The reason so very few will wish to agree with these conclusions is not that people are dishonest, cowardly, or unintelligent. It is because, as yet, they have not informed themselves of the mode of thinking and action of the Revolution. Even while soaking up its corrosive incongruities and yielding to its influence, they do not see what they are looking at. They think only in straight lines, in Aristotelian definitions, and in blacks and whites. With regard to the "New Mass" the basic error of most people has been to read traditional meanings and intentions into its language. I cannot emphasize strongly enough what a mistaken approach this is. It is like attempting to prove the personal orthodoxy of Pope Paul VI by referring to certain utterances of his which contain mention of this or that Catholic doctrine. I trust I have made it clear that the question of the legality and validity of this accursed Sham can be decided only through study of those decrees of the Church which are completely reliable and unquestionably binding. How few people realize that the very soul of the Revolution is deception and its total objective is influence. The Revolution does not care what people believe. It is totally pragmatic. Sufficient to the Revolution if its program is working, if the masses are permitting themselves to be herded, if they are accepting the trends of thought being served to them, if the desired effect is being achieved from whatever cause.
The Revolution has no sympathy for the discontent or the internal revulsion of individuals. It is sufficient if the majority outwardly conforms, thus contributing to the illusion which it is creating for the masses. Individuals who cannot or will not conform must somehow be removed from the others, as they threaten to dispel the illusion for others.
Nor does the Revolution use words as ordinary human beings do. This most people are very slow to learn. Its use of words is as peculiarly its own as is that of the True Church when those that speak for Catholicism conform their teaching to its divinely-inspired traditions. Language is a means for the furtherance of the Revolutionary program. It is used as a tool, or better, as a weapon, since the program is a phase, and language a tactic in the struggle for influencing people, not for communicating truth. The Revolution is altogether indifferent to objective truth; it does not define words and, by this very fact, reveals itself as diametrically opposed to such stringency of thought.
The "New Mass" is one of the productions of the Revolution, one of its tools of subversion, and the language of the "New Mass" is in the genre of the Revolution. Those who mean to assess the "New Mass" should not expect to find in it that clarity of thought and intention which one expects in the articulations of the Sacred Magisterium of the Church. They should not expect to find clear-cut affirmations or negations. They will find truth suggested - as well as many shades of its opposite. The only consistency they will find is the effort to confuse and to mislead, a refusal to debate fairly, but no legally admissible evidence of the conspiracy that is afoot. For this reason, the authors of the "New Mass" cannot be convicted of heresy. An ordinary heretic boldly teaches his false belief, firmly denies traditional dogma, and, sometimes, is willing to die in defense of his contentions. The Revolutionary will seem to believe whatever it serves his immediate purpose to believe, will take any shape which pragmatic need dictates.
For this reason also, the effort to decide the validity of the "New Mass" (or, I suspect, of any of the other new Sacramental rites) through analysis of its language is doomed to failure, for all the good it would do. The celebrant of the True Mass must intend to do what the Church intends. But how will you ever be able to guess the true intention of the Church when the formulation of its rites is now in the hands of men whose purpose is deliberately devious and indefinable, whose use of words and whose every act is compulsively nebulous and evasive? How will you ever prove the intentions of their ritual formulations when their own thinking is fluid, and basically nihilistic? Their intention is directly related to the condition of those whom their use of language is meant to influence. Their language does not have objective intention, but dialectic direction; their words are chosen always with a view to inching the thought of the masses into the direction of the Revolutionary negations; away, therefore, from objective truth and toward Communism; away from supernatural verities, dogmas, and laws, and toward dialectical materialism, naturalism, cynicism, narcissism, and nihilism. This intention is behind the insatiable need to change the rites of the Church, to change the nomenclature, to change all the prayers, to abolish all the traditions, to ban the merely customary-without regard to any objective benefit or principle.
In their desire for some kind of definiteness and stability, people will concede almost anything if they think doctrine not in jeopardy, on the promise that the next change will be the last. Whereas, the Revolution, being indifferent to truth or human feeling (but keenly aware of the usefulness of both), will promise anything, give every impression of sincerity, create as convincing a rationale as possible, and seem to compromise on its every chosen direction. Any change is progress, so long as no stage is final. Exploiting the poor memory, the ignorance, the guilelessness, and the indifference of those who will sacrifice anything to be free of further annoyance (who will surrender every principle in order not to be thought odd by the majority, i.e., the masses), the Revolution is certain that as soon as one change has been accepted, no matter how resentfully, it is time to agitate for another, being sure to ignore and put to silence all reminders of previous promises. With each change, its uncomprehending subjects stand at an ever greater distance from their point of departure, and remember it ever more vaguely, and think it ever less necessary. For a few moments' peace (which is never permitted, of course), they will allow themselves to be treated like curs.
With regard to the True Mass, once Catholics - Pope, clergy, and people - surrendered to the Revolutionary principle that the Mass needed to be adapted to modern times, and once the solemn noli tangere ("do not touch") of St. Pius V had been violated, the entire Liturgy and the whole body of the Church (whose heart and heart-beat the Liturgy is) became paralyzed and easy prey for the "arrangers." Since then, we have been surrendering on every front, on every point of doctrine and morality, even on the most basic principles of human life. The wall was breached; ever since, all has been inconsistency, disorder, foolishness, and subterfuge.
And, as the months pass, the erosion of the Faith continues. The Hierarchy and the faithful, who vainly look to the Church for leadership, clear-sightedness, and direction, are now together in a state of heedless, mindless falling away. Only those who have clung to Catholic principles and kept themselves aloof from the wearing propagandization can even perceive the decline. Indeed, the sun has lost its light! (Apoc. 9:2; Is. 13: 10; Ez. 32:7).
- Next: Chapter Five The Apostolic Constitution of Paul VI Part One
- Previous: Chapter Four The "New Mass" - Part Eleven - "Ecumenism"