Now the Roman Canon, you have to understand the canon is the part of mass between the Sanctus, holy, holy, holy until communion. The canon of mass is something that goes back to the times of the apostles. So it’s not just 400 years old, it doesn’t just go back to the Council of Trent, it goes back to the time of the apostles. And when Saint Gregory the Great, my patron saint, when he changed… He was pope between 590 and 604. When he added the words, „Diesque nostros in tua pace disponas‟ to the Hanc igitur of the canon, the people in Rome were outraged and they threatened to kill him because he had dared to touch liturgy. This, we’re talking about the year 600. Already by then, the concept of the unchangeability of the mass had been developed. Later on, after Gregory the Great, nobody dared to add anything to the canon of mass. Nobody dared to add or change anything in the proper or the order of mass until Pius the 12th, who was not the great conservative as some people like to see him in their romantic thoughts. Until Pius the 12th ignored this tradition and had Annibale Bugnini, those of you who have heard about the Novus Ordo Mass and his creator have heard the name Bugnini. And those of you who will read Father Trinchard’s excellent book on the topic will hear about Annibale Bugnini. Annibale Bugnini was discovered, promoted and made by Pope Pius the 12th and it is of no consequential interest to us if it was in reality a secretary of state who did it or the pope himself. The pope is always responsible no matter how. And that was the first change in liturgy. The rite of Palm Sunday, Holy Thursday, Good Friday and Holy Saturday was changed, something that did not happen in the 1500 years before because when Pius the fifth with his everlasting document, Quo Primum in 1570 canonized, that means set the rules forever, canonized the mass that was nothing else but the mass used by the Roman Curia and Rome and the Diocese of Rome, he outlawed any further change, any future change. So, I’ll explain later why. So what Pius the 12th did was the beginning of the liturgical reform. The liturgical reform did not start with Paul VI of most infelicitous memory, but it started with Pius the 12th.

So the faith never changes. We know that. Once the church establishes a dogma of faith, no future pope can change it. And before I go on talking about the liturgy, you have to understand the following: the pope is not infallible unless he says so and unless he wants to be so. If the pope prefers pea soup over a New England clam chowder, that has nothing to do with the faith. He’s not infallible. If the pope at the Angelus Dominus says that his favorite sanctuary of Our Lady is Loreto, I’m not interested. That’s a personal message from a person. Unless the pope says, „I, with the authority bestowed upon me by Jesus Christ, I, as the Bishop of Rome and the bishop of the entire Catholic Church, define, declare, and statute,‟ I’m not interested in what he says. Unless he defines, declares, or statutes, he cannot be infallible. He cannot pronounce an infallible truth. He does not have the necessary help of the Holy Spirit. The present pope, for example, never did so, except maybe, and that can be doubted, maybe on the question about women’s ordination, which is obviously excluded and always will be excluded. I don’t need the present pope to know that. But that’s the only time he used that formula. So when the pope says, for example, the present pope, „The Protestants can be saved by the efforts of their own church,‟ he’s nothing but a plain ordinary heretic. And that has nothing to do with his infallible magisterium. He has not the help of the Holy Spirit for that, and he did not say, „I define, declare, and statute that the Protestant can be saved by the efforts of his own church.‟ He just said it in one of his encyclicals. He said it in Catechesi Tradendae number 32. So, the pope is not infallible. On the contrary, he is bound to what his predecessors decreed, statuted, and defined. And only in matters that have not been settled by his predecessors, he can claim infallibility. That must be very clear to you. (church bell rings)

The pope is bound to accept the liturgy that he receives from his predecessors. As a matter of fact, in the old Oath of Incoronation, the Indiculum Pontificis, which was first solemnly signed and mailed to the then princes and kings and the emperor in Europe and other places. This Oath of Incoronation was the first time given by Pope Saint Agatha I in 683, I think it was. So, quite a long time ago. And this Oath of Incoronation has been signed by every single pope until Innocent VIII, and it has been spoken by the popes ever since. And this Oath of Incoronation, among other things, says, „Should we or anybody else dare to change these things, God will not be a merciful judge to us.‟ So the pope at the moment of incoronation, swears an oath before God that he will not change what he has been handed over by his predecessors.

In the Dogma of Infallibility, pronounced the 18th of July 1870 by Pope Pius IX, the fourth chapter says, „The purpose of the papacy is to guide, to watch over the doctrine and to explain it faithfully, to interpret it faithfully.‟ The pope has not been given the Holy Spirit to proclaim a new doctrine. And many theologians, whom you can never quote against the pope, but who you can use as advisers, many theologians have stated, many theologians who have been endorsed by popes and endorsed in their particular statements by popes, have said, „A pope who dares to change the entire liturgy puts himself outside the church.‟ Does that mean the present pope is not pope? No, it doesn’t mean it, because the present pope never said that he has the right to change the liturgy. He just celebrates another liturgy, which is sad, but we can’t change it, and we’re not interested in what he does in that sense and in that case.

So you see the liturgy is something that cannot be changed. If the pope or any other of the pastors dares to change it, he’s wrong. And the Council of Trent, in the seventh session, in the 13th canon says, „Whoever says that any of the pastors of the Church…‟ Now, that includes the pope, doesn’t it? Any of the pastors of the church. The first pastor of the church is the pope. Whoever says that any of the pastors of the church „may omit or add anything to the liturgy or change the liturgy or write up a new liturgy, he’s outside the church.‟ Whoever says so. So anybody says the pope has the right to change the liturgy, he’s not a Catholic. That’s against the defined dogma of the Council of Trent. You can look it up, seventh session, Canon 13. Anybody who doesn’t believe me can have the footnotes.

Well, first of all, we have to see what is Catholic teaching on holy mass. The Council of Trent defined that mass is the unbloody repetition of the sacrifice of Calvary of our Lord Jesus Christ. It is a propitiatory sacrifice and not just a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving. Now, Herr Doctor Martin Luther said that mass was only thanksgiving and praise and not propitiatory. That means for the forgiving of sin. Now, Herr Doctor Martin Luther is, as we know, a heretic, and the Lutherans are heretics, and the Lutherans never had mass. The Council of Trent also defined that holy mass is offered first of all for the greater glory of the blessed trinity, then for the forgiving of the sins, and then among other things, for thanksgiving and praise and for thanksgiving. The first purpose is the praise of our Lord, the blessed trinity. The second purpose is the propitiatory aspect of mass, the sacrifice of Christ on Mount Calvary for the forgiveness of our sins. And the third purpose of mass, of the main purposes, the third purpose of mass is thanksgiving to God. It’s not the first. It’s not the second.

In the new order of mass published, not decreed by Paul VI of most infelicitous memory, published by him… I say published because the only decree ever on the new missal signed by the Pope is a decree that says, „I like this book.‟ I’m talking about the Constitutio Apostolica Missale Romanum of November 1969, I think it was. Pope Paul VI signed that, and Pope Paul VI said he likes the book, and he adds three Eucharistical prayers to the already existing canon of mass. So, Pope Paul VI never said that I have to use the new missal. It was the congregation who said so, but the congregation cannot decide something behind the back of the Pope, even if the Pope afterwards silently agrees. This, however, is of no importance to me. The point is here there was a mass, an order of mass published that does not mention anymore the first purpose of mass, the greater glory of the trinity. It does not mention anymore the propitiatory sacrifice. It only mentions the sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, but generally speaking, praise. It doesn’t mention in particular the blessed, most blessed trinity. And it nowhere mentions the real presence of our Lord on the altar. It nowhere mentions the fact that the moment the priest in the name of Christ, in the person of Christ, pronounces the words of consecration, the body, the blood, and intimately connected with that, the soul and the divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ are rendered present on the altar.

Now, the Lutherans believe that our Lord Jesus Christ is present only subjectively. That means as long as you believe it. He’s present for you in your appreciation, in your faith, in your personal interpretation of what happened. The Council of Trent says from the moment of consecration until the particles are either invisible or gone, our Lord Jesus Christ is present, replacing the substance of the bread and the wine with His own substance, even though the appearance is kept. You understand that this is a very elementary part of the Catholic faith. Otherwise, we would be cookie worshipers. I mean, this is what you get to hear from the Protestants sometimes. „Oh, the Catholics, the papists.‟ Them there papists are cookie worshipers. Well, today they are with priests not celebrating mass validly anymore. You get a piece of bread on the altar. You get sometimes a priest who’s not even dressed for mass behind a sort of ironing board saying hello to the people, saying a lot of blah blah, doing some gestures that have become meaningless, and then some people still kneel before that. Of course, that’s cookie worship, but we’re talking about what the church says about mass. And the church says the body, the blood, the soul, and the divinity of Christ are present in the moment of consecration. The new mass does not speak about that.

Very cleverly, when a group of theologians, among them a majority of Protestants, by the way… You have to understand that the new rite was written by a majority of Protestants and not Catholics. I know that because I worked two years for Cardinal Stickler, who was member of that group. It was called the Consilium, the Council. And I think there were some nine members, and seven of them were Protestants. Something like that. I don’t remember if it’s the exact number, but you can look it up. And they wrote up a new mass. Now, I told you before that this is not possible. That’s against the will of the church and against the will of Christ. So the mass is illegal. But what they wrote up is even worse. It beats anything you will see in an Anglican prayer book. The Anglican missal, the Common Prayer Book. In the Anglican Common Prayer Book, many things that the Catholic mass retained are not found in the Novus Ordo Missae in Latin, let alone in the English translation.

For the matter is easy. We have to have a host on the altar, period. You can’t use a cookie. You can’t use honey. You can’t use a bagel. And we have to have wine on the altar. It won’t do with Coke. That’s the matter of the mass. The form is you have to say, „This is my body,‟ at least, „and this is my blood,‟ at least. If the priest was to say, „This is Christ’s blood,‟ forget it. It’s not valid.

Now, the intention. The church cannot judge your intention and my intention. The church cannot judge what you think and what you really want, but the church can judge what you manifest. Say, for example, in the old days when a priest walked out six o’clock in the morning, dead tired, but dressed nicely for mass, walked out and said his mass, you had the impression he wanted to do what the church does. Otherwise, why bother? Might have stayed in bed. If, on the other hand, you have a priest coming out of the sacristy dressed in jeans and sweater and haze, and then he does anything but what you find in the Roman missal, you will see his intention is obviously not to do what the church does because the church does not do that. The church uses her own liturgical books, which have rubrics in there, which you have to follow, and they have words in there which you have to read. So that’s the intention manifested. Sometimes a priest who has the intention to do what the church does cannot do it. Like if I find myself in the jungle and there’s no missal around, absolutely no missal available, and no bread available, no wine, I can’t celebrate mass, period. Sometimes a priest might have a missal, but he cannot celebrate mass with it because the missal is the wrong missal. It might be written in Hebrew and he can’t read it, or it might be an Anglican missal. And about the Anglican Common Prayer Book, Leo the 13th said you cannot use it for a sacrament. Why? Because the Anglican Church officially says there is no sacrifice of mass, there is no real presence of our Lord on the altar, and there is no real priesthood. So whatever they print in this book, it can’t be valid. The book is determined not to celebrate mass. It’s determined to have a nice, entertaining evening prayer.

And with the new missal of Paul the sixth, the thing is in a doubtful situation. On one hand, the Catholic Church out there, this counterfeit Catholic Church, what I call it, the Catholic Church of the modernists, of the new bishops and the new priests, officially however says, officially does not deny clearly and always the presence of the blessed sacrament on the altar and does not always say there is no sacrifice of mass in the sense of forgiving the sins. The pope at least still sticks to that. However, they make it manifest that they do not believe in the real presence of our Lord on the altar. And I will give you one example to show you how intentions become manifest. In this case, intentions of the American Bishops Conference and Rome. It was a couple of Protestants and Catholics who some 10 or 12 years ago signed an open letter to the pope complaining about the fact that you can see wine stains in the wall-to-wall carpets in Catholic churches right there where communion is distributed under both kinds, host and chalice. And they could see the wine stains in the bright gray wall-to-wall carpet. And they said, the Catholics said, „We believe this is the blood of our Lord. How can you do this?‟ And the Protestants said, „You tell us this is the blood of our Lord. How can you do this?‟ You know what the answer Rome was? The Sacred Congregation for the Liturgy signed the letter to the American Bishops Conference given them plain faculty to decide to distribute communion under both kinds whenever they want. This is manifested intention not to confect the sacrament on the altar or to confect, much worse, a sacrilege. Here, Rome was officially endorsing the sacrilege or the symbol of communion where it doesn’t matter if you spill a drop of wine or not because it’s wine anyway. It’s symbolic wine. So you can interpret Rome’s answer either way, and either way, it does not correspond with the intention to do what the Church does.

So you can see from these things that we at least have to have grave doubt about the validity of the new mass. The church throughout 2,000 years has explicitly over and over again outlawed the participation in a doubtful sacrament. The Church has always decreed and commanded the faithful to stay away from doubtful ceremonies, and the Church has never allowed anything but the safer course. As a matter of fact, when Innocent III, Pope Innocent III was asked if he could celebrate a certain… it was a question about a certain liturgical local custom, if you were allowed to use this even though it put a question mark on the validity of the sacrament, but you should use it for pastoral purposes to attract more faithful. Innocent III answered, „No. The safer course must always be adopted. You can never use, for something as sacred as the sacrament, anything doubtful. And if you do, you’re in grave sin and disobedience to the Church.‟ And this is the reason why a Catholic who wants to remain a Catholic must not participate in a New Order Mass.

The reason why I gave you the reason why you cannot be present, why you should not be and must not attend an Ordo Missae mass. However, there’s one exception only. If somebody in the family dies, if somebody in the family marries and you would upset the whole family, the whole, as the Jews call it, (Hebrew), and the whole clan, and the whole dynasty, then you may attend, but do not say amen, because amen in Hebrew does not mean, okay, it’s all right. Amen in Hebrew means yes, yes, yes. And you don’t want to say yes to a sacrilege.

Then you have the offertory. There cannot be a sacrifice without an offertory. You cannot, in no religion ever throughout history, there was a sacrifice without an offertory, without a priest first picking up the lamb and saying, „I offer this to you, our Lord,‟ before he slaughtered the lamb, or whatever the animal was that had to be sacrificed. Even in those horrible pagan rites that fortunately were massacred, like the Cor- Cartago. They sacrificed babies to the Moloch. They threw babies into the fire as an offering to God. Fortunately, this religion was massacred by the Romans. But all the Aztecs, the Aztecs offered up to 40,000 a day to the gods, cutting out the heart of the live prisoner. Now, somehow those political correct people today never mention these facts. It’s strange. However, even there, the priest would first take up the stone dagger, say a prayer offering to one of the Aztec gods, before he carved out the heart of the prisoner. There was never a sacrifice in the history of a religion without an offertory until Paul VI came up with a new mass. This new mass does not speak anymore about the fact that the sacrifice is presented to the most blessed trinity. Suscipe Sancta Trinitas is the prayer that you have to look up in your missal. „Accept, oh, Holy Trinity, the sacrifice that I offer up.‟ The new offertory, quote-unquote „offertory‟, recites a Jewish dinner prayer. And I do not know it by heart. I have never celebrated the mass, thank God, in the vernacular, but it says, „Blessed is the Lord from whom we receive the bread. The fruit of earth and human labor, which we’ll give to you so that it may become our spiritual bread.‟ This is what the Jewish patriarch would say before, this is the way the Jewish patriarch would say grace at dinner. So using this „offertory‟, quote-unquote, in the new mass, you communicate the idea of a dinner, not a sacrifice.

Later on, in the Roman canon, for those few priests who use the Roman canon to celebrate mass, the words of consecration have been changed. In the old days, it was, Hoc est enim corpus meum, and nothing else. The church had no intention of quoting Saint Paul literally. The church was using words that expressed the meaning of the sacrifice of mass. Because the words of consecration are efficient words. It is the words of consecration in the right frame, of course, and the right intention and with the right matter, but it is the words of consecration that render present our Lord. The words of consecration are not a narration. They are not a report on what happened 2,000 years ago, but they are communicating what happens here, right now. And these have been changed to a literal quotation from the letter of Saint Paul to the Corinthians. Or is it the Romans? I don’t remember. And the words of the consecration of the chalice used to contain what you do not find in the letters of Saint Paul or the Gospel, the words Mysterium Fidei, Mystery of Faith. So the priest would say… I hate to translate it into English because a vernacular translation is almost a sacrilege to a sacred text, especially in English, German, and other rotten languages. The priest says, „This is the chalice with my blood, of the new and the everlasting testament, which is given up for you and for most.‟ Not for all, for most. And in that moment, he says, „Mystery of faith,‟ because now the priest at the very moment of consecration professes his own faith in the real presence, professes his own faith in the fact that here a sacrifice takes place, and he professes his own faith in the fact that it is not he who is speaking. When I celebrate mass, I say, „This is my body.‟ How is that possible? I do not offer up my body visibly. I’m still here. It is not me, it is not I who speaks, but it is our Lord who speaks. I’m just lending him my voice, and my priesthood that I share with him, that I have received from him. I’m lending him my voice basically. He speaks through my mouth, which is why priests are to be considered sacred by the way. So at the very moment our Lord is present fully, body and blood, I have to do an act of reverence. So I will immediately, I will say, „Mystery of faith,‟ and very shortly after that will genuflect. Long before I show the chalice or the host to the people, I will genuflect because the moment he is present at the altar, I have to do an act of reverence. How can I make it believable to you that I believe that this could become the blood of our Lord if at the moment it has become the blood of our Lord, I do not show any immediate reverence? Absurd. Absolutely absurd. And yet, this is what the new mass does.

And I have mentioned the best of the best cases, the old Roman canon in Latin. Now, Paul VI added three so-called Eucharistical prayers, whatever that means, to the Roman canon as an option. Now, I give you one example of real liturgical trash. The third Eucharistical prayer, significantly enough, the one the present pope prefers over all the others. The third Eucharistical prayer starts with saying, (church bells ringing) „We have come together here to offer up…‟ No, it says, „Populum tibi congregare non desinis ut sacrificium…‟ et cetera. You do not cease to congregate the people so that the sacrifice may be offered up. What does that mean? That means the people have to come together so that Mass can be offered up? Does that mean the people have to come together so, in order that we celebrate Mass? The definition of Mass given, by the way, in the Roman Missal of 1969 and 1970, because you cannot add anything to a wrong definition. You have to take away a wrong definition. If you add other things to it, it doesn’t make it change. So we have the definition still in there. The definition of Mass given in the Roman Missal of 1969, signed by Paul VI, is the following. „The Mass or the Supper. The Mass or the Supper of our Lord is when people come together and unite under Christ to give praise and thanksgiving to Him.‟ Now, that’s the definition of the Roman Missal. Where’s the sacrifice for the forgiving of sins? Where’s the propitiatory sacrifice? Where’s the real presence? Where’s the sacrifice of our Lord on the cross? And you know what? This definition, which you can read in the Missal of Paul VI, is almost to the letter the same definition that Archbishop Thomas Cranmer of Canterbury, under Henry VIII, gave to his Mass. And he called it The Mass or the Supper of the Lord. Exactly what the English Missal does now, with the only difference in spelling. In those days, Mass was spelled M-A-S-S-E. That’s the only difference.

So the new Mass, to call the new Mass a Protestant rite is an insult of the Anglican community because the new Mass goes far beyond that. The Anglican Mass, at least, still speaks about the fact that we have to have our sins forgiven. The Anglican Common Prayer Book speaks about the sacrifice of praise and the sacrifice of thanksgiving. The Novus Ordo Mass of Paul VI does not mention any type of sacrifice. The word sacrifice hardly ever appears in the whole missal. It has been diligently scratched out of all the common prayers and all the proper prayers in the missal.

Now, I’ve mentioned the best case, the Roman Canon, and the Third Eucharistical Prayer speaking about kind of presuming the presence of the people as a necessity for celebrating Mass is something that you could not call directly heretical, but definitely leading towards heresy. Because if you read that and hear that over and over again, you will come to the conclusion, „Ah, my presence is necessary for Mass.‟ Well, rest assured, it isn’t. Very often I celebrate Mass entirely alone behind closed doors. And believe me, it’s a valid Mass, and it’s exactly as valid as a Mass with 2,000 people. And it is definitely more valid than the Novus Ordo Mass of the Cardinal Archbishop of New Orleans in his cathedral. And I don’t care how many people are present, and it doesn’t make a dime worth of a difference if there are two devout old ladies present at Mass or 500,000 people when the Pope celebrates Mass. Doesn’t make the slightest difference. We do not, never has the presence of the people been needed for a sacrament. Only the one who receives the sacrament is needed for a sacrament if a recipient is needed. And in Mass, that isn’t the case because the communion of the faithful, strictly speaking, is not even part of Mass. Only the communion of the priest is a necessary part of Mass.