Footnotes
Introduction
1.
Rev. T. E. Bridgett, Life of Blessed John Fisher (London: Burnes & Oates,
1888). Cardinal St. John Fisher was martyred, along with St. Thomas More, by
Henry VIII in 1535.
2.
Quoted by Fr. Michael Mueller, C.SS.R., God the Teacher of Mankind – The
Holy Sacrifice of the Mass (St. Louis: B. Herder Book Co., 1885).
3.
St. Alphonsus Liguori, The Holy Mass (London: Benziger Brothers, 1887).
4.
St. Leonard of Port Maurice, The Hidden Treasure (Rockford, Illinois,
TAN Books and Publishers, Inc., 1971).
5.
Fr. Michael Mueller, C.SS.R., op. cit.
6.
Dr. Nicholas Gihr, The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass (St. Louis: B. Herder
Book Co., 1929).
7.
Ibid.
8.
Dr. Nicholas Gihr, op. cit. The Liturgy of the Apostle St. James can be found
in The Anti-Nicene Fathers (Eerdmans, 1967).
9.
Quoted by Gaby, Le Sacrifice dans L’Ecole Francaise de Spiritualite
(Paris, 1951).
10.
Canon George D. Smith, The Teaching of the Catholic Church (N.Y.,
Macmillan, 1949)
11.
Anglicans recognize the King or Queen of England as the head of their Church.
At the time of the American Revolution, Anglicans in this country rejected this
“headship” and declared themselves to be Episcopalians.
12.
They describe the efficacy of the bread and wine used in their service in a
wide variety of ways. Some admit that Christ is “subjectively” present for the
worshiper (see the discussion of NOBIS – “For Us” – later in the text), but all
deny any objective “PRESENCE,” independent of the worshiper.
13.
The Anglicans and Lutherans still say the Nicene Creed, which dates from 325.
This statement however is taken from the “Thirty-Nine Articles” to which
Anglicans and Episcopalians must give their assent “in the plain meaning of the
words.”
14.
Both quotations are from Fr. Nicholas Gihr, op. cit.
15.
As the Canons of the Council of Trent state: “If anyone saith that the
Sacrifice of the Mass is only a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving... Let him
be anathema.” The Eucharistic prayers of the Novus Ordo Missae
constantly utilize the phrase, a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, without
reference to the other aspects of the sacrifice.
16.
Ex opere operato means literally “by its own power.” The personal defects of
the priest (assuming he is properly ordained, uses a valid rite, and has the
proper intention) or of the communicant do not affect its “power.”
17.
Confessions, I., 9, c. 11-12.
18.
Adolf Tanquerey, A Manual of Dogmatic Theology (New York: Desclee,
1959).
19.
Also called “the Mass of All Times” (because it dates back to the Apostles in
its essential elements – though it is eternal in its nature), the “Tridentine Mass”
(only because the 16th century Council of Trent [Tridentum in
Latin] ordered it to be “codified”), “the Mass of Pius V” (after the Pope who
actually “codified” it in 1570), and on occasion (but loosely and incorrectly)
the “Latin mass” (incorrectly, because any rite can be translated into Latin
and because the Novus Ordo Missae itself was issued originally in
Latin).
20.
Dr. Nicholas Gihr, op. cit. It should be added that the Christian Revelation
ceased with the death of the last Apostle, and not with the death of Christ.
21.
Quoted by Patrick H. Omlor, Interdum, Issue No. 7, Menlo Park, CA.
22.
There is moreover considerable evidence that the Mass was considered too sacred
to be written down.
23.
Statements publicly made and reported in the Osservatore Romano while
thanking the six Protestant “observers” for their help in formulating the New
Mass (or Novus Ordo Missae) used by the Church in post-Conciliar times.
24.
St. Alphonsus Liguori, The Dignity and Duties of the Priest, or Selva
(London: Benziger Bros., 1889), p. 212.
25.
Fr. Denis Fahey, The Mystical Body of Christ and the Reorganization of
Society (Dublin: Regina Publications).
1.
Bard Thompson, Liturgies of the Western Church (New York: New American
Lib., 1974), p. 236. The head of the Anglican Church is the King of Queen of
England. Changes in its teaching or liturgy have to have the approval of the
British Parliament. Hence American Anglicans in 1776 found themselves in a
somewhat awkward position. They resolved this by declaring themselves
independent of British royalty and government and by changing their name to
Episcopalian. But no doctrinal or ritual changes of significance were involved
in this transition.
2.
Quoted in Michael Davies, Liturgical Revolution – Cranmer’s Godly Order
(Devon, England: Augustine, 1976), p. 99.
3.
“The first new service [of Cranmer] in the place of the Mass had to be a kind
that men might mistake for something like the continuance of the Mass in
another form. When that pretense had done its work and the measure of popular
resistance taken, they could proceed to the second step and produce a final
Service Book in which no trace of the old sanctities would remain.” Hilaire
Belloc, Cranmer (Philadelphia: Lippincott, 1931), p. 246.
4.
Pastoral Letter, September 15, 1969.
5.
In referring to the priest as a “president” we are only following the patter
established by the New Mass’s “General Instruction” (see later in the text).
6.
A group of 400 pilgrims walked from Paris to Rome to ask Paul VI to
grant them permission to use the Traditional Mass, i.e., the so-called
“Tridentine” Mass. He was too busy to see them. Later, it became known that at
the time he was entertaining the Belgian soccer team.
7.
“It would be well to understand the motives for such a great change introduced
[into the Mass]... It is the will of Christ. It is the breath of the Spirit
calling the Church to this mutation...” (General Audience, Nov. 26, 1969).
According to the Canon lawyer Father Capello, a “mutation” which is substantial
in the form of a Sacrament would invalidate it. (De Sacramentis [Rome
Marietti, n.d.], p. 33.) Cf. also Pope Paul VI’s Missale Romanum, April
3, 1960.
8.
Documents on the Liturgy 1963-1979, Conciliar, Papal and Curial Texts
(Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1983), paragraph 1757. This collection
is cited hereafter as “DOL,” followed by a paragraph number.
9.
Michael Davies, Liturgical Revolution – Pope Paul’s New Mass (Dickinson,
TX: Angelus Press, 1980), p. 17 (cited hereafter as “PPNM.”).
10.
Christian Order, Oct., 1978. The full quote is of interest. Reporting on
a conversation: “At the end Dr. de Saventham asked the prelate whether the
traditional liturgy could not be permitted at the side of the new one. The
answer was startling: ‘Sir, all these reforms go in the same direction: whereas
the old Mass represents another ecclesiology!’ Dr. de Saventham: ‘Monseigneur,
what you said is an enormity!’” It was shortly after this that Benelli was made
a Cardinal by Paul VI, and Michael Davies describes him as “a most
authoritative spokesman for the post-Conciliar Church.”
11.
Fr. Louis Bouyer, Religeux et Clerics Contra Dieu (Paris, 1975), quoted
by Michael Davies, PPNM. Fr. Bouyer, a convert from Lutheranism,
initially supported the liturgical reform, but soon came to the conclusion that
the process went much too far.
12.
Notitiae, April, 1974, p. 126; see also P. Coughlan, The New
Eucharistic Prayers (London, 1968), p. 5.
13.
These “options” often contained traditional ideas. This was a clever method of
allowing post-Conciliar apologists to claim that the New Rite was still
orthodox, while at the same time virtually guaranteeing that no one would
utilize these “options” in the everyday liturgy.
14.
For example, Archbishop R. J. Dwyer of Portland, Orgeon said: “Who dreamed that
on that day [when the Council Fathers voted for the Constitution on the
Liturgy] that within a few years, far less than a decade, the Latin past of
the Church would be all but expurgated, and that it would be reduced to a
memory fading in the middle distance? The thought of it would have horrified
us, but it seemed so far beyond the realm of the possible as to be ridiculous.
So we laughed it off.”
15.
For details on this, see my article “The Post-Conciliar Rite of Holy Orders,” Studies
in Comparative Religion, v. 16, nos. 2 and 3. Available from Society of St.
Pius V, 8 Pond Place, Oyster Bay Cove, N.Y. 11771.
16.
Fr. John Barry Ryan, The Eucharistic Prayer (New York: Paulist Press,
1974), p. 26.
17.
Fr. Joseph Jungmann, S.J., The Mass (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press,
1975), p. 190. Fr. Jungmann was a member of the revolutionary liturgical
Concilium and fully approved of the changes made in the Mass.
18.
Le Monde, Sept., 1970.
19.
Cf. page 7, footnote 13. Article XXXI of the Thirty-Nine Articles.
20.
These phrases will be very familiar to post-Conciliar Catholics. It is
pertinent that Luther tells us that it was Satan who convinced him that the
Mass was not a true Sacrifice, and that in worshiping bread, he was guilty of
idolatry. Satan appeared to him and said: “Listen to me, learned doctor, during
fifteen years you have been a horrible idolater. What if the body and blood of
Jesus Christ are not present there, and that you yourself adored and made
others adore bread and wine? What if your ordination and consecration were as
invalid as that of the Turkish and Samaritan priest is false, and their worship
impious... What a priesthood is that! I maintain, then, that you have not
consecrated at Mass and that you have offered and made others adore simple
bread and wine... If then, you are not capable of consecration and ought not to
attempt it, what do you do while saying mass and consecrating, but blaspheme and
tempt God?” Luther acknowledged at the close of this conference that he was
unable to answer the arguments of Satan, and he immediately ceased saying Mass.
The details are available in Audin’s Life of Luther, and are quoted by Fr.
Michael Muller, C.SS.R., God the Teacher of Mankind – The Holy Sacrifice of
the Mass (St. Louis: B. Herder, 1885), p. 482.
21.
Fr. Jungmann explains that this prayer is simply a confession that we are
sinners, “and that the Misereatur was retained, as this prayer, unlike
the Indulgentiam, could be said by any layman.” The Mass, p. 167.
22.
The word “consubstantial” is of hallowed use since the Council of Nicea (325
A.D.), where it as used to distinguish Catholic doctrine from the Arian heresy.
The heresiarch Arius, like many liberal Protestants, denied the divinity of
Christ, and hence the term “consubstantial” has anti-ecumenical connotations.
Pope St. Damasus (366-384) anathematized all who refused to use the term
“consubstantial.” The post-Conciliar translators justified this error on the
grounds that “the son is not made but begotten, he shares the same kind of
being as the Father.” This is, to say the least, semi-Arianism. Michael Davie
discusses this issue in PPNM., pp. 619-621.
23.
Msgr. Frederick McManus was the directing force behind the English
translations. As early as 1963 he objected to the Offertory Prayers that
“anticipate the Canon and obscure the sacrificial offering in the Canon
itself.” (“The Future: Its Hopes and Difficulties” in The Revival of the
Liturgy [New York: Herder & Herder, 1963], pg. 217). One may well
wonder how the Church survived over the past 2,000 years withotu the help of
these liturgical innovations.
24.
Cf. Michael Davies’ Liturgical Revolution – Cranmer’s Godly Order
(Devon, England: Augustine, 1976).
25.
PPNM., p. 340.
26.
Fr. Joseph Jungmann, S.J., The Mass (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press,
1976), p. 191.
27.
Catholics believe that, providing the priest is validly ordained, uses proper
form and matter (words and “material” and/or action), and has the right
intention, Consecration occurs. The technical phrase applied to the power of a
Sacrament is ex opere operato, meaning that the operation of the
Sacrament takes place automatically, if these four requirements are
present. It occurs regardless of the spiritual state of the priest or of the
people present. Space has limited our ability to discuss the issue of
“intention.” Suffice it to say that there is an external intention
implicit in the words and action of the priest, and also an internal intention
on the part of the priest himself, which we can never know, apart from his
informing us of it. In the Traditional Mass, one could presume that the
internal intention corresponded with the outer acts and words – the priest
would have had to entertain a positively contrary internal intention to
invalidate the Mass (i.e., a priest saying the Traditional Mass can intend not
to consecrate while using the correct words and actions, and the nothing would
happen. Of course he would be guilty of grave sacrilege). In the New Rite, the external
words and acts in no way assure us that a proper intention is based on the
external words and actions of the Novus Ordo Missae, the Sacrament is,
to say the last, most doubtful. For the priest to consecrate – assuming for the
moment that such is even possible within this rite, especially when said in
many of the vernacular languages – he must have the positive intention
to “do what the Church does,” and/or, “to do what Christ intended.” What makes
this whole matter extremely germane is that the majority of priests being
trained today are not taught traditional Sacramental theology and therefore
very likely do not know the nature of the positive intention they must
entertain. According to Fr. Robert Burns, C.S.P., an editorial writer for The
Wanderer, “Many newly ordained priests are either formal or material
heretics on the day of their ordination. This is so, because their teachers
embraced Modernist errors and passed them along to their students. Their
students, after ordination, in turn propagated these errors, either in
catechetical teaching or in pulpit preaching. The same situation is also true
in the cases of many older priests who return to schools of theology for
updated courses or ‘retooling in theology’.”
28.
Hugh Ross Williamson, The Modern Mass (Rockford, IL: TAN, 1971), p. 26. Mr.
Williamson appealed to the English hierarchy to remove the words “for us” from
Eucharistic Prayer 2 “as evidence of good faith,” but his petition was
completely ignored.
29.
DOL., Nos. 1712 and 1960.
30.
See comment of Fr. Joseph Jungmann, The Mass: An Historical, Theological and
Pastoral Survey (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1976), p. 201.
31.
PPNM., p. 343.
32.
It was changed to “You are the one God” on February 24, 1985.
33.
The term “Institution” refers to the institution of the Sacrament by Christ,
and could be a perfectly legitimate theological word. The idea that the Mass is
a mere “narrative,” however, is patently false and entirely Protestant. Despite
this, official French catechisms make such statements as “at the heart of the
Mass lies a story....” The official French Missal, published with the approval
of the French hierarchy, states that the mass “is simply a question of making
memorial of the unique sacrifice already accomplished”! (“Il s’agit
simplement de faire memoire de l’unique sacrifice deja accompli.”) This
statement has been repeated in more than one edition, and this despite the
repeated protests of the Faithful. It would however appear to be the “official”
teaching of the Conciliar Church in France.
34.
Fr. J. O’Connell, The Celebration of the Mass (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1941),
v. 1, p. 226.
35.
In a previous edition of this booklet, the issue of invalid matter was raised
in reference to post-Conciliar legislation which permits alcoholic priests to
use grape juice to celebrate the New Mass (DOL., No. 1674, R51). But, as St.
Thomas notes (Summa, III, 74), Pope Julius did in fact allow the use or mustum,
or the juice of ripe grapes, in cases of necessary. On the other hand, that the
artificially-processed beverage we call “grape juice” meets this standard as
valid matter seems, to me at least, open to question. Recently, John Paul II,
in the name of inculturation, has authorized the ad experimentum
(“experimental”) use of hosts made from farina of the casava grain and wine
made form corn in Zaire. The source of this statement is La Croix
(Paris), August 9, 1989, and reported by Fr. Noel Barbara in Forts dans la
Foi, No. 7, 1990.
36.
See Catholic Encyclopedia, v. 13, p. 299, 1914 edition.
37.
Below are given all the known forms from the various rites which the Church has
always accepted as valid. (There are 76 such rites in various languages, but
they all fall into one of the patters given below.) Note that the only significant
variation relates to the words Mysterium fidei. These two words are said
to have been added to the words of Christ by the Apostles – an act entirely
within their province and function, for Revelation comes to us both from Christ
and the Apostles. The reason for the other minor variations is that the various
Apostles established the mass separately, in various parts of the world to
which they were dispatched. Thus, St. Thomas informs us, “James, the brother of
the Lord according to the flesh, and Basil, Bishop of Caesarea, edited the rite
of celebrating the Mass.” (Summa, III, Q. 83, Art. 4). All use the same
formula for the Consecration of the Bread. For the wine: Byzantine: “This is My
blood of the New Testament which is shed for you and for many for the
forgiveness of sins.” Armenian: “This is My Blood of the New Testament which is
shed for you and for many for the expiation and forgiveness of sins.” Coptic:
“For this is My Blood of the New Covenant, which is shed for you and for many
for the forgiveness of sins.” Ethiopic: “This is My Blood of the New Covenant,
which shall be poured out and offered for the forgiveness of sins and eternal
life of you and of many.” Maronite: As in the Latin rite. Chaldean: “This is My
Blood of the New Covenant, the mystery of faith, which is shed for you and for
many for the forgiveness of sins.” Malabar: “For this is the chalice of My
Blood o the New Covenant, the mystery of faith, which is shed for you and for
many for the forgiveness of sins.” Malabar: “For this is the chalice of My
Blood of the New and Eternal Testament, the Mystery of Faith, which is shed for
you and for many for the remission of sins.” The most complete listing is given
in Rev. J. M. Neale and Rev. R. F. Littledale’s The Liturgies of Ss. Mark,
James, Clement, Chrysostom, and Basil and the Church of Malabar (London:
Hayes, date unknown).
38.
In the General Instruction that accompanies the New Order of the Mass, these
words are referred to as “the words of the Lord,” rather than, as in the
rubrics attached to the Traditional Rite, the “Words of Consecration.” I am
aware that the second version of the General Instruction was amended in
paragraph 55d to read “Institution narrative and consecration,” but this in no
way changes the import of what we have said. Consecration can, in the context
of the New Mass, simply mean that the bread and wine are “set apart” for sacred
use.
39.
Cf. footnote 7, page 22. Also cf. DOL., No. 1360.
40.
Certain words in the sacramental forms are said to be essential. Others are
said to be substantial because they are so intimately connected with the
essential words that any change in them involves a change in meaning. Still
others are required for the integrity or completeness of the form. Needless to
say, anyone who believes in the power of the form (the words of the Sacrament)
will hesitate to tinker with it in any way.
41.
Luther also wished to do this – a process which again points to the narrative
aspect of the New Rite. Cf. Roland Bainton, Here & Eternal (New
York: Mentor Paperbacks, 1950/1978).
42.
Henry Cardinal Manning, The Temporal Mission of the Church (London:
Burns and Oates, 1901).
43.
Fr. Joseph A. Jungmann, S.J., The Mass of the Roman Rite: Its Origins and
Development (new York, Benziger, 1950), v. 1, p. 194. Dom Gaspar Gueranger
also noted in his Institutions Liturgiques that “It is to the Apostles
that those ceremonies go back... The Apostolic liturgy is found entirely
outside of Scripture; it belongs to the domain of Tradition.”
44.
De Sacro Altaris Mysterio, quoted by Maurice de la Taille, The
Mystery of the Faith, Theses XXIV and XXV, p. 454.
45.
This is by no means an isolated quotation. Consider the following: “It is well
known that to the Church there belongs no right whatsoever to innovate anything
on the substance of the Sacraments.” (Pope Saint Pius X, Ex quo nono,
Denziger 2147A).
46.
Missale Romanum, Desclee. De defectibus. Ch. V, par. 1.
47.
“It is clear, if any substantial part of the sacramental form is suppressed, that
the essential sense of the words is destroyed; and consequently the Sacrament
is invalid.” (Summa, III, Q. 60, Art. 8).
48.
Fr. Charles Augustine, A Commentary on the New Code of Canon Law (1917)
(St. Louis: B. Herder Book Co., 1925), v. 4, p. 155, commenting on Canon 817.
Some may argue that we now have a New Code of Canon Law, dating from
1983, and therefore that this present observation is no longer a valid
objection. However, there is a principle in Canon Law (as in Civil Law) that so
long as a law has not been specifically abrogated, it is still in effect. Also,
cf. Canon 5 of the 1983 Codex to the same effect.
49.
See Interdum, No. 2 (February 24, 1970), p. 2. Joachim Jeremias was a
Protestant who specifically denied the possibility of Transubstantiation. His
contention that there was no word for “all” in Aramaic is also proved false by
referring to Porta Linguarum Orientalium. All this is not a matter of
quibbling over inconsequential details. The Council of Nicea fought over the
issue of adding one letter to the word homoousios, which change the
meaning of the term. As Leo XIII said in Satis Cognitum: “Nothing is
more dangerous than the heretics who, while conserving almost all the remainder
of the Church’s teaching intact, corrupt with a single word [emphasis
mine], like a drop of poison, the purity and simplicity of the Faith which we
have received through Tradition from God and through the Apostles.”
50.
St. Thomas Aquinas expresses the same opinion in Summa, III, Q. 78, Art.
3.
51.
It also confirms St. Thomas’s contention that these words are “determinations
of the predicate.”
52.
Some French missals use the phrase un grand nombre (a large number).
53.
For an interesting study of how this teaching is implicit in the speeches and
writings of John-Paul II, see Fr. Louis-Marie de Blignieres, John-Paul II
and Catholic Doctrine (1983), distributed by The Roman Catholic
Association, Oyster Bay Cove, NY 11771. See also Wiegand Siebel’s Philosophie
et theologie de Karol Wojtyla (Basel: SAKA, 1989). An English translation
of this book is in preparation at the time of this writing.
54.
Many conservative post-Conciliar Catholics argue that the removal of the
tabernacles was an “abuse.” They are wrong. It was mandated directly by Rome
with the suggestion that they be removed to side chapels. See Fr. Anthony
Cekada, “A Response,” The Roman Catholic, January, 1987.
55.
Citing Benedict XIV, Constitution Accepimus, 1746.
56.
The three cloths are also symbolic of the threefold division of the Mystical
Body of Christ, the Church Militant, the Church Suffering and the Church
triumphant.
57.
Quoted from The Works of Thomas Cranmer (London: Parker Society), v. 2,
p. 524. The assumption here is that the various actions of the priest in the
Traditional Mass are arbitrary and without metaphysical meaning. That such was
the case is clearly shown by Fr. James Meagher, D.D., How Christ Said the
First Mass (Rockford, IL: TAN, 1984). The Novus Ordo Missae,
however, is clearly the product of arbitrary and purely human decisions.
58.
Cardinal Lercaro, formerly Bishop of Bologna and nicknamed the “Red Bishop” (The
New Montinian Church, Fr. Joaquin Arriaga, Lucidi, California, 1985), was
president of the Concilium that created the Novus Ordo Missae.
Archbishop Bugnini was secretary. In view of the former’s Communist
affiliations and the latter’s Freemasonic connection, it is not surprising that
the resulting New Mass is what it is. It should be remembered that, whereas the
Concilium created the Mass, Paul VI and the post-Conciliar popes are
juridically responsible for its promulgation.
59.
It is of interest that the practice of the priest facing the congregation was
practiced among priests working with the Boy Scouts and other youth movements
in Italy as early as 1933. One chaplain of the Catholic Youth Movement at that
time was Fr. Giovanni Battista Montini, the future Paul VI. (See Fr. Francesco
Ricossa, “The Liturgical Revolution,” The Roman Catholic, February,
1987).
60.
Fr. Henry Davis, S.J., Moral and Pastoral Theology (London: Sheed and
Ward, 1936), v. 2, p. 27.
61.
Fr. Heribert Jone, Moral Theology (Westminster, MD: Newman, 1952), p.
323.
62.
Canon J. M. Herrve, Manuale Theologiae Dogmaticae (Paris: Berche et
Pagis, 1934).
63.
See Canons 844-4, 843-1, and 912, Code of Canon Law, Text and Commentary
(New York: Paulist, 1985). The commentaries make this even clearer than the
Canons. Too, the post-Conciliar popes have been known personally to authorize
intercommunion without either conversion or Confession.
64.
Vatican II’s Decree on Ecumenism is entitled Unitatis Redintegratio –
literally, “The Restoring of Unity.” It tells us that “It is the goal of the
Council... to nurture whatever can contribute to the unity of all who believe
in Christ.”
65.
PPNM., p. 280.
66.
The term “president” (praestoos in Greek) is found in the First
Apology of Justin Martyr, written fro the Emperor Antoninus Pius, a pagan.
Fr. Anthony Cekada notes in a book in progress that it is quite possible that
Justin chose the term in order to distinguish the Christian priesthood from the
pagan priesthood. In the context of the Novus Ordo Missae, it is
impossible to divorce the meaning of “president” from its political
connotations. This ambiguity is most satisfying to those who, in line with
Protestant theology, consider the “minister,” not as one called (through a
divine calling, “vocation”) by God, but as a person chosen by the congregation.
67.
Thomas Richstatter, O.F.M., Liturgical Law Today: New Style, New Spirit
(Chicago: Franciscan Herald Press, 1977), p. 174.
68.
The New Order of Mass, Official Text of Instruction, English Version and
Commentary, translated by the Monks of Mount Angel Abbey (Collegeville, MN:
Liturgical Press, 1977).
69.
Those interested in a detailed comparison between the Traditional Mass and the
Indult Mass will find it in The Roman Catholic, September, 1984.
70.
Philip Hughes, S.J., Rome and the Counter-Reformation in England
(London: Sheed and Ward).
71.
Triumph, May, 1968.
72.
PPNM., pp. 616-619.
73.
Quoted in PPNM., pp. 617-618. Our recurrent use of Michael Davies as a
source in no way implies that we approve of his theology. Cf. John Daly, Michael
Davies, An Evaluation (London: Britons Catholic Lib., 1990).
74.
Fr. Cekada is preparing a lengthy study of the New Mass, which will undoubtedly
be the most thorough yet published, one chapter of which discusses this entire
matter of the emasculation of the orations (collects, secrets, etc.) in the New
Mass. Gone from these prayers is virtually all mention of matters typically
Catholic, such as sacrifice, grace, sin, reparation, etc.
75.
See Fr. Anthony Cekada, “A Response,” The Roman Catholic, January, 1987.
76. Homiletic and Pastoral Review, February,
1979.