Desacrificing the Mass By Fr. Stephen F. Somerville

Part I � How sacrifice is present in the Tridentine Mass

Fr. Stephen F. Somerville
In the Tridentine Mass, there is a particularly solemn invocation of the Holy Trinity. It comes at the end of the Canon of the Mass, just before the Our Father prayer. This invocation has five signs of the Cross, made by the priest with the consecrated Bread and Wine, that is, the true Body and Blood of Christ. These crosses are succeeded by a gesture of elevation or lifting up of the Victim toward Heaven.

The priest prays, meanwhile, that "all honor and glory" be given to God at this usually-called "minor elevation" of the Most Holy Victim in the Sacrifice which we call the Mass. Here are the words of the full prayer:

Through Christ, and with Him, and in Him, all honor and glory is given to Thee, O God the Father, in the unity of the of the Holy Ghost, until the end of world without end.

The element of sacrifice is clearly present in the pre-Vatican II Mass

These few lines remind us that the self-sacrifice of the Victim Jesus, offered in bloody manner on Good Friday at Mount Calvary, and now renewed by the priest on the Catholic Altar, this sacrifice, I repeat, is the supreme act of honor and glory to God. Nothing gives the Father more praise and pleasure than the oblation or offering of His Beloved Son's Body and Blood.

This offering is re-presented, made present and actual again, or made new, by the ordained priest every time he says Mass. It is not a fresh crucifixion of Jesus; it is not another killing or dying of Christ. It is the one and only sacrifice of the Eternal Son, now incarnate, and it is achieved on our altar by the separate consecrations of the bread and the wine. These become, by Divine Power, the true and real Body and Blood of the same Victim Christ as on Good Friday. The same Sacrifice is therefore present, is offered, and is pleasing to the Father.

Let us keep in mind that Jesus' whole life was an offering to God. He did not wait till Good Friday to please and glorify His Father. As soon as He came into the world, He uttered the words of the prophetic psalmist: "Here I am, Lord; I come to do Thy will." The Gospel records that He said: "My food is to do the will of Him who sent me." He said, "I do always the things that please Him." He said, "The Son can do nothing of His own accord, but only what He sees the Father doing (Jn 5:19)." He said, "I honor my Father." (8:49) Twice in Jesus' earthly life, at His Baptism and His Transfiguration, God the Father testified aloud to the loving obedience of Jesus by saying "This is my Beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased."

We began these reflections by declaring the sacrifice of Jesus' Body and Blood at the Minor Elevation of the Mass. It says, "Through Christ, all honor to Thee, Father, in the Unity of the Holy Ghost, forever."

But you might answer, these words do not say sacrifice very clearly. Can we be sure that the Mass really is a Sacrifice offered by Christ to the Father? The answer is, yes, we can be certain. Let us look at the Mass prayers, and see what they say.

At the very beginning, we hear three times, "I will go unto the altar of God" What is the altar? It is the sacred stone on which to offer sacrifice. When the priest climbs the altar steps, he prays "to be worthy to enter with pure mind into the Holy of holies, " which means the holy place in God's temple for offering sacrifice.

The sacrifices of the Old Covenant were prefigures of the Holy Mass

At the beginning of the Offertory, that is, the offering-time for the sacrifice, the priest prays, "Father, accept this stainless host (and host means Victim, the object of sacrifice), which I offer for my sins, for all present, for all faithful Christians, living and dead, so that it may lead to our salvation. " This sacrifice language comes from the Latin prayer Suscipe Sancte Pater.

Notice that sacrifice is being offered also for dead Christians, that is, for the faithful departed. We must remember that the Commander of the Maccabees army in the Old Testament sent money to the Jerusalem temple for sacrifices to be offered for his soldiers who had died in battle, "so that they might be loosed from their sins." So today, we Catholics often have Masses said for the departed in order to atone for their sins, and help to release them from purgatory into heaven.

Moments later, at the Mass Offertory, the priest prays to God the Sanctifier to "bless this sacrifice" and while so saying, he makes the sign of the Cross over the bread and wine, that is, precisely the sacrifice.

Then, washing his hands, the priest prays Psalm 25, a hymn of praise for the old Jerusalem temple, that is, the sacred building made for sacrifices. He says "I will go about Thy altar, Lord...I have loved the beauty of Thy house, the place of Thy glory...I have avoided evil men, whose hands are grasping sin and blood and bribes, not holy sacrifices. Be merciful unto me, my foot hath stood in the way of right, not wrong." These two prayers � the Veni Sanctificator and the Lavabo are clearly the prayers of a true priest offering a real sacrifice.

Immediately after them, the priest prays Suscipe Sancta Trinitas, with its unmistakable language of true ritual sacrifice. He says, Receive, O Holy Trinity, this oblation which we offer thee as memorial of the passion, resurrection and ascension of Christ. The priest strikingly anticipates the consecration and change of the bread and wine gifts into the very Body and Blood of Good Friday and the Easter Christ. It will not be a mere psychological, subjective calling to mind, but a concrete memorial. The flesh and blood of the Victim will really lie before our eyes.

The priest prays on, (Receive, Lord, this offering, also) to honor Holy Mary, John the Baptist, the Apostles and All Saints, that it may honor them, and save us wayfarers. Notice the Catholic care to honor both God and the Saints, and to assist ourselves, with the kindly intercession of the Saints. These are points of doctrine rejected by the Protestants: Purgatory and Intercession and Veneration regarding the Saints. The Sacrifice of the Mass declares these truths by such prayers as these.

Is it now clearer that the Catholic Mass actually affirms itself a true sacrifice of worship? Yes, it is surely clearer. But the clearest is yet to come, in the Canon Prayer of the Roman Mass. The priest begins it, still in silence as he was for the offertory prayers, and he says, "Father... accept and bless these + gifts, these + presents, these holy and + unspotted Sacrifices," and he makes three emphatic signs of the Cross over the offerings of bread and wine, as if to drive home the connection between them and the One who expired in self-sacrifice on the very Cross.

The Last Supper by Duccio di Buoninsegna

More prayers follow, using plain sacrifice terminology. I will cite just one of these, which precedes the Consecration. It is Quam oblationem. The priest asks: 0 God, please bless, approve, and ratify this oblation that it may become the Body and Blood of thy beloved Son, Jesus. "

Now comes the climactic consecration of the Mass. People tend to think that this account of what Jesus did and said at the Last Supper is copied from the four Gospels. Not so! These Gospels were written down 25 or more years after the Ascension of Jesus into heaven. But Mass had been offered by the Apostles with the early Church right from Pentecost Day and perhaps even earlier. Before His Ascension, it is entirely likely that Jesus taught His disciples how to conduct the service and sacrifice of Holy Thursday. Our Roman Canon contains details not in any of the Four Gospels. For example, the expression Mystery of Faith at the wine consecration. It clearly helps to express wonder and awe at the moment of change to the Blood of Christ. Pope Innocent III in 1202 declared we believe that the form of words in the Canon came from the Apostles who received them from Christ, and their successors from them.

We call this change transubstantiation, that is, change of substance, not of appearance. What we must specially notice here is the format of the Latin Altar Missal. The words of consecration, that is, the essential form words of the Sacrament, are picked out in very large, indented type, often with colored illumination. The priest is instructed to bow down low when uttering the words, In a self-audible whisper, with great reverence, as if he were speaking in the very Person of Christ, and this is precisely the case. It is no mere narrative of the Last Supper of Christ.

Finally, the language is clearly that of sacrifice. It says "the chalice...of the new and eternal covenant," that is, the sacrifice ratifying said covenant. It says the Blood �will be shed,� as in sacrifice. It is shed "for you and for many, unto the remission of sins," as it is in a true sacrifice intended to propitiate the Deity.

After the consecration, in Unde et memores, the priest remembers the passion of Christ and offers to God - and I quote � �a pure + victim, a holy + victim, a spotless + victim, the holy bread of + eternal life and the chalice + of everlasting salvation.� Five hand-signs of the Cross over the offerings accompany these words. The next prayer expressly compares this offering with famous sacrifices of old, namely of Abel (son of Adam), of patriarch Abraham, and of High Priest Melchisedech. Then the priest asks the Angels to carry the offerings up to the very altar of God in Heaven, just as Jesus Himself ascended to Heaven six weeks after His sacrificial immolation on Calvary. This too is clear sacrifice-language.

The purpose of sacrifice is not only to honor God, but to propitiate Him, that is, appease Him, after the offences of men's sins. In other words, Sacrifice must be pleasing to God, and must re-establish good relations, or what we call "communion" with God. Accordingly, the Sacrifice of the Mass now enters into its communion phase, and this is specially expressed by reverently partaking of the flesh of the Victim, in what we call Holy Communion. As we all know instinctively, to share food together is a sign of brotherly love. The Mass is a Sacrament of our mystical unity with Christ and one another.

I now conclude all these remarks with reference to one final, brief, but magnificent declaration of sacrifice in the Roman Mass. It is the prayer Placeat tibi just before the priest's final blessing. In brief he says, "O Holy Trinity, may my service please thee, and may my sacrifice be acceptable to thee, and be a propitiation to win thy loving mercy." It is now abundantly clear. The Roman Rite Catholic Mass is indeed a Sacrifice, truly and really, offered for the honor of God and the salvation of men. The words of the Mass say this; the gestures of the Mass reinforce it.

Desacrificing the Mass By Fr. Stephen F. Somerville

Part II - How Vatican II abolished the sacrificial character of the Mass


It is very good for us to know and ponder this truth of Sacrifice in the Mass at any time in our Catholic life. But it is painfully necessary to ponder the Mass Sacrifice in this present time, because some 40 years ago, in 1969, the Vatican authorities in Rome published a new, �reformed� order or ritual for celebrating the Mass. We call it the Novus Ordo, the new order. It developed from the Second Vatican Council, which had concluded just four years before 1969. We know it well today as the established English Mass (or in other languages) in all our parishes. We also know that Protestants do not believe the Mass or Holy Eucharist or Communion Service to be a Sacrifice. For them, Mount Calvary on Good Friday was the one and only Christian sacrifice.

The renewal of the Sacrifice of Calvary in the Tridentine Mass, above. Below, a Protestantized meal in a Novus Ordo Mass, Wales

We also need to know that ecumenism was a major concern of Vatican II, that is, a policy of striving for Christian Unity among the many, divided Protestant and schismatic denominations. It is a fact that ecumenism greatly influenced the shape of the New Catholic Mass. To put it another way, our Catholic Mass has been considerably protestantized, to make it more user-friendly to Protestants. Several Protestant authorities have stated that the new order of Catholic Mass could now be used in good conscience by protestant ministers. This is a shocking admission. It means that the Catholic doctrines disbelieved by Protestants have been removed or watered down excessively. One of these Catholic truths is that the Mass is a real sacrifice offered by a real priest. This was declared solemnly by the 1545 Catholic Council of Trent.

In this light, you will be asking yourself, what of all those clear indications in the old Catholic Mass that it really is indeed a Sacrifice? What of all those prayers we were detailing, that say sacrifice so plainly? What of all those lines, such as "I will go unto the altar of God" at the start of Mass, until the end of Mass when the priest says, "May my sacrifice be acceptable to thee, Lord, and be a propitiation to win thy mercy"? Are not all these lines a standing declaration that the Mass is indeed a sacrifice?

I must now tell you the tragic news. Every one of those positive sacrifice lines in the Mass has been removed by the reform ... All are gone! The new Catholic Mass is stripped of all those signs of true Sacrifice. The few that remain are less clear, more vague. For example, sacrifice could now mean a mere sacrifice of praise, that is, good words of worship addressed to God. Real presence, another key word, if said of Christ, could now mean only his spiritual presence, and not the bodily, fleshly presence that we must believe in at Mass. You may remind me that the Roman Canon is not abolished, and its many positive sacrifice words are still there, still available. Yes, true, but they are almost never used. Most priests read one of the new, short and protestant-friendly Eucharistic prayers.

There is more bad news. All the holy signs of the Cross made by the priest over the offerings are now removed, except for one. All the many reverent genuflections of the priest to the Sacred Species on the altar have been stopped by the new rubrics, except for one each at the two-fold consecration. The altar of stone, for sacrifice, has been largely replaced by a table of wood, for a mere meal. The priest, formerly facing God at Mass, the Divine Father to whom all honor and glory is due, now turns his back on God to face the people, as a kind of chairman, or banquet presider, or master of ceremonies. He looks less and less like a priest. Formerly speaking in Latin, and mostly in silence, out of reverence for the sacred mystery he was conducting, the priest now speaks in English or French or other modern language, as for any earthly meeting or transaction. Communion once received kneeling and on the tongue with reverence, is now received standing and in the hand.

Summing up, I declare to you that the Novus Ordo Catholic reformed Mass is a sad scene of devastation and impoverishment, even if some priests still try to perform it reverently. Remember that rule: Lex orandi, lex credendi. The way we pray sets the way we believe. Catholics who pray at the New Mass will almost certainly weaken, if not lose, their Faith. Already, surveys tell us that only 30 percent of adult Catholics still believe in the Real Presence of Christ's Body and Blood. This alone makes a real sacrifice impossible. We seem to be in that great apostasy predicted by St. Paul (II Thess 2).

Dear fellow faithful, let us continue steadfast in the Catholic Mass of all time. Let us pray loyally for all right-believing Catholics, especially those who are persecuted. Let us keep reading and studying, according to our ability and duty, to understand Catholic truth and tradition better and better.

I close with a short prayer of the priest at the offertory:

"In a humble spirit and a contrite heart, may we be received by Thee, O Lord; and let our sacrifice be so made in thy sight this day, that it may please Thee, 0 Lord God."

A Problem Within the Conciliar Church By Atila S. Guimar�es

Book review of The Bugnini Liturgy and the Reform of the Reform,
Front Royal, Virginia: Catholic Church Music Associates, 2003, 217 pp.
by Laszlo Dobszay

Mr. Laszlo Dobszay, 69, is a Catholic Hungarian layman who has dedicated his life to the study of liturgy and music. With regard to liturgy specifically, his book is an encompassing critique of the Liturgical Reform of Paul VI. Reading it, one has the pleasant impression of a robust knowledge of Catholic liturgy fluently applied to the concrete situation of our days. With regard to music, he shows the same flexibility: a high level of scholarly formation � he is a member of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences � applied to practice � he is a known conductor of classic and Hungarian music.

Two streams of thoughts orient Dobszay throughout his book: a meticulous critique of the Liturgical Reform of Paul VI, and an organic interpretation of the progress of liturgy in History.


A broad view, but a feeble courage

His broad critique of the Liturgical Reform deals not only with the parts and ceremonies of the Mass, but also with the structure of the hours and chant of the Divine Office, the ritual of Holy Week, and the changes introduced in hymns and sacral music.

On many points Dobszay is severe with the Liturgical Reform. Some examples suffice to show his level of indignation:

After analyzing the modifications introduced by the post-conciliar Liturgical Reform in the Easter Vigil Mass, he summarizes:

�It is astonishingly audacious to upset a clear liturgical order chiseled by tradition. If somebody anathematizes this ordo for the sake of his own invention, it is near impudence. And it is particularly so if it is qualified as disobedience or unecclesiastical behavior when somebody regards the original order of the Roman liturgy to be clearer, more dignified and worthier to the feast� (p. 39).

The Liturgical Reform imposed a book, Liturgia horarum (the liturgy of the hours), which changed the structure of the Divine Office sung in churches, monasteries and convents. Analyzing it, Dobszay states:

�The Liturgia horarum took over elements from the Roman Office similarly to someone erecting a new building by using the bricks from a demolished house. But it is not the same building. The structure, material and spirit of the Liturgia horarum stands so far from the Roman Office that it cannot be called a new version of it, a new member of the same family� (p. 68; also pp. 88, 186).

With one sentence he evaluates the whole Liturgical Reform: �The truth is that the recent innovations overrode not some 300-year-old custom, but in fact broke with the entire tradition of the Roman Church insofar as it is recognizable for us� (p. 153).

These excerpts would seem to place Dobszay among the strongest critics of the Liturgical Reform. One would say, therefore, that a gargantuan combatant against Vatican II�s Revolution has entered the arena. Unfortunately, this is not the case. The Author abhors being considered part of the �regressive forces of reaction� (p. 161), that is, a traditionalist or a conservative (pp. 11, 147-8, 161). At the same time he does not appreciate being termed a progressivist or a modernist (pp. 11, 143). He only feels comfortable in the �middle way� (p. 139). He insistently stresses that his intention is to properly apply the �true spirit� and the �will of the Council� (pp. 135, 139, 164, 180-1, 189) and the text of its liturgical constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium (passim). He intends to �reform the reform,� hence the title of his book, confirmed several times in its pages (pp. 9, 135, 165).

For me Dobszay�s position is an enigma. He demonstrates the negative results of the Liturgical Reform so well that the normal conclusion that comes to mind is: �Throw it out.� He insists, however, that he wants to reform it and make it healthy. It would be like a physician who would vigorously beat his patient in vital points with the pretense of curing him�

There are still other weak points in his approach.

* I have studied Joseph Ratzinger�s life and works and I am following his career as the head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. In my opinion, to date he has done nothing that contradicts his adhesion to the nouvelle theologie. So, it is surprising to see Dobszay�s blindness regarding Ratzinger. He dedicates the book to him, his �venerable father and master,� as �a sign of his highest affection� (p. 5). Further, the Author confesses himself already overjoyed just to have received Ratzinger�s permission to dedicate the book to him (p. 13). A little too much�

Why this exaggeration? Is it just Dobszay�s na�vet� that doesn�t see the progressivist role the Cardinal is playing? Is it his �middle of the way� position that feigns to be in the �center� but in fact follows Progressivism? Does he entertain hopes of receiving a Vatican post as a liturgical expert? Is it the habit of a man who has lived under Communism and has learned to always flatter the authority? No precise answer, just a bad impression.

Paul VI, far right, posing with the Protestant members of the Bugnini commission he chose and directed.

* Another strange point is that Dobszay never attributes the Liturgical Reform to its true author, Paul VI. He refuses to consider that throughout his whole pontificate Paul VI worked to achieve and impose the Liturgical Reform. He himself appointed Fr. Annibale Bugnini as secretary of the commission to draft the reform, followed every step of its progress, approved the commission�s final proposal, and imposed it on the whole Church. Finally he rewarded Bugnini by personally consecrating him a Bishop, then granting him the title of Archbishop, and finally naming him Pro-Nuncio in Iran. Dobszay says nothing about all this. Why? It seems a lack of courage to blame Paul VI.

The Author criticizes the �dictatorial manner, unparalleled in Church History� in which the Liturgical Reform has been imposed on the entire Catholic Church (pp. 73, 147, 163). He blames only Bugnini�s commission. Doesn�t he realize that a commission of experts doesn�t have power to impose anything on anyone in the Church? The �dictator� was Paul VI and not Bugnini. But the Author refuses to say it. Again, a feeble courage.


A questionable organic process of liturgical evolution

Dobszay adheres to an �organic vision� of liturgical progress. He states this in many places in his book. What does it mean?

In the first centuries of the Church�s life, the liturgy of the Mass was established one way here, another way there. Also various religious families adopted varying forms of the Office chants, as well as hymns, psalmody, and prayers. This organic process reached its apex of differentiation in the Middle Ages, and the Catholic liturgical reality was a rich mosaic. Dobszay is enthused with this organic process, as
am I.

Then Humanism and the Protestant Revolution entered the picture. Instead of analyzing that heresy and militantly opposing it, Dobszay seems indifferent to it. He only wants to know if any elements in the Protestant sects would �improve� what he considers the organic evolution of liturgy.

He admires Protestantism because it �simply continued the development of the late Middle Ages in liturgical chant (as well as in many other matters)� (p. 194). He approves the Protestant �mass� and ceremonies in vernacular (pp. 117, 194). He admires various points of the sects� liturgies: the �nicely made adaptations� of Gregorian melodies and texts translated from Latin by the Anglicans (pp. 113, 189); the �fashion of some early Lutheran service orders� that would serve as a model for the Catholic Church so each Diocese might choose the songs it prefers (p. 115); the pericopes [selected passages of the Scripture to be read at the mass] that �survived in the Old-Church systems of the Anglican and Lutheran � and early Calvinist � worship� (p. 122); the medieval Entry into Jerusalem ceremony in Advent that �in the Lutheran and Anglican communities remains so even today� (p. 124); �the Salisbury rite of the Episcopal Church, as transformed during centuries of separation� (p. 177-8).

In parallel, Dobszay is a harsh critic of the Tridentine Reform. Certainly he admits its continuity with the whole liturgical past of the Church (pp. 21, 23, 56, 68, 153). But he deems that �the Tridentine rite cannot be recommended as the only way to return to the authentic Roman liturgy� (pp. 55-6). He considers its uniformity as opposed to the organic progress. What Dobszay doesn�t realize is that by counter-attacking the different post-medieval heresies, the Church�s liturgy took a new and irreversible course in History. The period of organic process came to an end, replaced by a militant process. The uniformity of the Tridentine Reform was necessary to oppose Protestantism. From then on, this new rampart became a vital part of the Catholic Fortress.

Dobszay is also critical of the liturgical measures taken by St. Pius X: �The greatest damage was the change that the new Breviary effected in the minds of the priests. Those generations that grew up on this Breviary have lost their sense of the life-inspired order of the Office� (pp. 57, 81, 152). He doesn�t say a word about the imperative reason for that reform, which was to combat Modernism. His sole criterion is that the reform was against the �organic process.�

An analogous omission is made regarding Progressivism. He reveals no special opposition to the liturgical movement of the 1930s, which introduced Progressivism in the Church. Nothing is said about the progressivist liturgical schema presented at the Council that generated Sacrosanctum Concilium.

The Author always praises this constitution. He blames only Bugnini for the present day liturgical mayhem. However, an analysis of Sacrosanctum Concilium shows that actually it is the base for the existing situation. I specify:

� The order to promote urgently a liturgical reform is in SC �� 1, 14, 25, 31, 40, 43, 50, 63b, 128.
� The encouragement of the participation of the faithful in the liturgy is stated in �� 11, 14, 18, 19, 21, 27, 41, 53, 114, 121, 124.
� In � 12 communitarian prayer is recommended.
� In � 30 acclamations and dances are advised.
� Inculturation is counseled in �� 37-40, 112, 119.
� Communion under two species is counseled in �55.
� In �� 62, 67-82 a complete change in the ceremonies of the sacraments and sacramentals is imposed.
� The reform of Divine Office is decreed in �� 87-88, 91-93, 97.
� The reform of the liturgical year is ordered in � 107.
� The introduction of liturgical modern art is approved in � 123.
� The suppression of the statues in the churches is recommended in � 125.
� The change of sacerdotal vestments is allowed in �128.

An impartial appraisal of the Liturgical Reform of Paul VI shows that it is a direct consequence of Sacrosanctum Concilium. Dobszay, however, finds nothing wrong in this constitution.

One can see, therefore, that in practice Dobszay�s supposed organic process of liturgical evolution would appear to be nothing more than a way to conceal Protestantism, Modernism and Progressivism as causes that generated the respective liturgical reforms of St. Pius V, St. Pius X, and Paul VI. The two first, in fact, being very good, and the last one very bad.

The ensemble of these omissions indicates that Dobszay is fearful of describing the whole picture.

It is my hope that he will review his position in order to please God more than men.

At any rate, his book is a useful map that delineates the weak points of the Liturgical Reform and aptly expresses the problem that is growing inside the Conciliar Church: more and more people are seeing its failure, even when they are afraid to analyze its roots.

The Bad Effects of the Papal Apologies By Dr. Marian T. Horvat, Ph.D.

My friend Jan was not convinced that the latest papal apology for the Inquisition (see last article) was really so harmful to the Church.

�Even if the Inquisition was not as bad as historians have portrayed it, there were still some abuses. Doesn�t it show humility and honesty on the part of the Pope to ask pardon for the wrong things the Church may have done?� Jan argued. �Doesn�t it set a good example for us, since that�s what we teach our children to do � apologize when we do something wrong?�

JPII at a Request for Pardon religious service on March 12, 2000. He asked pardon for the Church's past hostility toward followers of other religions, for the Crusades, Inquisition, etc. Inside the Vatican, January 2001

Her comment unknowingly illustrates the exact point I would like to highlight. This apology, as well as the more than 100 others that John Paul II has made for the supposed wrongdoings of the Church, are presenting a new and false progressivist notion of what the Church is. The Church, in fact, does not �do wrong things,� as papal apologies induce the faithful to think.

The Church, as an institution, is pure and sinless, founded by Christ and preserved by God to be free of error, both in the past and in the present. It is only individual Church members, be they Popes, Bishops or the simple faithful, who sin.

This is the authentic teaching of the Church, Jan, as you and I learned it. But do your children or their friends realize this? Or is there some confusion in their minds caused by the constant papal apologies for the past �sins of the Church�? If you analyze these apologies carefully, you can see that most of them insert a short line, a footnote, or a parenthetical phrase attributing the fault to the members of the Church. For the scholars and theologians, therefore, the rule is maintained: no error of the Church but only of her members. However, it is the general line of the apology that normally remains in the minds of the faithful: the Church is sinful. In face of this contradiction, one cannot help but wonder: Is it the Vatican�s intention to cause this second impression?

At any rate, what sticks in the mind of so many Catholics, especially young ones schooled in �Vatican II catechism,� is that the Church made mistakes and even sinned in her past, so now the correct action for the Church is to repent and do penance. This would justify the continuous reform in customs and institutions we have seen since Vatican II. It explains why the Church would supposedly need new structures, because the old would be inherently flawed.

If we had a contaminated Church, which we do not, then we have a Church in need of evaluation and change, uncertain in her teaching. Yesterday she made a mistake. Today she corrects it and repents for her past. Tomorrow, well, who knows what tomorrow will bring as the Church evolves?

At the same ceremony Cardinal Ratzinger lights a lamp asking pardon for sins of intolerance, one of the seven petitions for forgiveness. Inside the Vatican, January 2001

This notion of a sinning Church that the progressivists inculcate in the spirit of the na�ve faithful, is affirmed in documents of Vatican II. Lumen gentium, for example, states the Church is �at the same time holy and always in need of being purified,� that she must always pursue �the path of penance and renewal.� (LG 8).

It is not difficult to understand from this that the Church would need a continual reform, as interpreted by Karl Rahner and Yves Congar and so many other progressivist ecclesiastics. Such theologians, suspect for heresy before Vatican II, have suddenly become the experts who cannot be questioned, even though their bad theology did not change. They are the ones who need to make apologies for their past and repent. But they have not. Instead, they are demanding the Church do exactly that: make apologies for her past and repent.

When the Pope apologizes for the past sins of the Church, he does not appear at all like one being humble and honest. He is implicitly affirming a new conception of the Church, and also the Faith, one constantly reforming, changing, and evolving.

I hope this explains, Jan, why there is something profoundly wrong with the Pope�s apology for the Inquisition and for so many other past militant actions of the Holy Catholic Church.

Does a Saturday evening "vigil" Mass satisfy the Sunday obligation?

It is of the divine law, prescribed by the third commandment of God, that a day of rest be set aside in honor of God. The theologians teach that the precept that this be observed on the Sunday and no longer on the Saturday is of ecclesiastical law, since at the beginning of the Church the apostles continued to go to the temple on Saturday (Acts 3:1; 5:12). However, the Apostles universally introduced the custom of sanctifying Sunday as the Lord’s Day, so much so that it had become obligatory by the beginning of the second century (cf. Prummer, II, §465, p. 386).
It is certainly true that the liturgical days for Sunday and feast days have always started with First Vespers that are celebrated on the eve of the feast or on Saturday afternoon to prepare for Sunday. But it was never permitted to celebrate a Mass for the feast or for the Sunday on the eve of the day itself, at the time of First Vespers. In fact the Church’s law was explicit on this point, prescribing that Mass could not begin more than one hour before dawn or more than one hour after Noon (canon 821, §1). It was consequently just as inconceivable to celebrate Mass on the eve of a feast to satisfy the obligation of the feast, as it was to claim that the law of abstinence from servile work obliged as of the afternoon before the feast. If it is true that in 1953 Pope Pius XII permitted the celebration of afternoon and evening Masses, this was on account of the shortage of priests, to allow for Masses on the afternoon or night of the feast or Sunday itself, rather than for the celebration of a "vigil" Mass to avoid the sanctification of the Sunday or Holy Day.
The novelty came with the 1983 Code of Canon Law, which permitted the faithful to satisfy their obligation of assisting at Mass on a Sunday or Holy Day either on the day itself or the afternoon or evening beforehand (canon 1248, §1). What are we to think of this? It is certainly true that the highest legislative authority in the Church, the pope, technically has the right to modify the First Precept of the Church, since it is of ecclesiastical law, and not of divine law. It is this ecclesiastical law that obliges under pain of mortal sin, as defined by Pope Innocent XI, and so consequently a person could not be accused of mortal sin for simply availing himself of the privilege of assisting at Mass on the afternoon before a Sunday or feast day.
However, this is not the real issue at stake. The real question is whether this relaxation of the law is in conformity with Tradition, whether it helps protect the Faith, and whether it assures the keeping of the Third Commandment of God, as it was designed to do. Alas, the response must be negative on each count. Whereas those who were legitimately impeded from assisting at Mass (e.g., by work obligations) were freed from their obligation, there is no tradition in the pre-Vatican II Church of substituting Mass for the offices that are designed to prepare for the feast (with the sole exception being in the 1950’s when Pius XII authorized miners who had to work every Sunday to assist at Mass on Saturday evening). It certainly does not protect the Faith or help in the sanctification of Sunday, as experience has shown. What do those Catholics do to sanctify the Sunday, to study and pray their Faith, when they will not even go to Mass on Sunday, but prefer Saturday afternoon so that their Sunday can be free for secular activities? Clearly, little or nothing. Gone are the Sunday catechism classes made obligatory by St. Pius X, the study of scripture, the reading of spiritual books, meditation and prayer, and even the respect for Sunday as a special day, consecrated to the honor of Almighty God. To introduce such a measure into the Church’s law is a major step in the secularization of the Church, and in making Catholics’ lives entirely indiscernible from those of anybody else in this pagan world.
Consequently, we have a duty to encourage our Novus Ordo Catholic friends to stand up against this lukewarm practice, so opposed to the sense of the Church and to the restoration of all things in Christ, and to truly honor the mysteries of the resurrection and of eternal life that are symbolized by the Sunday rest. Let traditional Catholics not even dream of the hypocrisy of attempting to use this provision of the lax post-Conciliar law, unless it be in the case where there is no alternative. For it is a manifest contradiction to pretend to be attached to the traditional Mass, and to the Church’s traditional teachings, and to refuse to even make the effort to attend Mass on Sunday to sanctify the Lord’s day.