---

Vatican II Rites -- Are they valid?

Given here is a brief explanation of the Roman Pontifical for the �ordination� of bishops as revised by decree of the Second Vatican Council, and published under the �authority� of (false) Paul VI. Then follows an explanation of the Decree of Pope Leo XIII (Apostolicae Curae) where he defines for all time his judgment against Anglican orders as being totally ineffective. What Leo XIII says in the Church�s binding judgment on the Anglicans can equally be applied against the defects inherent in the Vatican II �ordinations.� 

Distinction Between Bishop & Priest

Whatever may have been the opinions in the past or even in the present to the contrary, it seems abundantly clear to the writer, that as there are only Seven Sacraments, of which one is that of Order, the priest having received this Sacrament when he was ordained a priest, cannot receive it again when he is consecrated as Bishop, for this is one of the Three Sacraments which cannot be received more than once. It is clear from the fact that the Catholic Church insists that a candidate for the Episcopate must firstly be a priest, and that the consecration rite cannot impart the character of the Sacrament of Order. If it could, then there would have been no need for the Church to insist upon this condition. 

Episcopal Power & Duties 

The essentials of the Rite whereby the priest is raised to the Episcopate consists of the Imposition of the Bishop�s hands (that is The Matter of the Sacrament), and the recitation of the prescribed prayer (that is the Form of the Sacrament); but like all the sacraments, there must be a Signification of what that power is that is to be Conferred. In other words, what the Church means by Ministerium Suum (the high priesthood) the rank of Bishop. The Form itself does not specify this in the old Ordinal, but it does specify the duties of the Bishop with the words: �Episcopus oportet, judicare, interpretari, consecrare, ordinare, offere, battizare, et confirmare.� 

Deliberate Omissions

�Father you know all hearts. You have chosen your servants for the Office of Bishop. May they be shepherds to your holy flock, and high priests blameless in your sight, ministering to you night and day: May they always gain the blessing of your favour and offer the gifts of your holy Church. 

Through the Spirit who gives the grace of high priesthood, grant them the power to forgive sins as you have commanded, to assign ministries as you have decreed, and to loose every  bond by authority which you gave to your apostles. 

May they be pleasing to you by their gentleness and purity of heart, presenting a fragrant offering to you through Jesus Christ, Your Son, whom glory and power and honour are yours with the Holy Spirit in your holy Church, now and forever. Amen.

No Power to Ordain, Confirm, Consecrate

There is no mention of �Power to Ordain,� the essence of the High priesthood, or is the word �assign ministries as you have decreed,� supposed  to mean the �Power to Ordain?� If so, why not say  �To Ordain?� Although the English version uses this phrase, �Assign,� etc, it does not appear in the original Latin text, where this second power is: �Ut distribuant munera secundum praeceptum.� What these, �Munera Gifts� are supposed to be, the rite is silent. Why? And why is there this discrepancy between the Vatican II Latin version and the ICEL English translation? There is no prima facie evidence that the new rite Bishop has any power to Ordain and thereby pass on the powers of the priesthood, even if the Rite for Ordaining priests used in the Vatican II rite was a valid one. Although it is generally agreed that a simple priest can be authorized to confirm, the Bishop is the normal minister for this Sacrament, yet no mention of this power, nor his power to consecrate Holy Oils. So even for the sake of argument the word �Munera� (Gifts) was intended to mean these other powers, why does not a revised rite, whose alleged object was to clarify, not say so? In any event the English version, which is the one used in English-speaking countries, has nothing which could possibly be interpreted to mean either to Confirm or to Consecrate. 

One can therefore only conclude that this new rite is like that for the Anglican priesthood condemned by  Leo XIII as totally invalid.  It fails to give that essential power belonging only to the bishop, the power to Ordain. This is a spiritual power, the powers to assigning and loosing (in the new rite) are only judiciary powers. 

How can one draw any other conclusion, when the Reformers  deliberately suppressed the Catholic Rite of the Apostolic Tradition, and drew up a new one deliberately leaving out the Essential reason which the Catholic Church had for raising a priest to the Episcopacy! 

It follows, therefore, not only from the changes in the Ordinal for the priesthood, but confirmed by the one for the Episcopacy too, that this is not the catholic religion, but a new Protestant religion, falsely calling itself �Catholic,� having neither priest nor bishop but only laymen as ministers. 

It is true that the new rite uses matter and form, but only to resemble the old [apostolic] rite; but what is the value of its words in this New Form, if the meaning they intend to convey is not stated there or anywhere else in this New rite. When the principal meaning is omitted, how can one conclude rationally that the new meaning of its intention in the new rite is in fact the same as in the Old Rite! To maintain that it does, is to make a mockery and nonsense of Language, which God has given to man solely to convey meaning. 

It may be of interest to note, that whatever the theological importance of the ceremony is, or is not, that the anointing of the hands of the bishop-elect has been abolished! 

Validity of the Vatican II Ordination Rite

Back in the 1800�s certain Roman Catholic leaders  with some of their Anglican friends, were attempting �unity� with Rome, whilst entertaining strange illusions as to how this would be accomplished. It was in the spring of 1895, when the great Pope Leo XIII caused the English to see, that to become a Catholic, one might still remain an Englishman, but not an Anglican.  In closing his very beautiful Letter, this Holy Father recommended prayers to the Mother of God.   He did this deliberately for several reasons; one as a test of Anglican sincerity. If they were to be united to the One True Church, then it was high time they should show their love and trust in the help of the Mother of God. There was no equivocating with this pope! 

Following his Spring Letter, he gave another in June 1895. Pope Leo traces for them and all of us, the image of the Church, sketches her prominent features, bringing out in relief the characteristic mark of her Unity. Never did Leo ever give up any of her Rights and Prerogatives.  There was no compromising and no suppressing of the truth in favour of Conciliarism as has been done by the traitors of Vatican II. 

It was again in the spring of 1896 when this holy Pontiff appointed a Commission to re-examine the whole question of the �validity� of Anglican �orders�. In September of that year, he decreed a most important and Infallible Judgment, called �Apostolicae Curae�, showing that Anglican Orders, according to the Ewardine Ordinal had in those Three centuries, regarded the Catholic Apostolic Church as Null and Void. The re-examination of this Anglican Ordinal proved that the Sacrament of Holy Orders no longer existed in the Anglican Church. 

Later that year Leo XIII settled the matter for all time, answering in detail the three ingredients that make up a valid Sacrament: the Intent, the matter, and the form of the rite of Ordination. 

Those on both sides who tried for a false unity  fell back and admitted that The Judgment had overthrown their whole position. 

In Pope Leo XIII�s Bulla declaring Anglican Orders invalid, we have a powerful weapon to use against this false new Montinian Rite. Let us use it, just as Leo XIII showed the substantial defects, and the corrupt intention of the persons ordaining this rite and its intention of manifestly excluding the essence of the priesthood, namely the power to offer Divine Sacrifice, thus resulting in the invalidity of the Sacraments when the Form does not truly Signify the Effect intended by Christ, and the Church HE founded. Let us use and show up this new and false Vatican II Montinian rite in exposing its complete invalidity. 

This decree of Leo XIII, as might be expected brought forth howls of anger from the Anglicans! Responding to this reaction the Cardinal and Bishops of the Province of Westminster wrote a �Vindication of the Bulla of Pope  Leo XIII.� 

In their own document, the English Bishops {of Leo XIII�s time} using the judgment of Pope Leo XIII wrote their: �Catholic Doctrine of the Priesthood �a.k.a. �The Vindication.� 

�Priest and Sacrifice are correlative terms with us at all times, and indeed with all nations, except insofar as your own Communion may be an exception. A Priest is one who offers sacrifice: and as it is the sacrifice, so it is the priest who offers it.  Since our sacrifice is the Sacrifice of the Mass, and Our priest is one appointed and empowered to offer up that sacrifice; then one who has received this power from God by means of the words of consecration in the Canon of the Mass, to cause the Body and Blood of Christ to become present under the appearances of bread and wine, and to offer them up sacrificially. The priest may have other powers annexed to his office, such as the power to forgive sins; and he may likewise be charged with the duty of preaching the word of God, and exercising pastoral care over the people consigned to him. But these other powers and duties are super-added   and consequent. They are suitably annexed to the priesthood, but they are not of its essence. The priest would not have been less a priest if they had been withheld from him, nor is he any more a priest because Our Lord has thought fit to communicate them to him.�

This Power is not given to Vatican II �priests�

The only conclusion, the only honest one is that Montini, or Paul VI, must have been a false �pope� to have issued such a blasphemous rite, and his successor, John Paul II is also a false �pope� for continuing to allow this blasphemous rite. What of the bishops, the ones who use it, can they be considered as true successors of the Apostles? Again the answer is a resounding NO! 

How can a true successor of the Apostles not pass on this power to forgive sins? They do so by using the false Montinian rite. In other words, that is their intention. They are destroying the Sacrament of penance, for in time, there will be no bishop left in the Western Church with this power to pass on.  The new bishop cannot pass on what he has not received, any more than the Apostles could have done, had they not received this power firstly from Christ. One is therefore forced to come to the conclusion, that these men are not only deceiving the laity, but they are apostates or cowards. The evidence of decline in confessions in the UK and its virtual decrease in Holland, would lead one to think that they belong to the apostate brigade, rather than to the cowards. It is no oversight or accident that this power was excluded from the ordination rite,  because if that was the case, it would have been rectified by now. At this time, many years later on, millions of the laity have received invalid and profane confessions. This rite today has still remained unchanged. The laity still do not know, so they cannot be blamed {Ed.  Not quite so, as they �sin� against culpable ignorance and are liable for their own salvation}, but the clergy certainly do know {Ed. Again it is those older clergy from pre-Vatican II days that are truly liable. The very young and new clergy are no different to the Protestant members in that they have LOST their understanding of the true faith.}, and they must share in the guilt of their Bishops. Members of the English Hierarchy {Ed. And other nations} , when challenged with this dishonesty, maintained, as usual, their rock solid deafening silence. 

Pope Leo XIII on the Validity of Holy Orders

Again quoting from the �Vindication of the Bulla� by the English Bishops in 1896, they said: 

�The Bulla, however, when passing over the controversies about the Matter, lays down that the Form of Holy Orders must be definite. It does not require that the Form should always consist of the same words, but that it should always conform to the same definite type.� 

The vindication continues: 

�But we also notice another misconception in your further contention that the particular Signification which the Pope deems essential to Holy Orders is not found in the many forms which the Holy See nevertheless allows as valid!�

�What Leo XIII means is that the Order to which the candidate is being promoted to must be distinctly indicated either by its accepted name, or by an explicit reference to the grace and power which belongs to it ... nor is such a disjunctive statement unreasonable, for in the Catholic Apostolic Church, the alternative phrases are perfectly equivalent.�

Power to Offer Sacrifice

�The Catholic Church has always meant by that term, priest (Sacerdos), a person appointed and empowered to offer sacrifice. For the true historical reason, a fact which was carefully investigated in the recent commissions, is that not one single ordination rite which the Catholic Church has accepted, is without one or the other of these alternative modes of definite signification.�  

�A further objection of the Anglicans is then considered. The terms Priest, Bishop, it may now be said, are now declared to be the accepted terms to denote those who have received in substance or in plenitude the sacrificial power. Why then, have they been rejected in an earlier part of this Letter, as not bearing the Meaning when they occur in your prayer. Because Pope Leo XIII ruled in his Bulla that the formula, �Receive the Holy Ghost for the office and work of a priest or Bishop�, has no validity being now mere words, voided of the reality which Christ instituted, once a new rite has been introduced, denying or corrupting the sacrament of Order, and repudiating any notion whatsoever of consecrating and sacrifice. The Pope also said that if an ordination rite implies the exclusion of the power to sacrifice, then it is necessarily null and void, even though it may express mention of the words �priest.� It is impossible for a Form to be suitable and significant for a Sacrament when it suppresses that which it ought to signify distinctly.

�Your Reformers no doubt retained the terms �priest� and �bishop� as the distinctive names of the two higher degrees of their clergy � probably because they did not dare  to discard terms so long held established and revered . 

�They did not mean ministers empowered to OFFER SACRIFICE, but pastors set over their flocks, to teach them, to administer to them such sacraments as they believed in, and generally to tend to them spiritually. This meaning they professed to regard as that of Scripture and the Primitive. 

�There is nothing more pertinent than to consider the circumstances under which it was composed and publicly authorized. Being fully cognizant of the necessary connection between faith and worship, the laws of believing and the laws of prayer {Lex Credendi, Lex Orandi}, and under the pretext of returning to the primitive form,  they  corrupted the liturgical order in many ways  to suit the errors of the Reformers . 

�For this reason in the whole Ordinal, not only is there no clear mention of the sacrifice or consecrating ... and offering sacrifice, but as we have said, every trace of these things, which had been in the prayers of the Catholic Rite ... was deliberately removed and struck off. Their object in discarding it was to disavow Catholic Apostolic doctrines, and not as you contend to render the rites simpler.�  

�We have already dealt with the use of the word �priest�... and have shown that nothing can be inferred in it from the new {Edwardine} rite. Yet where else can any intimation be found that the graces imparted have ANY reference to the consecration and oblation of the Body and Blood of Christ. Nowhere of course! But your contention seems to be that we must not argue Ex Silentio. It would be sufficient answer to this plea to point out that at least according to the principles by which the Holy See must judge, an Ordination Rite must contain, either explicitly, or at least implicitly, the definite signification of what is essential to the Order conferred. But the silence of your Ordinal is not merely neutral; it speaks volumes...� 

�Striking Suppression�

�And yet throughout, there is not one word of reference to the powers of consecration, or sacrifice ... Why was there this striking suppression, unless it were that the makers of this Ordinal could find no place in their conception of the ministry for elements which in a Catholic Ordinal are essential? Next look at the Catholic Ordinal which was superseded. We are not referring to the Catholic Rite in its older and simpler style, such as we find in the Leonine Sacramentary. Even there, the sacrificial character of the power communicated is not obscurely indicated, quite apart from the use of the sacrificial term, Priest and Bishop. We are calling attention to this Catholic Rite, as it was prescribed and employed in England and on the Continent at the time of the so-called �reformation.� 

�It is this rite which Cranmer and his colleagues took in hand and reformed. It is with this old rite that their revised rite must be compared to if we desire to interpret on rational principles the meaning of the Latter Rite. That the Catholic Apostolic Rite in its medieval stage abounded in words and ceremonies giving expression to the sacrificial character of the power to be conveyed, is so well known that we do not need to prove it.� 

�We will content ourselves therefore with re-calling to mind the delivery of the sacrificial instruments, the clothing in the sacrificial vestments, the anointing of the hands, together with the addresses to the candidates accompanying these manual ceremonies. We desire to accentuate that these striking assertions of the sacrificial Priesthood which at the time were in almost immemorial possession, were all struck out of the Edwardine Ordinal. Why was this done so?� 

�It could not have been as you seem to suggest, because the reformers wished to go back to what was primitive ... It could not have been ... for a rite of great simplicity, for they could have retained some short sentence such as, �sacerdotum, opert, offere benedicere, praesse, pradicare, conficere, et baptizare�, or they could have constructed another short sentence of equivalent meaning. It could not have been for no reason at all. In short, the only and sufficient reason for the suppression, is that they disliked the notion of a sacrificing priesthood, which they alleged to be without warrant in Scripture, and desired to dissociate their Ordinal from all connection with it.� 

�This argument is strengthened when from the Ordinal itself we turn to your Communion service. To put the matter briefly, if the First Prayer book of Edward VI is compared with the Missal, sixteen omissions can be detected of which the evident purpose was to eliminate the idea of sacrifice � Again therefore, we must put the question: �Why these systematic changes and suppressions unless it was that your �fathers� wished to prevent their rites from continuing to express the grace and power which is chiefly the power of consecrating  and offering the Body and Blood of Christ.� 

Real Question

Vatican II Rite and Pope Leo XIII

The ordination rite has through the centuries had prayers and ceremonies added to it, mainly no doubt to express more clearly the power and grace which the Sacrament Signifies. Never, according to Pope Leo XIII, has there been any suppression, not until the time of the �reformers.� Nevertheless, the �new� rite of Paul VI does retain the traditional form as follows, but it must be looked at in isolation from the statement of the English Bishops in their �Vindication,� where, warning against omitting or reforming, they state that there is no known historical foundations for the subtracting of prayers and ceremonies in previous use. The English translation of the V-2 {Vatican II} form is as follows: 

�We ask you [A very impersonal form of address to God], all-powerful Father, give these servants of yours [?] the dignity of the priesthood. Renew the Spirit of holiness within them. By your [?] divine gift, may they attain the second order in the hierarchy and exemplify right conduct in their lives.�   (False Rite)

�Be pleased O Lord, to consecrate and sanctify these hands by this anointing and our blessing. Amen . That whatsoever they bless may be blessed, and whatsoever they consecrate may be consecrated and sanctified in the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ. Amen.� (True rite)

�Receive the Power to Offer SACRIFICE to God and to celebrate Mass, both for the living and the DEAD, in the name of Our Lord. Amen.�  (True rite)

�The Father anointed Jesus Christ as Lord through the power of the Holy Spirit. May Jesus keep you worthy of offering sacrifices to God and sanctify the Christian assembly.� (False rite)

�Accept the gifts from the people [!!!!] to be offered to God. Be conscious of what you are doing [???], be holy as the actions you perform and model your life after the mystery of the Lord�s cross.� (the false Protestant-worded phrases)

This deliberate denial of the sacrifice of the Mass  (that is the Divine Sacrifice of the Cross and the Altar) which is the essence of the Apostolic priesthood, compels any reasonable person to conclude that this new rite of Montini is invalid. Again, as Pope Leo XIII points out: �It is impossible for a Form to be suitable and Sufficient for a Sacrament when it suppresses that which it ought to distinctly signify.� 

Conclusion

This truly great and holy Pope Leo XIII reaches out across time and also nullifies all the false Vatican II rites.  

Says Pope Leo XIII: �If the rite is modified with the manifest object of introducing another not admitted by the Apostolic Church, and rejecting the one she uses, then not only is the necessary intention for the Sacrament defective  {through Intent, 3rd of the three necessary conditions for a valid sacrament}, but also there is an intention contrary and opposed to the sacrament.� 

So again we must conclude that not only was Paul VI a �false pope� but that this new religion of the Second Vatican Council is not the Catholic religion, that those who adhere to it are not Catholics, but apostates. No true pope, bishop or priest could promulgate such an apostate rite. 

There is however other important evidence to substantiate this because, like the reformers of the 16th century, the Reformers of the 20th century, the new Vatican II Conciliar Church altered in an heretical sense, not only the Ordinal rite, but the (forbidden ever-to-be-altered Mass from time immemorial) and then each and every one of the Seven Sacraments instituted by Christ.  We must never forget that the Belief of Faith is evidenced by its prayers. As we pray, so also we believe, and as we believe, so also we pray. (Lex Credendi; Lex Orandi) 

In the foregoing, we examined the new Vatican II Ordinal and found that all references to the sacrifice of the Mass have been eliminated. But the fact remains that the priest and the Sacrifice of the Mass are inseparable. If a priest does not offer the Divine Sacrifice,  he is useless as a priest; and if he is ordained falsely, and not given this power, then he is no priest of God. Certainly Pope Leo XIII has proven this fact to all of us. There is no question that after examining this new V-2 ordinal rite against the judgment of a Loyal Vicar of Christ, Leo XIII, we have found that all references to the sacrifice of the Mass has been eliminated. The next question we should ask is Why? Why was this elimination made and required? 

Catholics cannot have any part in this new invalid liturgy, which forbids the offering of the Sacrifice of the Cross at the Altar of sacrifice, and substitutes a parody of the clean oblation. Catholics can have nothing to do with these new V-2 men who pose as priests, while lacking the power of the priesthood. Neither may Catholics have anything to do with those true priests who willfully subject themselves to the V-2 suppressions. However, we ought to pray for these miserable wretches because of their terrible crime of deceiving so many Catholics as to the truth of what is going on inside what was once the Catholic Church today under the suppression and knavery of Vatican II. 
 

After you have been told, and had the right conscience to realize that the Church cannot change, examined all the evidence and prayed to the Holy Ghost for guidance, then you cannot continue your association with this false Church of the anti-Christ. If you fail to change because of obstinacy or belligerence or from any other poor attitude, then you will become a formal heretic and an apostate and as such you will be automatically excommunicated - ipso facto. On the death of such a person, he or she will be guaranteed a berth in hell forever. What an horrendous thought. 

Christ demands that you judge the fruits of Vatican II when He said: �By their fruits ye shall judge (know) them.�  I went through this crisis more than 25 years ago. I too judged and left this false church. I am free today as I know and now do the Will of God. The �fruits� of my decision not to attend further this false Church are too numerous, and humility prevents me from their mention. In my case, as I am sure it was with those I know, who did likewise as I did, we see today, with a spiritual vision and intellect, far surpassing anything we ever possessed before, even in the days of pre-Vatican II. 

Like the Blessed Virgin we gave our �Fiat� when the truth was exposed to us and then submitted to the living voice of the universal Church of the last 2,000 years � We listened and read as many of the Papal Encyclicals that were applicable to our times. We know that the Church did not start with Vatican II as it has been propagated mercilessly by the traitors within this false church. Over 95% plus of those who still call themselves �Catholics� believe all these false tales. It is an indictment of the very poor education, study, and understanding these wretches had of their faith. Even Christ said, as the prelude to His 2nd Coming {and it is not too far off either}: �But yet the Son of Man when He cometh, shall He find, think you, faith on earth? (Luke 18, 18) 

The old pre-Vatican II Church, its Saints, Fathers, Doctors, and Popes of revered memory, have all been repudiated and rejected by this new �abomination of the Holy Place� as Daniel the prophet foretold. To achieve some �credibility,� the new innovators had to change Canon Law to give �legality� to their errors, and also the New catechism, to create a new teaching, to alter the old and ancient teaching guaranteed by the Holy Ghost as pure and uncorrupted. 

You all have one soul to save; no one has that responsibility but you yourself. Do not blame the local �minister� or layman that he really is, masquerading as a �priest.� He also knows no better. When you die and come before the Judgment seat of God, you will have no excuses. When you see the funeral processions, and hear or see of the deaths on the news, do you ever wonder what ever became of their immortal souls? Always remember the Four Last Things: Death, Judgment, Heaven or Hell. That constant thought will ultimately save your soul. 

La Salette in 1846, where the Blessed Virgin appeared prior to her next visit at Lourdes, she foretold that Rome  would �Lose the faith and become the seath of the anti-Christ.� Popes Pius IX, Leo XIII and St. Pius X all canonized this prophecy. The Blessed Mary even gave its approximate date and even further endorsed this at Fatima. It was to start in 1960 with the 1st false �pope� jolly John XXIII (the name of an anti-pope in 1410-1415 AD). Jolly John was also a Freemason. He joined the sect in 1935 when he was Nuncio in Turkey. He took the Masonic name of Johannes, and by reason of his creating a new religion �tacitly resigned� from all offices in the Church and ceased to become a member.  Therefore all his subsequent illicit actions were Null and Void and had no authority. 

What we see today is that Rome has lost the faith and has become the seat of the anti-Christ   thus fulfilling the prophecy of the Blessed Virgin at La Salette in the last century when the apostasy �liberalism� was raising its ugly head, and is now full-blown in Vatican II. 

Where Pope Leo XIII judges the invalidity of Orders, one of the 7 sacraments of the Holy Roman Church, this same test is also applied to the other sacraments and also to the Mass. A sacrament has three parts or requirements that make it valid: It must have form, matter, and intent (of the lawgiver, in this case, it is Christ). 

We will see that most of them have been abrogated in all of the 7 Novus Ordo Sacraments, and fittingly its application to the Holy Mass. It was the intent of the corrupters to create a so-called �mass� that would be Protestant-friendly. There was to be a sort of �unity� at any price, but instead of the Protestants converting, it was the Catholics who were to be converted into Protestantism. 

This �defect in intention� is explained by the Abbe Barbara in his papers called �Fortes in Fide� No 4 Vol 1. 

A Defect of Intention

Cena Dominica sive missa est sacra synaxis seu congratio populi Dei in unum convenientis, sacerdote praeside, ad memoriale Domini celebradum.  Quare de sanctae Ecclesiae locali congregatione exminenter vale promissio Christi: ubi sunt duo vel congregati in nomine meo, ibi sum in medio eorim.

The Lord�s supper, (or mass in its original ICEL translation) is the assembly or gathering together of the people of God [??], with a priest �presiding� to celebrate a memorial of the Lord. For this reason the promise of Christ is particularly true of a local congregation of the Church: �Where two or three are gathered together in My Name, there am I in their midst.� 

Let us also recall the statements of St. Pius X in his condemnation of the modernist apostates, �It is one of their cleverest tricks, that the Modernists ... to present their doctrines without order and systematic arrangements, in a scattered and disjointed manner, so as to make it appear as if their minds were in doubt or hesitation, whereas in reality, they are quite fixed and steadfast. 

Let us again recall that other doctrine of this holy pontiff: �There is no surer sign that a man is tending to Modernism than when he begins to show a dislike for the scholastic method (from St. Thomas Aquinas).� 

Also taken from �A Critical Study of the New Order of the Mass� from a group of Roman Theologians, signed and presented to Paul VI by the Head of the Holy Office - Cardinal Ottaviani: 

1. History of this change 

2. Definition of the Mass 

3. Presentation of the Ends 

4. And of the essence 

5. And of the 4 elements of the Sacrifice 

6. The destruction of Unity (One of the 4 Marks of the True Church) 

7. The alienation of the Orthodox 

8. The abandonment of defenses for the faith 

Whilst defending the Faith against all comers and hoping against all hope, that somehow perhaps the �conservative element� within this new Church will see the light of the Faith, I am reminded that Christ said that He will find so little faith on earth on His 2nd Coming. 

And also He said: �Because iniquity hath abounded [see the success of V-2], the charity (or love of God) of many shall grow cold. (Luke 24; 12). Also, �As it came to pass in the days of Noah, so shall it be in the days of the (coming) of the Son of Man. (Luke 17, 26). We see this prophecy come to pass with the enforcement by the United Nations and all socialist Governments for the legislation and the enforcement upon the peoples of this degrading lifestyle with its penalties from God, of HIV and AIDS. Homosexuality is from Hell, and Satan is its guardian, and the people will suffer accordingly to their acceptance and acquiescence of this wicked evil. 

As the great Fr. Henry James Coleridge S.J. wrote in 1883 in his discourses �The Latter Days,� he says: 

�Whether the days in which we live in be the Latter Days or no, it is our business, first of all to fit ourselves to meet Our Lord, who will come to each of us, �as a thief in the night,� not prepared for as we hope, but suddenly at last as we know.�  

�It is our duty to fight for Our Lord�s cause in the world, to throw our weight into the scale against the powers of evil - against the spirit of heresy, schism, apostasy, of lawlessness sensuality, disregard of all sanctions and obligations, both human and divine, which is in the air now all around us, which breathes destruction to the Church and to that Christian Society which the Church has founded and sustained -- Christendom. �Blessed are those servants, whom the Lord, when He cometh shall find watching. Amen I say to you, he will gird Himself and make them to sit down to meat, and passing, he will minister unto them. And is he shall come in the Second watch or in the Third, and find them so. Blessed are those servants! (Luke XII. 37, 38).�