Before all else, it must be understood that the Qui Pridie and the Form of Consecration in the True Mass are, neither singly nor taken together, a mere narration of the event of the Last Supper. The Qui Pridie is the setting and the preparation for pronouncement of the Consecration formula, as well as the prayer wherein the celebrant bears witness to the essential unity of the institution of the Sacrament with the Sacrifice of the Cross. Fr. Joseph Jungmann points out that all liturgies do the same:

It is in the very nature of the Christian liturgy of the Mass that the account Of the institution of the Blessed Sacrament should not be recited as a merely Historical record, as are other portions of the Gospels. Indeed, the words of The account are spoken over the bread and a chalice, and, in accord With Our Lord's word, are uttered precisely in order to repeat Christ's Action. This repetition, is, in fact, accomplished in all its essentials by Rehearsing the words of the account of the institution.43 (43. The Mass Of the Roman Rite-Its Origins and Development. Rev. Joseph A Jungmann, S.J. Benziger Brothers, Inc. New York, 1955 Vol. 2. p. 201).

    The Form of Consecration is not considered to be a prayer of the priest. Rather, it is the evocation of a direct and most glorious act from God Himself. Through his pronunciation of the Consecration Form, the priest's humanity and individuality become identified with the infinite power and redemptive intention of Christ on the Cross. At this point, the priest speaks as if he were Christ Himself, and Christ acts through the priest's will and words both as the Consecrator and the Oblation, the Eternal High-Priest and the Saving Victim, the supreme Mediator and the mutual Gift.

    In the Epiclesis of the True Mass (again, I remind you, this is the prayer which beings, "Qui Pridie"), the obvious emphasis is on the fact that the priest intends to do what Christ did at the Last Supper, namely, consecrate the offerings, change them into the Body and Blood of the Savior. In the "Epiclesis" of the "New Mass" the emphasis has been obviously and unmistakably shifted, even though the words used are generally the same. Here there is nothing left to indicate that the "president" is actually consecrating, or intends to. Traditional-minded Catholics presume he is doing so; perhaps he also presumes he is doing so - although, again, perhaps he does not; you cannot be certain. While everyone is doing all this presuming, what is really happening is that the "president" is merely telling what happened at the Last Supper. Nor is he telling of the transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Our Lord; he is telling of the eating and drinking of bread and wine.

    Let us look closely at the English of the "New Mass": The Latin test of the "Narratio" (in the "New Mass) has three sentences; its faulty translation has six. (Keep in mind that during a vernacular "mass," it makes no difference what the Latin has!) The simple device of dividing the text into shorter sentences not only reduces it to nothing more than a narrative, but also, changes the meaning of the words, as we shall see. The first sentence contains a reference to the suffering of Christ (the Latin words "gratias agens," let me mention in passing, do not mean "he gave…thanks and praise," but, "giving thanks"). Then the second sentence is entirely new: "He broke the bread, gave it to his disciples, and said: Take this, all of you, and eat it: this is my body which will be given up for you." Perhaps you do not see the ambiguity. In the True Mass, the priest says, "Take and eat ye all of this, FOR THIS IS MY BODY." The omission of the word, "for" (in Latin, "enim") and the stopping of the sentence with the colon, make the words this and it of the faulty translation refer to their antecedent, bread. This ambiguity does not exist in the Latin of the "Novus Ordo" because "hoc" is both neuter and singular and can refer only to the neuter, singular noun, "Corpus" ("Body").

    The identical distortion is committed in the fourth sentence with reference to the wine. This sentence reads: "Again he gave you thanks and praise, gave the cup to his disciples, and said: Take this, all of you, and drink from it: this is the cup of my blood, the blood of the new and everlasting covenant." Here again the Latin word "enim" ("for") is not translated; a colon is put in its place. The result is that the clauses of the sentence are separated completely. The words this and it refer to the wine, not to the "cup of my blood."

    Now consider how the "Narratio" in the "Novus Ordo" is printed. (We are referring to the Latin test.) The words "ACIPITE ET MANDUCATE EX HOC OMNES" ("Take this, all of you, and eat it") are given the same bold capitalization as the words of consecration, "HOC EST ENIM CORPUS MEUM," ("this is my body…"). It is the same with the words "ACCIPITE ET BIBITE EX EO OMNES:" ("Take this, all of you, and drink from it:"), as also with the words which in liturgical terms are called the Anamnesis: "HOC FACITE IN MEAM COMMEMORATIONEM." ("Do this is memory of me."). The reason for the bold and enlarged capitals is the Missale Romanum of St. Pius V is the need to separate them from the Epiclesis and the Anamnesis, and to indicate that they are the Form of Consecration. This very purpose is undeniably negated in the "Novus Ordo;" instead, and this is most important, the capitalization of the words which speak of taking and eating, taking and drinking have the double effect of fusing the words of consecration into the "Narratio," or Narration, and, at the same time, of heightening the importance of the idea of eating and drinking of-not, mind you-the Body and Blood of Christ, but of the bread and wine, which the demonstratives and pronouns logically and grammatically refer to. As we shall see when we discuss the apparently innocuous change of the words of the Anamnesis, "Haec Quotiescumque feceritis, in mei memoriam facietis" ("As often as ye shall do these things, ye shall do them in remembrance of Me") to "HOC FACITE IN MEAM COMMEMORATIONEM" ("Do this in memory of me"), the effect is the very same. And that effect is the complete eradication of the Form of Consecration.

    This typography is truly radical. Nor can it be the result of the printer's caprice or oversight; it corresponds exactly with the "wishes" of Pope Paul VI himself as he expressed them in his "decree" Missale Romanum. Allow me to quote them in their context:

However, for pastoral reasons, and in order to facilitate con- celebration, we have ordered that the words of the Lord ought to be identical in each formulary of the Canon. Thus, in each Eucharistic Prayer, we wish that the words be pronounced thus: over the bread: Accipite et manducate ex hoc omnes: Hoc est enim Corpus meum, quod pro vobis treadetur; over the chalice: Accipite et bibite ex eo omnes: Hic est enim calix Sanguinis mei novi et aeterni testamenti, qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum. Hoc facite in meam commemorationem. (The Pope's italics). (Appendix II, par. 6).

    Pope Paul says: "We have ordered that the words of the Lord ought to be, etc." How is that the Pope may order what the "words of the Lord ought to be?"

    Few seem to have noticed the two main reasons the Pope gives for so radical an alteration in the very center of the "mass," but they are there, big as life, "for pastoral reasons, and in order to facilitate concelebration." How many people know to this day what these "pastoral reasons" are, and how the complete emasculation of the Form of Consecration serves to "facilitate concelebration?" Perhaps it will help if they recall that the word "pastoral" in the code language of the Revolution means, "for the people," that is, "for the sake of the 'Renewal" or the Revolution itself." Again, the abandonment of the Form of Consecration and its reduction to a mere narrative can only be understood by realizing that, in many "concelebrated 'masses'" many of the "concelebrants," both "Catholic" and Protestant, certainly do not believe in the power of Transubstantiation. Thanks to this "slight" adjustment, they may use any of the four "Eucharistic Prayers" without the risk of such a marvel occurring.

"Mysterium Fidei"

    Have you wondered why this phrase "Mysterium Fidei" was taken from the hitherto inviolable Consecration Form of the wine? In his Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum, Pope Paul says, "The words mysterium fidei, taken from the context of the words of Christ the Lord, and said by the priest, serve as an introduction to the acclamation of the faithful." Appendix II, Par. 6). This is saying what had happened to these words, not why!

    If you ask the "play-wrights", they will tell you this phrase in the True Mass is an interruption in the narrative of the consecration of the wine by our Divine Savior. It is a break in the thought, they will say; it is not scriptural. All of a sudden, you see, they feign great scholarliness. After making a veritable shambles of the entire Liturgy of the Roman Rite through the most egregious mistranslations, silly interpolations, and needless omissions and dislocations, they have the temerity to claim that their itchy-fingered meddling is inspired by devotion to the Sacred Scriptures. Their fancied biblicism betrays them here, however, since as Fr. Jungmann points out, liturgical usage pre-dates the Scriptures, and even explains the divergencies among the various accounts of the institution of the Blessed Sacrament.

    In all the known liturgies the core of the eucharistia, and therefore of the Mass, is formed by the narrative of institution and the words of consecration. Our very first observation in this regard is the remarkable fact that the texts of the account of institution, among them in particular the most ancient (whether as handed down or as reconstructed by comparative studies), are never simply a Scripture text restated. They go back to pre-biblical tradition. Here we face an outgrowth of the fact that the Eucharist was celebrated long before the evangelists and St. Paul set out to record the Gospel story. Even the glaring discrepancies in the biblical texts themselves regarding this very point are explained by this fact. For in them we evidently find segments from the liturgical life of the first generation of Christians. 44. The Mass of the Roman Rite. Jungmann. Vol 2. pp. 194-195.

    This Supreme Sacred Congregation has learned that in a certain translation of the New Order of Holy Week into the vernacular, the words "mysterium fidei" in the form of the consecration of the chalice are omitted. It is also reported that some priests omit these words in the very celebration of Mass.

    Therefore this Supreme Congregation gives warning that it is impious (nefas) to introduce a change in so sacred a matter and to mutilate or alter editions of liturgical books. (cf. Can. 1399, 10).

    Bishops therefore, in accordance with the warning of the Holy Office of 14 February, 1958, should see to it that the prescriptions of the sacred canons on divine worship be strictly observed, and they should be closely watchful that no one dare to introduce even the slightest change in the matter and form of the Sacraments. 45. "Omission of the Words 'Mysterium Fidei' in the Consecration of the Chalice." A Monitum of the Holy Office dated July 24, 1958, Acta Apostolicae Sedis. Vol. 50, p. 536.

    If anyone adds or takes away anything (from the form of Consecration of the Body and the Blood,) even if he does not change the meaning of the form, he does confect (the Sacrament), but he sins grievously. 46. Missale Romanum. Desclee. De Defectibus, Ch. V.

    The Critique of the Roman Theologians on the "Novus Ordo" considers that there may well be a case of invalidity here. The removal of the words "mysterium fidei" may not have been as harmless as it appeared. And the argument hinges upon the fact that the forms of Consecration have been made part of the Last Supper narrative. To quote the Critique:

    The narrative mode is now underlined by the formula: "Narratio institutionis" (No. 55d), and backed up by the definition of the commeration, where it is said that "Ecclesia memoriam ipsius Christi agit." (No. 55c). (The Church acts in memory of Christ Himself.)

    In short, the theory proposed for the epiclesis, (i.e., the prayer, Qui Pridie) the modification of the words of the Consecration and of the commemoration have the effect of changing the true import of the words of Consecration. The consecration formulae are now pronounced by the priest as part of a historic narration, and no longer expresses a categorical affirmation on the part of Him in Whose Person the priest acts: "Hoc est Corpus meum" (This is my Body") (and not: "Hoc est Corpus Christi" (This is the Body of Christ.") 47. Critique. p. 13.

    The words of the Consecration, as they appear in the context of the "Novus Ordo", may be valid according to the intention of the ministering priest. But they may not be, for they are so no longer ex vi verborum (by the force of the words used) or more precisely, in virtue of the modus significandi (way of signifying) which they have had till now in the Mass. Will priests who, in the near future, have not had the traditional training and who rely on the "Novus Ordo" in order to "do what the Church does" make a valid consecration? One may be permitted to doubt it. 48. Ibid.

    Nor should that other body of erst-while celebrants be forgotten. I refer to those whose dull-witted indifference to such supernal matters as the absolute necessity of proper forms and intentions for the confection of the Sacraments (such as is manifested by their robot-like readiness to do anything, say anything, or preach anything which bears the signature of their hierarchical custodians), bespeaks a very questionable faith; or rather, suggests that they have so completely surrendered their minds and wills to their Masonic masters, that they are quite incapable of having any intention different from, or contrary to, what is programmed into them.

    In the "Novus Ordo" the intention of re-enacting the Sacrifice of the Cross in an unbloody manner is not in clear evidence. It is deliberately not in evidence because it needs to be acceptable to the innumerable priests who do not share Holy Mother Church's intentions with respect to the Mass, who do not believe in their own power of transubstantiation, nor in the need for such a power. Also, the "New Mass" had to be made acceptable to Protestant ministers, which of course it is. Many of them participate in it with joyful gusto, under the impression that finally the Roman Catholic Church has been converted to true Christianity, or at least is showing remarkable promise.

"Haec Quotiescumque..."

    It is in connection with the removal of the words "mysterium fidei" that we must inquire why the words of Christ's instruction, "As often as you shall do these things, you shall do them in memory of Me," have been changed. Notice the difference in the two Latin words which begin each of the sentences under study:

Missale Romanun: "Haec quotiescumque feceritis…." ("as often as you shall do these things….")

Novus Ordo Missae: "Hoc facite…." ("Do this….")

The "haec" is plural and means "these things," whereas "hoc" is singular and means "this." "These things" refers to all the things which Christ our Lord and the Apostles, his new priests, are doing, that is, His taking bread, giving thanks, etc., and their eating of what He calls His Body; and His taking the chalice, and the rest, and their drinking of His Precious Blood. Christ is telling them to do all "these things", to use these elements, to use these words, to eat and drink, all in memory of His eminent self-oblation for the remission of the sins of "the many."

    The singular demonstrative, "hoc" ("this"), in the "New Mass" formula cannot be taken necessarily to mean the same thing. It could easily (and more logically) refer only to what the Apostles themselves were doing, namely, eating and drinking: "Take and eat…," "take and drink…," "Do this…" You see how the idea of a mere commemorative meal could be inferred (and indeed is being inferred by young people). In the context of all the other anti-sacrificial and anti-sacramental maneuvers one finds in the "New Mass," it is impossible not to infer exactly this meaning.

    The point gains force when we remind ourselves that there can be absolutely no excuse for any ambiguity or vagueness about this matter. For if there were any such possibility, all the "reformers" would have had to do was leave things as they were! The very fact that they did not is incriminating in itself. I might add that, by the change, they were violating a tradition which goes back to the earliest period of the Roman Liturgy. As Father Jungmann says:

    The sacred account concluded with the command to repeat what Christ had done. The text is taken basically from St. Paul; however, the entire Roman tradition, from Hippolytus on, has substituted for the Pauline phrase "whenever you drink it," the phrase "whenever you do this."49. Jungmann. Op. cit. Vol.2, p. 201.

"This do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me, For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, UNTIL HE COME" (Author's emphasis) 1 Corinthians 11: 25-26

    Then the acclamation assigned to the people immediately after the Consecration ("mortem tuam annuntiamus Domine, etc., donec venias") ("We announce thy death, O Lord, etc. until thou shouldst come.") brings us to the crowning ambiguity with regard to the Real Presence, under pretext of concern about the Last Day. Without a break the expectation of Christ's second coming at the end of time is proclaimed at precisely the moment when He is actually present on the altar-as if the second coming, and not this, were the true coming. 50. Critique. p. 13.

"Pro Multis"

    It will be shed for you and for all men so that sins may be forgiven.

    It is necessary here to turn our attention to the English translation of the "Novus Ordo." Our discussion centers around the phrase "for all men." The Latin of the "Novus Ordo" corresponds with that of the Missale Romanum, as you can see in the comparative renderings given above: both have "pro multis," which even the slowest Latin student understands to mean "for many" (i.e., "for many" men, people, persons, or the equivalent). If one wishes to say "for all men" in Latin, he must say "pro omnibus."

    The question we are here discussing will remain for all time to come one of the most culpable and at the same time incredible delinquencies in the history of the Church. Incredible because it cannot be brought to give it a moment's consideration, even though it is impossible for anyone honestly to deny the error or who they are that are guilty of it, or who had the responsibility for preventing it, and who now have the responsibility for correcting it. It is so serious a question because there is every reason to believe the erroneous rendering of these two Latin words invalidates the Consecration of the wine when the vernacular "for all men" is used.

    Attention was called to this error by P. H. Omlor in March of 1968, after the English "Canon" was introduced into the Revised Rite of the Mass on October 22, 1967. 51. Questioning the Validity of the Masses Using the New, All-English Canon, Patrick Henry Omlor, Athanasius Press, 780 California Ave., Reno, Nevada 89502. 1969 (First edition: Aladextra Press. 1968). Since that time, even though the possibility of invalidity has become known around the world (hundreds of priests having steadfastly refused to use the translations, and many Catholics having discontinued attending "masses" where it is recited), no one of sufficiently great authority has taken it seriously enough to dare call for an emendation. The Pope himself has remained deaf to all complaints concerning the matter. And no theologian worthy of the title has ventured either to defend, to explain away, or to refute the argument. I put it this way, because those few who have attempted to refute the invalidity thesis have done it in such a puerile fashion, that either they were not serious theologians, or they were not serious period. Are we then forced to conclude that at present the Church has no theologians worthy of the title?

    The colossal irony of the whole affair is that the "reformers," instead of correcting the gross and altogether conspicuous error by making a few uncomplicated corrections, left it as it first erroneously appeared, and thus succeeded in doing less effectively what they obviously have in mind to do, namely, heap as much abuse and sacrilege upon the Head of Christ as one generation might be capable of. Those in power in the Church have waged a persistent, albeit futile, campaign to prove that no error has been made, and that those who let themselves be bothered by such trifles are "sick in the head." The sycophantic gymnastics which have been attempted by some who imagine themselves defenders of Catholic Orthodoxy, in an effort to justify this intolerable falsity, have contributed greatly to its continuance. After viewing the shameful spectacle from its beginning, one can only conclude that the whole Catholic people is in the thrall of some psychodelic miasma whereby they are invulnerable to the imperatives of simple and objective truth, inviolable law, the Divine will, and basic honesty.

    The argument against "for all men" is this: the rendering of pro multis as for all men is by no means a minor discrepancy. It is a most serious mutilation of the meaning of the words of Consecration of the wine at least (possibly of both the bread and the wine 52. If the Consecration of the wine is invalid, is the Consecration of the bread invalid also? This is a perfectly legitimate question for theologians to discuss. The Church has made no final pronouncement on the matter. A number of factors would enter into the discussion. We do not intend to become involved in the argument here, since our main concern is with the morality and the liceity of the "New Mass". The law of the Church requires that no one allow himself to get into situations of doubt in such sacred matters as these. To do so deliberately, even once, is a serious sin.) in all the countless "masses" in which the error is expressed. Hence, if the pronouncements of the Church are to be taken literally, apart from all the other faults which can be found with the "Novus Ordo", despite the best intentions of the sincerest priests in the world, and in spite of the guileless fervor of the lay people in attendance, no sacrifice of any kind is being offered (unless it be to Baal, the god of the "New Religion"). "Then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain" (1 Cor. 15:14). The reason is, the Form of Consecration has been vitiated and nullified. In mistranslating these few words (again, to say nothing of other irregularities), these arrogant "improvers" have altered the Form essentially, so that the supposed all-important effect does not come about.

    According to the Missale Romanum,

    Wherefore the words of Consecration, which are the Form of this Sacrament, are these: Hoc est enim Corpus meum; and Hoc est enim Calix Sanguinis mei, novi et aeterni testamenti: mysterium fidei: qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur in Remissionem peccatorum (For this is my Body; and: For this is the Chalice of my Blood, of the new and eternal testament: the mystery of faith: which shall be shed for you and for many unto the remission of sins)…If anyone removes or changes anything in the Form of Consecration of the Body and Blood, and by this change of words does not signify the same thing as these words do, he does not confect the Sacrament. 53. Missale Romanum. Desclee, De Defectibus. Ch. V, Par. 1.

    In explanation of the necessity of the words of this Form, the Catechism of the Council of Trent says:

    The additional words for you and for many, are taken, some from Matthew (26:28), some from Luke (22:20), but were joined together by the Catholic Church under the guidance of the Spirit of God. They serve to declare the fruit and advantage of His Passion. For if we look to its value, we must confess that the Redeemer shed His blood for the salvation of all; but if we look to the fruit which mankind have received from it, we shall easily find that it pertains not unto all, but to many of the human race. When therefore (our Lord) said: For you, He meant either those who were present, or those chosen from among the Jewish people, such as were, with the exception of Judas, the disciples with whom He was speaking. When He added, And for many, He wished to be understood to mean the remainder of the elect from among the Jews or Gentiles. With reason, therefore, were the words for all not used, as in this place the fruits of the Passion are alone spoken of, and to the elect only did His Passion bring the fruit of salvation. And this is the purport of the Apostle when he says: "Christ was offered once to exhaust the sins of many" (Heb. 9:28); and also of the words of Our Lord in John: "I pray for them, I pray not for the world, but for them whom thou hast given me, because they are Thine" (John 17: 9) 54. Catechism of the Council of Trent, John A. McHugh & Charles J. Callan. Joseph F. Wagner, Inc. New York, 1934. pp. 227-28.

    The words Pro vobis et pro multis ("For you and for many") are used to distinguish the virtue of the blood of Christ from its fruits: for the blood of our Savior is of sufficient value to save all men but its fruits are applicable only to a certain number and not to all, and this is their own fault. Or, as the theologians say, this precious blood is (in itself) sufficiently (sufficienter) able to save all men, but (on our part) effectually (effcaciter) it does not save all-it saves only those who co-operate with grace. This is the explanation of St. Thomas, as quoted by Benedict XIV. 55. Treatise on the Holy Eucharist. St. Alphonsus Liguori. Quoted in Questioning the Validity of the Masses Using the New, All-English Canon. Patrick Henry Omlor. Athanasius Press. Reno, Nevada. 1969. p. 60 Par. 123.

    It so happens that the translation of the English of the "mass" was produced by a crowd who called themselves the International Committee on English in the Liturgy (ICEL). Their justification for translating pro multis as "for all men" derives from the curious researches of a rationalist Scripture "scholar" whose name is Joachim Jeremias of the University of Gottingen (Germany). This man's recondite pontification has it that for lo, these two thousand years, the words of Our Lord at the Last Supper have been misrepresented! And who do you think did the misrepresenting? Why, St. Matthew and St. Mark, who else? Quoting Dr. Jeremias, ICEL explains:

    Neither Hebrew nor Aramaic possesses a word for 'all'. The word rabbim or "multitude" thus served also in the inclusive sense for 'the whole', even though the corresponding Greek and Latin appear to have an exclusive sense, i.e., 'the many' rather than 'the all'. 56/ The Roman Canon in English Translation. An ICEL booklet citing The Eucharistic Words of Jesus by J. Jeremias (New York. 1966. pp. 179-182, 299) as quoted in "The Ventriloquists." P. H. Omlor. Athanasius Press, Reno, Nevada. 1970. p.7. (Reprinted from Interdum, Issue 2, February 24, 1970.)

    Even though St. Matthew and St. Mark both spoke Our Lord's vernacular tongue of Aramaic, they are both supposed to have made the identical error, neither one daring (or knowing enough) to correct the other. Apparently no one in the Apostolic Church caught the mistake. Nor did nay of the early Church Fathers, none of the Doctors of the Church, none of the Popes, not one of the great Schoolmen of the Middle Ages, no one in the whole wide world except one Joachim Jeremias. In fact, to this very day, he alone knows of this mistake, for his all-but-divine revelation has failed to impress scholars, both true and false. Witness, not a single translation of the Bible (the countless ones for which this deeply pious age has suddenly found a need) with all their unheard of, outrageous, and heterodox turns of phrases - not a single one of them, I say - indicates acceptance of this crack-pot theory that since Christ our God, the "Word made flesh," did not have a way, could not devise a way, to say "all," He had to be satisfied with saying "many" and waiting two thousand years for Dr. Jeremias to explain it for Him.

    His explanation means, of course, that the word should be "all," not "many", in the following scriptural passages:" All are called, but few chosen." (Mt. 20-16). And, "The Son of man is not come to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a redemption for all." (Mt. 20:28). Speaking of the time of the Great Tribulation, Jesus meant to say, "for all (everybody!) will come in my name saying: I am Christ: and they will seduce all (everybody!)." (Mt. 24-5). (Mein Himmel!)

    And are we not fortunate that those who have translated the Latin of the "Novus Ordo" were alert enough to recognize the brilliance of this momentous discovery, if no one else was?

    But are you still wondering how "pro multis" came to be mistranslated? Yes, I thought you would be: The reference of ICEL to the opinion of Dr. Jeremias is all a mendacious ruse. The question at issue has nothing to do with Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek. Further, all the arguments over Scriptural variations, philological findings, or even the decrees of the Council of Trent, are secondary to the main point, which is, that the Latin text of the Missal states that Christ Our Lord said "for many". The most important fact is that the translation is false, deliberately, unmistakably, and scandalously. There is no excuse for it. And the whole Catholic world should demand that this mistranslation (along with all the other corruptions of the Mass) be corrected immediately. In their unabashed impudence, the liars have not bothered to get their story straight to this very day. Those vernacular garblements (as I said above, the same forgery is found in all the translations, not just the English one) first appeared in 1967. But the "Novus Ordo" was introduced in 1969, after loud attention had been called to the error, and its Latin still has "pro multis". These words remain even though other words in the sacramental form were altered, as we have seen.

    This translation error is but another sacrilege of immeasurable proportion. You see that nothing is sacred to the "reformers." How those things which are most holy the meddlers must perforce make the most absurd and muddled! Satan rides high!

• Next: Chapter Four The "New Mass" - Part Six - E. Validity and Liceity

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