recast. (As I said before, reflect how your children understand these things. Or, what would be better, quiz them a bit.) The brevity serves to diminish the importance of the idea of sin altogether. But it is the repetition of the phrase, "you, my brothers and sisters," which must be noted. For in the "New Religion" the evil of sin abides in its offensiveness to one's fellow man. And, to finish the thought, if an act does not hurt him, it is not sinful at all; if it helps him, it is virtue.

    Consider now these two renderings of the Gloria:

    Correct Translation

      Glory to God in the highest, and on earth Peace to men of good will. We adore Thee. We glorify Thee. We give thanks to Thee for For Thy great glory. O Lord God, heavenly King, God the Father almighty. O Lord, the only-begotten Son, Jesus Christ. O Lord God, Lamb of God, Son Of the Father. Thou who takest away the sins of the World, have mercy upon us. Thou who Takest away the sins of the world, receive Our prayer. Thou who sittest at the right Hand of the Father, have mercy upon us. For Thou only are holy, Thou only art the Lord; Thou only, O Jesus Christ, art Most high. With the Holy Ghost, + in the Glory of God the Father. Amen.

    The New Rendering

      Glory to God in the highest, and peace To his people on earth. Lord God, heavenly King, almighty God and Father, we worship you, we give youThanks, we praise you for your glory.Lord Jesus Christ, only Son of the Father. Lord God, Lamb of God, You take away the sin of the world;have mercy on us; you are seatedat the right hand of the Father: receive our prayer.For you alone are the Holy One, you Alone are the Lord, you alone are the Most High, Jesus Christ, with theHoly Spirit, in the glory of God the Father. Amen.

    If you compare these two translations, your first reaction might be: There is very little difference between them. The new rendering is shorter. Just a few words are left out. Why should anyone get excited about such minor divergences?

    But the question is, why was the correct translation not kept? There is surely nothing wrong with it. Would it not have been easier to choose an exact translation? What possible reason might have motivated the choice of a translation which is obviously inaccurate? Perhaps as we proceed, you will realize that mistranslations in the Sacred Liturgy are a more serious matter than is immediately evident.

    The reason the correct translation was not employed in the English versions of the "New Mass" is that mistranslations have uses of their own, as far as the plotters are concerned. You might even say they are absolutely necessary in the general Program.

    First of all, it was necessary from the very beginning that the translations be "a bit free." This would give the impression that exactness was not at all necessary. Thus, the renderings of certain prayers containing doctrinal and other kinds of discrepancies might be slipped in with no fuss being made. Perfect examples are ready at hand in the English translations of the Credo, another "vestige" of the True Mass, and the Consecration Form, the latter of which we will speak of further on. With regard to the Credo, contrary to the Latin sense, the first person singular was turned into the first person plural, from "I" to "we". Credo means "I believe." The original idea (and preparation) for this came no doubt from Pope Paul's Creed, pronounced most solemnly at the end of the "Year of Faith." (1967-1968). It contained "we believe" throughout. The Revolution's detestation for the individual person, with a mind and a will and an eternal destiny of his own, with a personal faith and a divinely-imposed obligation to profess it publicly and to express it in prayer, is here manifested and unmistakably indoctrinated, this by the device of one little word.

    Another purpose served by mistranslation in the "New Rite" is to make prayers in the Mass, such as the Gloria, negligible and unimportant in the minds of all, so that they can be discarded effortlessly or omitted at his whim, by the "president." Obviously if the Church does not care enough to see that its official prayers are correctly translated, it could not matter much whether they are said or not. Our "presidents" have taken the hint and now act accordingly. In the "old dispensation," it was considered at least a venial sin to omit or alter without good reason any of the prayers of the Mass. To do so as a matter of course was considered serious.

    More important than such considerations as these is the immediate and obvious one that here is a falsity in the most holy Action in which men may have a share, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Here of all places is a shameless violation of the virtue, of veracity, an implicit insult to God, an abuse of the trust of the people, most of whom, through no fault of their own, have no notion that such tricks are being played, they being under the quaint misapprehension that the Pope, the bishops, and their parish priests are men f honor. Even one such misrendering is cause for alarm, and the new vernacular "versions" are rife with this kind of thing, from beginning to end.

    No possible excuse can be found for such breaches as this, yet the pietistic clergy of the "New Church" cannot be bothered in the least about them. Since the first of these garblings appeared, complaints have been made to the Vatican, which has been too busy and noisy about the further steps of the Revolution to be able to hear them. If one should ask his bishop whether he has ever made an issue of this matter at one of those much publicized and very scandalous Bishops' meetings, he will blink his eyes, clear his throat, recover his aplomb, and brush off your question as if you were a neurotic and assure you that you can leave such things in his and his colleagues' capable hands: "Trust in me, my child." If you ask your parish "president" why it is that the bishops have not succeeded in finding anyone between Rome and here who can turn the simplest Latin into plain and honest English, he will be ready to give you one of a dozen stock specious arguments, all of which betray his supercilious disdain for your innocence and faint-heartedness. His large-hearted devotion rises above such trifles as this: when he "offers mass," he is "wrapped in God."

    The irony of all is that the "New Mass" was imposed on us with the excuse that "scholarship" had been able to restore the Mass to a purer, truer, and simpler form. Here is a typical example of this "scholarship"; these egg-headed savants cannot even see any difference between "peace to men of good will": and "peace to his people." I am no scholar but I know the Revolutionary connotation of such a phrase as the latter. In the language of the Revolution, "Peace" means that situation when all opposition to the "new order" has been suppressed. And the "people" are not everyone, but the Revolutionaries themselves. "Peace to his people," therefore does not mean peace of soul to those who have received the graced of Christ, nor peace to all men of good will, whether they be members of the Church or not, but "Victory for the Revolution," or "All power to the people," or "Long live the Revolution," or the like.

    I refrain here from attempting discussion of the "Liturgy of the Word" of the "Novus Ordo." It is a subject in itself. But you can easily see how, with the new mode of reading parts of the Bible over a period of years, rather than a few chosen excerpts every year (as was done formerly), the faithful will lose all familiarity with Holy Writ. They will be helpless against a progressive debauchery of the Sacred Scriptures. This is not idle speculation and needs no belabored proof. The meaning of the Scriptures has been for years undergoing a radical distortion that grows more extreme from month to month. Most people have almost no awareness at all of this calculated corruption. We shall have occasion to present a choice example of how this has been done when we come to speak of the Form of Consecration.

      • Next: Chapter Four The "New Mass" Part Four C. The Changing of the Canon

      • Previous: Chapter Four "The "Mass" - Part Two A. Expurgations

      The Great Sacrilege by Father James F. Wathen