S T O S S Books
S T O S S Books
Picture of DNA which is Salt and Dust in the Bible

Salt, Dust, Light, and Water in the Bible

Study of Salt, Dust, Water, & Light in Bible

S T O S S Books

The Study of Salt, Dust, Water, and Light in the Bible

S T O S S Books
Studying Salt, Dust, Water, and Light in the Bible
S T O S S Books

Studying Salt, Dust, Water, & Light in Scripture

S T O S S Books

Studying Salt, Dust, Water & Light in Scripture

S T O S S Books

Salt, Dust, Water & Light in Scripture

Salt, Dust, Water & Light in Scripture

What is salt, dust, and stone in the Bible
In Scripture, DNA is both dust and salt
Go to content
Novus Ordo versus Latin Mass
Liturgy/Mass
Trasitional Latin Mass                                                                                                            Novus Ordo Mass

Written by Stephen Michael Leininger
Posted 09/14/2022
STOSS Books

Table of Contents


Includes Sections:
Correlation and Causation Fallacy
The Smoke of Satan and Liturgical Reform
“Smoke” Equals Absence of Holy Spirit, Disunity, and Lack of Charity
The Economy of Grace
Can The Celebrant Affect the Perfection of the Sacrament?
Includes Sections:
External Actual Grace
Internal Actual Grace
Includes Sections:
Reasons to Believe That the Miraculous Hosts Were Consecrated at NOM
Summary of The Testing and Results of Each of the Miracles
Can the Miracles be Fraudulent
Quo Primum
“Intent” as a Requirement for a Valid Consecration of the Host
The Form (Words) Used for Consecration
First event: Baptism
Second event: The Crucifixion; Re–presented at Mass
Includes Section:
Jesus makes our prayers, sufferings, acts, words, etc., a perfect offering to our Father.
Includes Section:
Do the Standard Traditionalist Claims Listed Above Justify a Judgment of Inferiority and/or Invalidity of a Mass?

Novus Ordo Mass: Inferior? NO! Valid? Yes! Proof Within!!

Is the Novus Ordo Mass (NOM) inferior (or even invalid) in comparison to the Traditional Latin Mass (TLM)? For the record, I do not have any problem with whichever Form one chooses to participate. I believe both are equally valid. Equally efficacious.
This article will not get into the minutiae of the debate between the TLM advocates and the proponents of  2VC. The exception to the previous statement will be the topic of the economy of Grace in the Mass. However, much of what is written in this article will make moot many of the claims that would usually necessitate those minutiae. Through personal (and sometimes painful) experiences, I have learned that the dispute can be likened to a black hole. Everything said by either side disappears into a black hole — a nothingness lacking in any substantial goodness. What does remain is disunity, ill feelings, and a conspicuous lack of charity. The Holy Spirit is not in this process. The Holy Spirit is Unity, Charity, and Goodness. So, what is the root of this disunity?
I want to make something very clear before proceeding. In this article, I will be point out that some claims constitute material heresies (as opposed to a formal heresy). A material heresy refers to the content of the claim. On the other hand, a formal heresy refers to individual culpability. Here is the definition per the Modern Catholic Dictionary:
HERESY. Commonly refers to a doctrinal belief held in opposition to the recognized standards of an established system of thought. Theologically, it means an opinion at variance with the authorized teachings of any church, notably the Christian, and especially when this promotes separation from the main body of faithful believers. In the Roman Catholic Church, heresy has a very specific meaning. Anyone who, after receiving baptism, while remaining nominally a Christian, pertinaciously denies or doubts any of the truths that must be believed with divine and Catholic faith is considered a heretic. Accordingly four elements must be verified to constitute formal heresy [emphasis SML]: previous valid baptism, which need not have been in the Catholic Church; external profession of still being a Christian, otherwise a person becomes an apostate; outright denial or positive doubt regarding a truth that the Catholic Church has actually proposed as revealed by God; and the disbelief must be morally culpable, where a nominal Christian refuses to accept what he knows is a doctrinal imperative. Objectively, therefore, to become a heretic in the strict canonical sense and be excommunicated from the faithful, one must deny or question a truth that is taught not merely on the authority of the Church but on the word of God revealed in the Scriptures or sacred tradition. Subjectively a person must recognize his obligation to believe. If he or she acts in good faith, as with most persons brought up in non-Catholic surroundings, the heresy is only material and implies neither guilt nor sin against faith [I believe most, if not all, Traditionalists making such claims would belong in this latter category SML]. (Etym. Latin haeresis, from the Greek hairesis, a taking, choice, sect, heresy.) [John Hardon, Catholic Dictionary: An Abridged and Updated Edition of Modern Catholic Dictionary (p. 206), The Doubleday Religious Publishing Group, Kindle Edition.]
To be sure, I am not claiming the ability to make a judgment of formal heresy. That would belong to God, the Church, and the individual. I can judge the material, but not the person.

The Various Reasons Why Some Prefer Mass Form “A” Over Form “B”

The TLM:
Receive Jesus in the Eucharist.
— The atmosphere of reverence/sense of sacredness.
—Beautiful music.
—Homilies that are faithful to the Magisterium.
—Kneeling for the reception of the Eucharist.         
The NOM:
Receive Jesus in the Eucharist.
As a member of the common priesthood (but not an Ordained priest) via Baptism, able to actively participate in the offering of the Mass to the Father.[1][2]
Understanding what is being said as part of the Liturgy of the Mass and, when appropriate, participating in that Liturgy.
Able to focus more fully on the Liturgy of the Mass.
Kneel for Eucharist, should one so desire.
Greater sense of community.
A fuller realization that Jesus is joining my offering with his own offering. Among the eternal benefits of this Nuptial Union on the Cross is the fact that our imperfect offering is made perfect and pleasing to our Father.
According to Michael Glazier and Monika K. Hellwig:
In his book Liturgical Piety, Louis Bouyer defines a liturgical movement as, “the natural response arising in the Church to the perception that many people have lost that knowledge and understanding of the liturgy which should belong to Christians, both clergy and laity, and, in consequence, have lost the right use of the liturgy also.”
This definition accurately describes the Roman Catholic liturgical scene during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. The Council of Trent in the latter half of the sixteenth century had imposed a strict central control on the Roman Rite in reaction to the chaotic state of the liturgy in the several centuries preceding the Reformation. … The long-range effect was debilitating. Joseph Jungmann in his history of the Mass of the Roman Rite says of the post-Tridentine period: “… the forces of further evolution were often channeled into the narrow bed of a very inadequate devotional life instead of gathering strength for new forms of liturgical expression.” The modern liturgical movement, then, came as reaction to the paralysis resulting from the post-Tridentine era. …
Through his writing and daily liturgical celebration, Guéranger attempted to restore the liturgy to an earlier, purer form, involving active participation especially in the beauty of the chant. …Official recognition of the growing liturgical movement had begun to appear in the very first years of the twentieth century. Pope Pius X published a motu proprio on 22 November 1903 expressing the conviction that would serve as the charter for those involved in liturgical reform: that the primary and indispensable source of the true Christian spirit is active participation in the liturgy of the Church. …
To complete the picture of the liturgical movement in Europe prior to 1925, we would have to include mention of the contribution of theological research and publication which accompanied the movement and would prove its firm grounding in the decades ahead. Johann Adam Möhler (1796–1838) led the field of patristic research at the University of Tübingen and moved away from the Counter Reformation stress on the structural and hierarchical elements of the Church to a sense of the Church as life in Christ, of the Church as the body of Christ.
Pius X’s “active participation in the liturgy of the Church as the primary and indispensable source of the true Christian spirit” was hardly understood by American Catholics, let alone practiced. Even though by the 1920s frequent Communion was becoming more common, there was still a sense of distance between the people and the action of the Mass. People saw the Mass and sacraments as a holy drama being enacted before them for their benefit and ultimate salvation but had no understanding that what they witnessed in a spirit of reverential awe should be participative drama, to engage their bodies, their voices, and their hearts. They did not know themselves as the body of Christ worshiping the Father.
The distance between the people and the altar deprived them of their sense of being one in the body of Christ. Their silence and the variety of private devotions to which they gave themselves during a Mass expressed and fostered a sense of individualism and, therefore, of less responsibility for one another as members of the one body. …
The 1940s saw many more local efforts to bring Catholic congregations in parishes and schools into the mainstream of liturgical piety. While the rituals of Mass and sacraments remained themselves unchanged, measures were introduced to encourage participation in the services. Joseph Stedman’s My Sunday Missal, first published in 1932, now became more popular in use along with similar weekday missals and other such aids to help people follow along with the action of the Mass. The pamphlet Community Mass: Missa Recitata (1938), invited the actual vocal participation of the worshiping congregation in the Latin responses usually prayed by the Mass servers alone. …
During the same decade two papal encyclicals were published by Pius XII: Mystici Corporis Christi on the Church as the body of Christ in 1943 and Mediator Dei on the liturgy in 1947. …
After the publication of Mediator Dei, those interested in liturgical reform began to press for change in the rites themselves. The Vernacular Society was formed in 1946. The publication of Joseph Jungmann’s definitive history of the Roman Mass just after World War II had made it evident that the Mass had a long history of change through the centuries and that the Missal of Pius V in the wake of the Council of Trent had given an impression of stability (even rigidity) that was actually quite out of character with the preceding sixteen centuries. …
Whereas the practice of the Missa Recitata or Dialog Mass had previously been left to the initiative of the local parish, the Congregation of Rites in 1958 published an instruction encouraging active participation by the congregation in the prayers of the Mass and in the singing of vernacular hymns. …While thirty years later most American Catholics are satisfied and even enthusiastic about the results of liturgical change, those early days of the late 1960s and early 1970s witnessed widespread confusion and, in some quarters, hostility.[Michael Glazier and Monika K. Hellwig, The Modern Catholic Encyclopedia (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2004), 489–492.]
As can be seen by this article, the Church began to see the value of the laity becoming active participants in the Mass at the dawn of the twentieth century. Turns out, people didn't like being mere spectators at Mass. These changes were not made willy-nilly. To complete the picture of the liturgical movement in Europe prior to 1925, we would have to include mention of the contribution of theological research and publication which accompanied the movement and would prove its firm grounding in the decades ahead.” [Ibid.]

Why Critics Believe the NOM is Inferior or Even Invalid

 

Reasons the NOM Is Believed by Traditionalists to be Invalid

There are three main reasons for this belief. They are:
— There are different flavors (so to speak) of the belief that there is no longer a valid pope occupying the Chair of Peter. The historical point at which the Chair became vacant (a view known as Sedevacantism) depends on the individual Sedevacantist’s interpretation. As a result of this belief, they also believe there are no longer any valid priestly ordinations. Because the Chair became vacant, no new bishops, which means no new priests. Thus, invalid Masses.
Many Traditionalists interpret the Encyclical Quo Primum (promulgated by Pope Pius V in 1570) to mean that all Roman rite Masses must be celebrated in Latin. According to Traditionalists, the Mass is invalid if not compliant with this interpretation. See the following Endnote to read about the actual value of Latin.[3] See here for an example of the Traditionalist belief.
There are two components required for a Sacrament to be valid: Form (the words spoken) and matter (a physical substance, e.g., water in Baptism). Many Traditionalists believe the Form used to consecrate the sacred species after 2VC is incorrect and, therefore, invalid. They believe only the 1962 missal contains the correct Form. We examine this further in the Section titled Theological and Liturgical Conclusions, item #3.
There are many reasons why the Traditionalist positions listed above are wrong and why 2VC was right. However, in “The Proof is in the Transubstantiation” section below, I will quickly and easily prove why the former is wrong. Not just wrong, but heretically so.

Reasons it is Believed to be Less Efficacious/Less Holy

As a result of the current Roman Rite promulgated in 1969, the following practices are highly objectionable to the Traditionalists:
Because there is no mention in the 2VC document Sacrosanctum Concilium restricting receiving the consecrated Host in the hand, it is now allowed.
Because there is no mention in the 2VC document Sacrosanctum Concilium restricting receiving the Eucharist standing up, it is now allowed.
No mention of the priest facing the congregation vs. ad orientem, so they face the congregation.
No mention of pausing to shake hands with your neighbors after the Consecration.
No mention of altar girls.
No mention of the type of music that is acceptable and authorized for use.
etc.             
All of these, in the view of the Traditionalists, reduce the sense of the sacredness of the Mass. They don’t believe it invalidates the Mass, but it seems to make it less holy and efficacious. They believe all of the above practices should be done as it was in the old rite. They believe that the beauty and sacredness is lessened. Therefore, they say the NOM is less holy, less efficacious. If any of the above practices lead one to think that the new rite of Mass is less holy, they are dangerously close to believing in the heresy of Donatism. Additionally, there are many ways that the NOM can be made more beautiful, with a greater sense of sacredness. I know this because my parish is an example of how this can be accomplished. It provides the best of both Forms. We get many compliments from our parishioners of how beautiful was the Mass. However, one will never hear us say that our Mass is more efficacious than is the Mass in the next town. That would be heretical.
According to Malcolm Schluenderfritz:
I find, however, that those traditionalists who are merely interested in older forms of the liturgy tend to absorb by osmosis the many spiritual and intellectual problems that characterize the [Traditionalist] movement. In particular, they come to see the earlier Form of the Roman Rite not as a matter of personal preference, but rather as objectively superior, due to its supposed antiquity and Perfection. This inaccurate understanding frequently produces an attitude of superiority toward other Catholics and the hierarchy.[4]
This can be seen, for instance, in the recent statement of the FSSP priests in Dijon, France, who refused to concelebrate with the other priests of the diocese at the Chrism Mass because they “have reservations on the New Mass [i.e., it is inferior. So it appears that Pharisaic-type elitism extends all the way up the ladder — SML].” As I have experienced myself, it is but a short step from accepting misleading rhetoric to accepting the flawed mentality of superiority, and from there but a short step to disunity with the Church. Words really do matter.

Correlation and Causation Fallacy

There is another false assumption (in my view) that many TLM proponents make relative to the 2VC changes and the NOM. They believe that the NOM is the reason the Church is in decline worldwide. But, again, they look at polls and, without adequately designed studies to justify their assertions, commit a logical fallacy.
This fallacy is known as the Questionable Cause Fallacy (cum hoc ergo propter hoc). Also known as butterfly logic, ignoring a common cause, neglecting a common cause, confusing correlation and causation, confusing cause and effect, false cause, third cause, third-cause fallacy, juxtaposition [form of], reversing causality/wrong direction [form of].
I was about twenty-years old when the Novus Ordo Mass came onto the Catholic scene. I remember hearing that one of the reasons for the new rite was because the Church was trying to stem the tide of Catholics leaving the Church. My research points to a very different root cause of the losses than the fallacious guess the Traditionalists make. I have never seen a study that validates the false assumptions used by Traditionalists to put forth their claims. However, I am open to seeing one and accepting its conclusions if  the following criteria are met:
1). It must contain a null hypothesis that directly refutes the “Questionable Cause Fallacy” question at hand.
2). The null hypothesis must be shown to be statistically significant (p=<0.005).
As was sid above, my research indicates a different root cause for the Church’s decline. In a three-part of the blog titled The Beast in Scripture is Not Coming. It Is Here: Part III, we seek to identify Satan’s one-hundred-year plan to destroy Christ’s Church. Addressed is the issue of when and why the smoke of Satan entered through a crack in the Church. What is that crack, and how does it relate to TLM and NOM dispute? In “The Beast in Scripture is Not Coming. It Is Here: Part III],” those questions are answered. All three parts of the series must be read to receive a fuller view of Satan’s plan. However, relative to the topic at hand, we will focus on part three.
In an Aleteia article, Gelsomino Del Guercio writes:
Pope Paul VI writes a letter that will remain unpublished until 2018, when its content is revealed in the book The Barque of Paul (“La barca di Paolo“), by Fr. Leonardo Sapienza, regent of the Pontifical Household.
It’s June 29, 1972. Paul VI has a clearer and clearer impression that there is something deep and negative that is increasingly afflicting the Church. The path towards secularization and the lack of internal unity are becoming two great problems for the Church throughout the world.
The concerned pope writes:
We would say that, through some mysterious crack—no, it’s not mysterious; through some crack, the smoke of Satan has entered the Church of God. There is doubt, uncertainty, problems, unrest, dissatisfaction, confrontation.[5]
Was the Second Vatican Council (which had recently concluded) the crack through which this “doubt, uncertainty, problems, unrest, dissatisfaction, confrontation” entered? No, it was not. How can this be known? Pope Paul VI had a pretty good idea of where the crack came from and pointed to it directly. In the same letter, he writes:
“The Church is no longer trusted. We trust the first pagan prophet we see who speaks to us in some newspaper, and we run behind him and ask him if he has the formula for true life. I repeat, doubt has entered our conscience. And it entered through the windows that should have been open to the light: science [emphasis mine].”[6]
What does science have to do with 2VC? Nothing! In late July of 1968, Pope Paul VI promulgated Humanae Vitae (HV). In it is written, “But the most remarkable development of all is to be seen in man’s stupendous progress in the domination and rational organization of the forces of nature to the point that he is endeavoring to extend this control over every aspect of his own life—over his body, over his mind and emotions, over his social life, and even over the laws that regulate the transmission of life.”[7] It was through science, not the Second Vatican Council (2VC) that this domination of the forces of nature had been attained. Never before in history had the scientific ability to control conception on such a large scale been achieved. Pope Paul VI realized that it was through this crack that the smoke of Satan had entered the Church.[8]
Here are some very important points to keep in mind about the root cause of the Church's problems:
1). In 1917, the year of Fatima, when Mary warned us of the errors of Russia, another event also occurred. That event was the beginning of the publication of Margaret Sanger's Birth Control Review. Statististics reveal that the consequences of her advocacy immediately produced effects. For fifty-two years prior to the NOM (during which the so-called superior Tridentine Mass was the only Mass), the Church was virtually silent about this birth control-induced moral decline. I remember one homily at Mass about the evil of Communism, but none about artifically-induced sterility.
2). One of Marxist Communists immediate goal was to sexualize the young including children. This tactic was introduced in Revelations (2:14) as a warning about the tactics Satan would use in the end times.
3). In 1963, a list of goals the Communists aimed to achieve in order to destroy any country they wished to conquer was entered was entered into the Congressional Record. A large number of those goals dealt directly with activity and behavior that were intentionally or inherently sterile, i.e., removing man from the state of being in the image and likeness of God. Where were all the Tridentine Mass attendees and clergy? What happened to the perfect Mass that was supposed to keep everybody in the pews and obeying Church teaching? NOTE: I am not saying the Tridentine Mass was not perfect. I am merely pointing out that Mass attendance losses were likely not the result of the Novus Order Mass. The problems already existed while the TLM was still the only Roman Rite.
To sum up Pope Paul VI’s beliefs, the rejection of Humanae Vitae by the Episcopate is the crack through which the smoke of Satan entered the Church. As a result, that smoke blinded those both for and against the goals of the Second Vatican Council (2VC) and the resulting NOM. On one side, 2VC was used to introduce varying degrees of Liturgical abuse. On the other side, citing these abuses mentioned above, the Traditionalists justified what amounted to throwing out the baby with the bath water while, at the same time, demeaning the baby. I don’t believe this was their intention, but it occurred nonetheless. So! Can we please stop falsely blaiming 2VC and the NOM?
Is the belief in the superiority of the TLM correct? No. See the next section for the reasons that justify my wholehearted belief in the equal quality of efficacy of the two Forms.

The Smoke of Satan and Liturgical Reform

My research indicates a different root cause for the Church’s decline. In a three-part blog that seeks to identify Satan’s one-hundred-year plan to destroy Christ’s Church, I address the issue of when and why the smoke of Satan entered through a crack in the Church. What is that crack, and how does it relate to TLM and NOM dispute? In “The Beast in Scripture is Not Coming. It Is Here: Part III,” those questions are answered. All three parts of the series must be read to receive a fuller view of Satan’s plan. However, relative to the topic at hand, we will focus on part three.
In an Aleteia article, Gelsomino Del Guercio writes:
Pope Paul VI writes a letter that will remain unpublished until 2018, when its content is revealed in the book The Barque of Paul (“La barca di Paolo“), by Fr. Leonardo Sapienza, regent of the Pontifical Household.
It’s June 29, 1972. Paul VI has a clearer and clearer impression that there is something deep and negative that is increasingly afflicting the Church. The path towards secularization and the lack of internal unity are becoming two great problems for the Church throughout the world.
The concerned pope writes:
We would say that, through some mysterious crack—no, it’s not mysterious; through some crack, the smoke of Satan has entered the Church of God. There is doubt, uncertainty, problems, unrest, dissatisfaction, confrontation.[8-A]
Was the Second Vatican Council (which had recently concluded) the crack through which this “doubt, uncertainty, problems, unrest, dissatisfaction, confrontation” entered? No, it was not. How can this be known? Pope Paul VI had a pretty good idea of where the crack came from and pointed to it directly. In the same letter, he writes:
“The Church is no longer trusted. We trust the first pagan prophet we see who speaks to us in some newspaper, and we run behind him and ask him if he has the formula for true life. I repeat, doubt has entered our conscience. And it entered through the windows that should have been open to the light: science [emphasis mine].”[8-B]
What does science have to do with it? In late July of 1968, Pope Paul VI promulgated Humanae Vitae (HV). In it is written, “But the most remarkable development of all is to be seen in man’s stupendous progress in the domination and rational organization of the forces of nature to the point that he is endeavoring to extend this control over every aspect of his own life—over his body, over his mind and emotions, over his social life, and even over the laws that regulate the transmission of life.”[8-C] It was through science, not the Second Vatican Council that this domination of the forces of nature had been attained. Never before in history had the scientific ability to control conception on such a large scale been achieved. Pope Paul VI realized that it was through this crack that the smoke of Satan had entered the Church.[8-D]
To sum up Pope Paul VI’s beliefs, the rejection of Humanae Vitae by the Episcopate is the crack through which the smoke of Satan entered the Church. As a result, that smoke blinded those both for and against the goals of the Second Vatican Council (VII) and the resulting NOM. On one side, VII was used to introduce varying degrees of Liturgical abuse. On the other side, citing these abuses mentioned above, the Traditionalists justified what amounted to throwing out the baby with the bath water while, at the same time, demeaning the baby. I don’t believe this was their intention, but it occurred nonetheless.
“Smoke” Equals Absence of Holy Spirit, Disunity, and Lack of Charity
As the title of this section tells us, the smoke that entered the Church through the crack (i.e., the rejection of Humanae Vitae by the Episcopate) immediately poisoned the liturgical reforms envisioned by Pope Paul VI, Pope St. John Paul II, and Pope Benedict XVI in two ways. First, liberal-minded bishops and priests hijacked the three pope’s visions by introducing liturgical abuses (some were egregious) into the celebration of the Mass. Second, Ever-widening rebellion against the 2VC by the more hardcore Traditionalists. As Pope Paul VI wrote, “There is doubt, uncertainty, problems, unrest, dissatisfaction, confrontation.”
In a letter to the bishops that accompanied his Motu proprio, Traditionis Custodes, Pope Francis expressed his assessment of the situation thus:
I am saddened by abuses in the celebration of the liturgy on all sides. In common with Benedict XVI, I deplore the fact that “in many places the prescriptions of the new Missal are not observed in celebration, but indeed come to be interpreted as an authorization for or even a requirement of creativity, which leads to almost unbearable distortions”.[Benedict XVI, Letter to the Bishops on the occasion of the publication of the Apostolic Letter“Motu proprio data” Summorum Pontificum on the use of the Roman Liturgy prior to the reform of 1970, 7 july 2007: AAS 99 (2007) 796] But I am nonetheless saddened that the instrumental use of Missale Romanum of 1962 [pre-2VC Missal] is often characterized by a rejection not only of the liturgical reform, but of the Vatican Council II itself, claiming, with unfounded and unsustainable assertions, that it betrayed the Tradition and the “true Church”.[Pope Francis, “Letter of the Holy Father Francis to The Bishops of The Whole World, That Accompanies The Apostolic Letter Motu Proprio Data, “Traditionis Custodes,” Libreria Editrice Vaticana, https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/letters/2021/documents/20210716-lettera-vescovi-liturgia.html, 16 July 2021 (accessed 09/12/2022).]
This article will not address the first consequence of the smoke poisoning listed above. Instead, the second (i.e., division, disunity, lack of charity, near-schism, etc.) will be the focus of this section. When a movement within the Church becomes schismatic, you can be sure the Holy Spirit is no longer a part of that movement. So, judging the tree by its fruits, we can clearly gauge the movement. So, let us look at the judgments of those within the Traditionalist Movement towards the fruits of the very Movement to which they belong.
Fr. Chad Ripperger is a member of the F.S.S.P. While I respect him greatly, I disagree with his heart-felt defense of the belief that the NOM is inferior to the TLM. I have, in part, addressed some of his reasoning for those beliefs elsewhere in this article. To his credit, Ripperger is not afraid to judge the Movement objectively. The following is an example of that.
He writes:
We come now to traditionalist problems which are actually affecting the process of recouping their tradition … These are just general problems that you see pretty much across the board in almost every traditionalist apostolate. I just want people to be aware that these are the kinds of problems that we’re up against and why it’s actually causing damage to the traditional movement and why the tradition isn’t being recouped as quickly.[8-E]
He then lists ten major problems common among every traditionalist apostolate. Briefly, they are:
1). Becoming Gnostic and Elitist: “They're constantly looking down and bad-mouthing everybody who goes to the New Mass, and things of that sort. Somehow or another they're special. But there's a darker side to this Gnostic aspect. Aside from the fact that it's rooted in pride and it's rude and it's haughty and it's presumptuous, because they presume that it's on their side and not on the grace of God that they can do these things, but there's a dark side.” [Ibid.]
2. Impurity: Every Gnostic movement always suffers from grave problems of the impurity and so is the traditionalist movement. This is a serious problem. …This is something that traditional priests are starting to discuss because it's becoming a serious problem. Why is this? Well it's pride. Pride is the vice in which a person judges himself greater than he is. So what does God do? He allows you to lapse into the lowest, basest, vulgarest forms of sins in order to lower your estimation of yourself. Well what's happening is, because traditionalists are so proud, they're really following into serious problems regarding the sixth commandment and it's across the board. [Ibid.]
3). Generational Spirits: “What's a generational spirit? It's one in which if parents commit particular kinds of sins, they open the door to demons [Fr. Ripperger is an exorcist] inserting themselves into their family life, and it gets passed from generation to generation. Now my own estimation of this is, is that the generational spirit is pride. … seeing it almost it's across the board … there's some estimates by some priests that it's worse than is among the New Rite people… It's already happening among the youth of the traditional movement.” [Ibid.]
4). Isolationist Attitude: “You're not going to attract people. Why? Because there's a natural human psychology. People aren't going to go to some place where they know people are looking down on them.” [Ibid.]
5). Depression and Despair:
6). Anger: “Anger’s a real problem among traditionalists. We have to be sure that the problems in the church do not affect our charity, and we have to stop detracting against the Magisterium. Okay, why? Because in the end it destroys people's ability to the virtue of piety. How can you expect people to want to submit themselves to Christ’s legitimate authority handed on through the Magisterium if you're constantly running down the bishops and the priests and the Pope and things of that sort?” [Ibid.]
7). Disrespect Of Authority and The Magisterium: “This negative attitude towards the Magisterium is one of the reasons why the Magisterium has been so slow to give us anything. … Then they allow their filial devotion to the office of the papacy to wane; that is not making the proper distinctions between the man and the office. It doesn't matter what the man does. The fact of the matter is we must be faithful and loyal to the office.” [Ibid.]
8). Loose, Reckless Argumentation: “Engaging in argumentation when they are intellectually unprepared out of a desire to defend what they think is true. This is a serious problem. I've read so much literature by a traditionalist that has theological error in it because they raced in where they were unprepared to defend.” [Ibid.]
9). Bullying People: “We have to be sure that we're not always trying to seek to beat up on people. This is part of the whole anger thing. Yeah, it's true that the state of the church is bad, but that doesn't mean that when you see people doing something wrong, you beat up on them.” [Ibid.]
10). Driving Others Away: “And so what does this all mean? Trads, in my experience, tend to drive more away than they attract very often. And this means that we have to do some serious self-reflecting about how we're behaving in relationship to other people to make sure that they are able to see the value of the tradition.” [Ibid.]
Since Ripperger characterizes the above problems as widespread, would that give the NOM adherents justification to say the TLM is inferior to the NOM? After all, in number three above, some priests admit that people going to the “New Rite” tend to be less prone to the sin of pride than Traditionalists. To be sure, I am being a bit facetious here. Both Forms are equally efficacious.
Now we will look at another radical Traditionalist who recognizes some of the same problems Ripperger has pointed out. Steve Skojec is a radical Traditionalist who runs One Peter Five website. Skojec characterizes his website as being, at one time, the most influential Traditionalist website in the world. It now seems that he has become disillusioned with that movement. Apologist Dave Armstrong captured some of Skojec’s writings. Armstrong lists those quotes.
Here are some of them:
1). “[T]raditionalism isn’t [Catholicism] . . . Instead, it is an ideological mask more identifiably in the shape of true Catholicism. It is, in some respects, a long-running Live Action Roleplay — a LARP — in which participants act out what they think Catholicism looked like in ‘the good old days’ while perpetually running down any kind of Catholicism (or Catholic who practices it) that isn’t traditionalism.”
2). “He [Skojec] has also made some comments along the same lines on his Twitter page: ... the cult-like mentalities of many Catholics, the sewer that is the traditionalist ‘movement,’. . . (5-28-21). TraditionalISM features some of the most toxic people I’ve ever met. (5-27-21). … There is a virulent strain of anti-Semitism in Traditional Catholicism, and I detest it. It strangely seems to be worse among younger trads, usually young men. … But as long as people keep sniping at me from the right, I’m going to keep punching back. We [traditionalists] are our own worst enemies.” The divisiveness and the infighting of the smoke of Satan is clearly evident in Skojec’s views on Traditionalism.
3). “There was a time when I was an ‘angry trad,’ when I lashed out at others as I clawed for a spiritual inheritance I felt was stolen from me [via Second Vatican Council]. While this is probably a natural reaction, I now know it gained me nothing. There is no value in promoting the beauty of something when one’s conduct in so doing is itself repulsive (…) However justified it may be, traditional angst has always been counterproductive.”
4). “[Y]oung advocates of traditional liturgy like me found ourselves heading to worship God every Sunday in the company of individuals who, as often as not, seemed dour and judgmental. They spoke in effusive terms when they described their Mass, but appeared pained when they actually attended it. No smiles ever seemed to touch their lips, and they would glare at women (like my wife) who would at times forget their chapel veils, or wear makeup, or fail to provide some means of instant corporal punishment at the first sign of a squirming toddler.  In short, they had become terrified of novelty, and accustomed to betrayal, they had seemingly lost the capacity for joy....That joylessness became the traditionalist brand, and they spread it everywhere they went. From the condemning, anonymous masses who pass judgment on all things Catholic on forums.”
The texts above show the results of the smoke of Satan entering the Church through the crack created when the Church rejected Humanae Vitae. That smoke will never clear, that crack will never close until the Episcopate repents its utter silence and begins to teach the Truth about intentional and inherent sterility, which removes from us the likeness of God.
 Is the belief in the superiority of the TLM correct? No. See the next section for the reasons that justify my wholehearted belief in the equal quality of the efficacy of the two Forms.

The Economy of Grace

Unfortunately, many of our younger Catholics are poorly catechized. This lack becomes particularly problematic when it leads to false statements regarding the relative value of the Sacrificial Offering made to the Father via the two Forms of the Mass, i.e., TLM and NOM. The consequences of this shabby and inexcusable catechesis lead to problematic (and potentially heretical) beliefs and actions. Is this catechetical failure an indictment of clergy participating in the Traditionalist movement such as (among others) the Society of Saint Pius X (S.S.P.X.), Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest, and the Fraternal Society of Saint Peter (F.S.S.P.)? To one degree or another, I think so. Many say their Mass is superior while, at the same time and through their silence, allowing and promoting dissent within the Church. Dissension is not of the Holy Spirit.
In the following sections, we will learn that it is impossible — and heretical — to believe that a validly confected Mass can be more or less perfect than any other validly confected Mass. Period!

Can The Celebrant Affect the Perfection of the Sacrament?

To believe that a sinful (even a mortally sinful) ordained clergyman can affect the Perfection of the sacrificial offering of the Mass is the heresy known as Donatism. Saying something is more or less perfect is an oxymoron regarding the Eucharist. The following link will take us to a letter from Superior General Bishop Bernard Fellay of the SSPX to Cardinal Castillo Hoyos of the Pontifical Ecclesia Dei commission. Shawn McElhinney’s intention for writing the article is to present a case study in modern day Traditionalist Donatism. The letter is posted in its entirety and some clarifying commentary have been added to bring up some points worth a brief examination. Bishop Fellay’s words will be in bolded and in 10pt Georgia font. Shawn McElhinney’s comments will be in plain typeface. The link is here.
According to Catholic Straight Answers:
When a sacrament is celebrated according to the norms of the Church and in faith, we believe that it confers the Grace it signifies. While a human being is the minister of the Sacrament, Christ Himself is the one who is at work: He baptizes, He confirms, He absolves, He changes the bread and wine into His Body and Blood, He unites a couple in marriage, He ordains, and He anoints. Acting in His sacraments, Christ communicates the Grace – that sharing in the divine life and love of God– offered through each Sacrament. (Confer the Catechism, #1127-28.)
Therefore, the Church has taught that the sacraments act ex opere operato, that is “by the very fact of the action’s being performed.” The efficacy of the Sacrament does not depend upon the human minister [who is in Persona Christi] – whether a bishop, priest, deacon, or layperson – being free of mortal sin and thereby in a state of Grace. Here then is the distinction between Christ who instituted the sacraments and acts through them to communicate His Grace, and the human person who acts as Christ’s minister in performing the Sacrament.[9]
Consider the violin and the violinist. It is the violinist who composes and plays a perfect concerto The violin is merely the instrument. When the violinist plays a perfect solo, it is the violinist who deserves the praise, not the violin. A good violin does not produce the perfect composition; it simply doesn’t ruin it — just as a priest could ruin a Mass if he didn’t use the proper Form and Matter.
In both the TLM and the NOM, it is Jesus, THE High Priest, who is actually confecting the Eucharist. The Ministerial priest is simply in Persona Christi. Jesus can never be more or less perfect. Jesus is unchangeable Truth, unchangeable Perfection. The language used in the liturgy of the Mass is not stronger than God! The behaviors of the priest are not stronger than God! The behaviors of the congregation are not stronger than God! To suggest otherwise is simply an offshoot of the heresy of Donatism.

Every Sacrament Communicates Both Sanctifying and Actual Grace

There are two primary classifications of Grace; Sanctifying and Actual.

Sanctifying/Habitual Grace

Sanctifying Grace elevates man’s natural life so that he can (and does) participate in the supernatural life of God, i.e., sanctifying Grace gives man a participation in the divine life of God.[10] See the following Endnote for a brief but impressive biography of theologian Fr. John Hardon.[11] The phrase often used to characterize this type of Grace is: Grace builds upon nature. On the other hand, Actual Grace can be described as: helping to perfect our nature. St. Athaneus wrote, “For the Son of God became man so that we might become God. [St. Athanasius, De inc. 54, 3: PG 25, 192B].”[12] Hardon tells us, “If we are regenerated, this implies we have received a new principle of life, for as generation means the communication of nature from one person to another, so rebirth, by definition, signifies that a new principium vitae has been received, whose nature is in the same order of reality as the generator, who in this case is God.”[13]
Sanctifying Grace is a direct communication of God in which supernatural life is permanently (as opposed to transiently) infused into, and inheres in, man’s [spiritual] soul.[14] Permanent does NOT mean that Sanctifying Grace cannot be increased, decreased, or even lost through our meritorious or despicable actions. Sanctifying Grace is communicated to man through the Sacraments of the Church, starting with Baptism. However, in every Sacrament, both Sanctifying and Actual Grace is given.[15]

Actual Grace

Theologian and Servant of God, Fr. John Hardon writes the following about Actual graces:
Catholic theology commonly defines actual graces as internal and immediate illuminations of the intellect and inspirations of the human will. They are internal because they are conferred on either of the two spiritual faculties, which alone can perform salutary actions that positively lead a person towards the beatific vision. Later on, we shall examine in detail the much neglected external graces, whose number and variety are myriad [i.e., an indefinite number; innumerable] but which are either not internal because, originating outside the intellect and will or, though internal to the spiritual faculties, they are not strictly graces but the native movements of the [spiritual] soul.
The immediacy of actual graces is an elusive concept. It does not mean that whenever God gives an actual grace, He dispenses with such external media as preaching, spiritual reading, exhortation or good example. On the contrary, He normally uses such means as the occasion for conferring internal light or strength. The Grace is called immediate because it does not arise by means of purely natural causation, such as would be inherent in the native powers of the soul or as God supplies by the general concursus He gives to all secondary causes. God enters the faculty in a special and gratuitous manner, so that the mind or will are now able to produce acts that are essentially superior to anything a man could perform naturally and without such divine influx. [Hmm! Another blow to the rational used by Traditionlists to justify the claim of the superiority of the TLM — SML]
While insisting on the existence of immediate actual graces in the intellect, we do not question there are also mediate graces for the mind. Such would be any one of a countless number of ways [emphasis SML] that God may enlighten us, in keeping with His supernatural providence. In other words the mental image or operation arises spontaneously and naturally according to the laws of psychology, even though God may have generously directed certain factors outside the mind in our favor.
Similarly we may speak of mediate inspirations of the will, that follow naturally on a previous mental illumination which the mind presents to the appetitive faculty. God may also have so arranged things that the antecedent knowledge was not the bare fruit of our own thinking but supernaturally infused, or at least we came by this knowledge with providential help. Unless the essence of the inspiration is itself supernatural, it is still mediate and not an actual grace in the strict theological sense.[16]
Let’s explore the value of internal and external Actual graces available to each communicant in every Mass, regardless of Form. According to Servant of God Fr. John Hardon:
Actual Grace is distinct from Sanctifying Grace (as discussed above). However, Actual Grace is also sanctifying (small ‘s’). To clarify the distinction between the two, recall that Sanctifying grace is a direct communication between God and the spiritual soul through which the spiritual soul is deified. On the other hand, small ‘s’ sanctifying Grace is God’s communication to the spiritual soul through many different means, e.g., preacher, art, music, geographical landscape, etc. Thus, we can appreciate a saying used by many of the saints when they exclaimed, “Blessed be the God of all things for sanctifying His elect through one another.”[17] There are numerous modes through which this sanctification can occur. The most noticeable modes of sanctification are: 1) purification of the heart and body; 2) illumination of the intellect (as Augustine tells us, you cannot love what you do not know[18][19]); and 3) union with God.[20]
Let us now turn to the meaning of External Actual Grace. An External Actual Grace is so-called because:
It is presented to a person from outside the intellect and will. External Graces alone are not capable of sanctifying, but God often uses them as an occasion for giving internal Actual graces, which can be sanctifying.[21] An external Actual grace can be a person, place, or thing.[22]
External Actual Grace:
An exhaustive tabulation of the various types of external [Actual] Grace is impossible. They are too numerous and varied to allow strict classification, and too complex to describe except in the most generic way. Yet certain broad lines of emphasis appear regularly in ascetical literature, which goes back to the homilies of Origen and Augustine, and may be found in all the classic writers on the spiritual life.
As a general principle, the love of God transforms into Grace everything which is good, and does not limit the transformation only to things which appear good to us. For divine love is present in all creatures, with the sole exception of those which are sinful and contrary to the law of God.[23]
Aquinas writes:
As the Apostle says (Rom. 13:1), “those things that are of God are well ordered.” Now the order of things consists in this, that things are led to God by other things, as Dionysius says (Coel. Hier. iv). And hence since Grace is ordained to lead men to God, this takes place in a certain order, so that some are led to God by others. And thus, there is a twofold grace: one whereby man himself is united to God, and this is called ‘sanctifying grace’; the other is that whereby one man cooperates with another in leading him to God, and this gift is called ‘gratuitous grace’ [a type or form of Actual grace — SML], since it is bestowed on a man beyond the capability of nature, and beyond the merit of the person. But whereas it is bestowed on a man, not to justify him, but rather that he may cooperate in the justification of another, it is not called sanctifying Grace.[24]
Armed with the understanding gained from this discussion on Grace, we can better understand the error of which so many Traditionalists have fallen prey. As Hardon said above, every Sacrament of the Church communicates both Sanctifying and Actual [both internal and/or external — SML] sacramental grace. At Mass, Sanctifying Grace is a direct communication of the Holy Spirit dwelling fully in Jesus’ human spirit (i.e., the upper powers of his spiritual soul). Actual Grace would flow from Jesus’ soul (i.e., the lower powers of his spiritual soul).
Thus, affecting the soul (i.e., the lower powers of a communicant’s spiritual soul, which, in turn, control the function of the entire human body) of each individual communicant. These would dispose each member of the congregation to recognize the beauty of the external happenings of the Mass. The particular calls are individualized and unique to each person. Remember the expression: beauty is in the eye of the beholder. There is also the colloquial expression, one man’s treasure is another man’s trash. Jesus’ gift of grace to each of us can never be insufficient. It will be custom-designed to fit the needs of each Mass attendee.
One person may be attracted to the beauty of the music. Another to the homily. Another to the joy of participating as a member of the common priesthood in the allowed liturgical responses. The number of types of Actual Graces are too numerous to count. This fact is so because of the tailoring of Actual Graces by God to feed each individual. Consequently, it is both impossible and presumptuous for any person to assume that one Mass is more efficacious than another.
Internal Actual Grace:
The Council of Orange in 529 declared that man is helpless to perform any spiritually worthy act without the illumination and inspiration of the Holy Spirit.[25] Internal Actual Grace is defined by Catholic theology as the internal and immediate illumination of the intellect and movement of the will (intellect and free will are two faculties of the upper powers of the spiritual soul) in response to the Holy Spirit.[26] Important note: the word immediate (used above) does not mean “He dispenses with such external media as preaching, spiritual reading, exhortation or good example. On the contrary, He normally uses such means as the occasion for conferring internal light or strength.”[27] What are these internal Actual graces? Some examples of the Holy Spirit’s inspirations are as follows: 1) infused ideas and judgments; 2) movements of faith, hope, and charity; and 3) movements toward other virtues, such as fear of the Lord.[28]

The Proof is in the Transubstantiation

How can the errors in Traditionalist thought be most authoritatively refuted? Answer: let Jesus Himself visually and scientifically show us the Truth. Let’s examine a hypothetical situation. In the hypothetical world of this example, people look up at the moon and say wow, that moon looks like it is made of mozzarella cheese (I didn’t say the hypothetical would be a credible example). Many people were repeating their justification for believing one or the other of the competing theories. Everybody became entrenched in their respective beliefs. Each side accused the other of perpetrating cosmological heresy. There was no sure-fired way to prove who was right. However, once technology advanced to the degree that a rocket could be developed to take samples of the moon back to earth for scientific study, the question could be definitively answered. I’m sure you will be happy to learn that mozzarella cheese is not a suitable raw material for making a moon.
So, what is the perfect way of answering the question of the ability of a fallen human priest (who is in Persona Christi) to confect Transubstantiation of the matter (the species of bread and wine) through the Liturgy of the Eucharist as defined in the Roman Rite (said in the vernacular) of the Novus Ordo Mass? What is the surest way to know if Transubstantiation has genuinely occurred? The answer: A Eucharistic miracle or, in this case, seven Eucharistic miracles!!!!!!

The Seven Eucharistic Miracles

Seven Eucharistic miracles have occurred since the Roman Rite was changed and promulgated in 1969 as the new Ordinary Form of the Mass, aka the Novus Ordo Mass.
They are:
1). Buenos Aires, Argentina — 1992. It is highly likely that, in this miraculous event, the unveiled Host was consecrated at a Novus Ordo Mass. See the reasoning below.
2). Buenos Aires, Argentina — 1994. It is highly likely this miraculous Host was consecrated at a Novus Ordo Mass. See the reasoning below.
3). Buenos Aires, Argentina — 1996. In this miracle, it is highly likely that the miraculous Host was consecrated at a Novus Ordo Mass. See the reasoning below.
4 & 5). Betania, Venezuela — There are two miracles in Betania involving the same miraculous Host: A) 1991 There is insufficient evidence to substantially indicate which Form of the Mass the miraculous Host of 1991 was consecrated. However, there is no listing in the Worldwide Directory of Traditional Latin Masses of any Tridentine Masses offered in the entirety Venezuela. This, coupled with some video evidence, would seem to indicate that the prish in which the Mass was celebrated, used the 1969 Roman Missal (i.e., the new Rite). Read on.
In 1998, a new miracle occurred involving the very same original 1991 miraculous Host. In the latest miracle, the 1991 Host, when exposed for viewing, appeared to be on fire while simultaneously pulsating in the manner of a human heart. The pulsations lasted for about 30 seconds, then returned to its previous miraculous state (i.e., the sacramental veil was still lifted, but the heart tissue was no longer pulsating). The 1998 video of the pulsating heart begins by showing the Mass being said prior to opening the door of the specially designed Tabernacle in the Shrine, thus exposing the miraculous Host. The Mass in the video was clearly a Novus Ordo Mass. Therefore, it seems reasonable to assume that the 1998 Mass was somehow related to the miracle of the pulsating heart, but not as part of the consecration of it. It would also be accurate to say that the hosts consecrated in the Mass, which was digitally recorded in 1998, were Transubstantiated into the very same Person of Jesus Christ as was present in the special Tabernacle (containing the entire humanity and Divinity of the Son of God) located just a few feet away from the altar.
6). Tixtla, Mexico — 2006. It is highly likely that the miraculous host was consecrated at a Novus Ordo Mass. See the reasons below.
7). Legnica, Poland — 2013. It is likely (but not certain) that the miraculous host from this parish was consecrated at a Tridentine Mass.    

Reasons to Believe That Five of the Seven Miraculous Hosts Were Consecrated at a NOM

Of the seven miracles, it is very likely that five (or more) out of the seven involved hosts consecrated during a Novus Ordo Mass and likely celebrated in the vernacular. How do we know? In all three of the Buenos Airies miracles (1992, 1994, and 1996), Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion (EOMHC) participated in distributing Holy Communion at each of the Mass’ from which the partially unveiled consecrated host came.
Why is this significant for believing the miraculous hosts were consecrated during a Novus Ordo Mass:
In all Tridentine Masses, only the consecrated hands of an Ordained minister (via the Sacrament of Holy Orders) can touch the consecrated host. It is for this very reason that EOMHCs are forbidden to distribute Holy Communion. Thus, EOMHCs serve no purpose at a Tridentine Mass. Thus, there would be no reason for them to be present at a TLM. Therefore, the presence of an EOHMC indicates the Host was consecrated at a Novus Ordo Mass.
The miracle at Tixtla in Mexico contains more than one fact that makes it highly likely the miraculous Host was consecrated during a Novus Ordo Mass. First, a nun participated in the distribution of Communion. A nun is not an Ordained minister. Thus (for the same reasons cited above), she could not perform that function (of EOMHC) at a Tridentine Mass. Second, the altar was set up so that the celebrant would face the laity during Mass. In the Tridentine Mass, the celebrant faces the High Altar (upon which is the Tabernacle).
Furthermore, then auxiliary bishop of the Argentine capital, the Jesuit who would become Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio, later Pope Francis, was the Ordinary for the Archdiocese where the miracles took place. It is well known that Bergoglio was/is not, to say the least, a fan of the TLM.
Finally, as of 2022, neither Saint Mary Parish in Buenos Aires, Tixtla in Mexico, nor any Venezuelan parish are listed in the Worldwide Directory of Traditional Latin Masses as locations offering the Tridentine (aka TLM) Mass. While this source does not present any evidence that can be described as conclusive, it does help to strengthen the assertion.

Summary of The Testing and Results of Each of the Miracles

The purpose of this section is to show that the authenticity of these seven Eucharistic miracles is well established. All the data from the scientific analysis of the miraculous Hosts supports the understanding that it is the same Jesus who … was born of the Virgin Mary; suffered in the Garden; died on the Cross; was Resurrected on the third day, and Ascended to the Father in his glorified physical (but not mortal) body, soul, and Divinity.
Let’s examine each miracle a little more closely:
  • Buenos Aires (results from all three miracles):
1)     “[Cardiologist and Researcher Franco] Serafini provides an exhaustive description of the team of scientists who studied the samples: from Dr. Robert Lawrence of Delta Pathology Associates in Stockton, California, and Dr. Peter Ellis of Sydney University Australia, to the now elderly Lanciano miracle scholar in Italy, Professor Linoli Arezzo. Subsequently, the opinion of a prestigious and definitive team was requested. The team was led by Dr. Frederick Zugibe, primary care physician and cardiologist in Rockland County, New York.”[29]
2)    “Dr. Zugibe studied the samples without knowing the origin of the [organic] material; the Australian scientists did not want to influence his expert opinion. Dr. Zugibe had been performing autopsies for over 30 years, an expert in analyzing the heart, in particular.” We read:
“This sample was alive, at the time it was collected,” said Zugibe. It’s incredible that it would have been preserved for so long, explains Serafini. Then, in his conclusive opinion of March 2005, Dr. Zugibe specified that the substance consisted in human blood, which contained intact white blood cells, and “living” heart muscle, from the left ventricular myocardium. He declared that the tissue alterations are compatible with a recent myocardial infarction, by the obstruction of a coronary artery followed by a thrombosis or by a severe trauma to the chest in the region above the heart. Thus, it was living and wounded heart tissue. … Moreover, the heart showed dynamic activity (alive) at the moment when you brought me the sample.” “Why?” I ask him. “Because we found some intact white blood cells and white blood cells are transported only by the blood and thus if white blood cells are here, it is because at the moment in which you brought me the sample it was pulsating.”
“It is important to note that if blood is drawn from a person, after 15 minutes the white blood cells disintegrate. Thus, it is absolutely unexplainable from the scientific point of view that in 2005 white blood cells were found in the sample of 1996. This demonstrates that the heart had dynamic activity at the instant in which the samples were collected.”[30]
  • Tixtla, Mexico:     
1)     “The Bishop of the place, Most Reverend Alejo Zavala Castro, then convened a Theological Commission of investigation and, in October 2009, he invited Doctor Ricardo Castañón Gómez, to take on the leadership of the program of scientific research whose purpose was in fact that of verifying the said event. The Mexican Ecclesiastical authorities turned to Doctor Castañón Gómez because they were aware that, in the years 1999-2006, the scientist had conducted some studies on two consecrated Hosts that also bled in the Parish of Saint Mary, in Buenos Aires.”[31]
2)    “The reddish substance analyzed corresponds to blood in which there are hemoglobin and DNA of human origin.”[32]
3)    “In 2010, by means of a study of digital microscopic penetration through the shooting of ultraviolet rays and intense white light it was demonstrated that the tissue seen in the upper part of the Host showed some dry coagulated blood. The analyses showed moreover that under the Blood already coagulated beyond some structures of the white Host, there was also the presence of fresh Blood. Also this analysis confirmed the fact that the blood was not placed by someone from the exterior because if it were like this it could not remain fresh for so much time (from 2006 to 2010) only in the internal part of the Host.”[33]
4)   The blood type is AB, similar to the one found in the Host of Lanciano [which has been analyzed by over 500 commissions of the World Health Organization[34] and in the Holy Shroud of Turin.”[35]
5)    “When there is the presence of human DNA one thinks that also the genetic profile can be automatically obtained. Interestingly in all the studies performed on the images that sweated blood or in the consecrated Hosts that have bled the presence of DNA was found, but when the work of sequencing to extract the genetic profile was done, they were never able to obtain it. The theologians say that since Jesus does not have a father, his father is the Holy Spirit, it is not possible to obtain his genetic profile.”[36]
6)   “By analyzing the Host, it was observed that it was human blood of type AB and that it corresponded to tissue. Then an analysis was done of phytochemical markers which confirmed that it was live cardiac muscle. No study exists that can maintain alive a cardiac tissue in this situation. Normally after 48 hours the tissue dies, here 3 months passed before the result could be obtained and this is truly unexplainable for science.”[37]          
  • Legnica, Poland:
1)     “The Bishop … established a special theological scientific commission to analyze the event. We noticed that over time the stain on the Host changed color from deep red to red brown (...). The sample was taken directly by the scientists on 26 January 2014. For the priests the miracle was evident. The commission checked if It was some fungus, mold or another external agent (...). The Wrocław Forensic Medicine Institute immediately excluded the presence of bacteria or fungi as a cause for the Host turning red.”[38]
2)    “A second histopathological analysis pointed out that some fragments seemed to belong to myocardial tissue. An additional opinion was sought using the same samples at the Institute of Forensic Medicine in Szczecin without specifying where the samples came from. The Institute used a different analysis method. After the analysis, The Pomeranian Medical University’s Department of Histopathology in Szczecin announced that “tissue fragments containing fragmented parts of cross-striated muscle” was found in the histopathological image. This is similar to “human heart muscle with alterations that often appear during the agony. We have not tested the blood found on the Host, we only know that human DNA was found.” The results of the analysis were presented to the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which recognised the supernatural nature of the event. It is striking that the examination results were similar to those of the Lanciano Eucharistic Miracle of 700 A.D. and other Miracles that occurred recently such as Sokolka in 2008, in Poland, Tixtla in 2006 in Mexico, and Buenos Aires, in Argentina in 1996.”[39]  
  • Betania, Venezuela:
1)     “[In the 1991 miracle,] The Host of the Miracle was subjected to some special studies, requested by the then Bishop of Los Teques, H. E. Most Reverend Pio Bello Ricardo, and the results confirmed that the blood was human blood of type AB positive which matches the one found in the cloth of the Shroud of Turin and in the Host of the Eucharistic Miracle of Lanciano, that occurred in Italy in 750 AD and was analyzed by 500 commissions of the World Health Organization.”[40]
2)    There was a second miracle of the Eucharist in 1998. Notably, it involved the same miraculous Host of 1991. This miracle was discussed earlier in this article, so the testing results on the 1991 miracle would also apply to this (1998) miracle. The latter miracle also includes a video of the event. Like the newest miracle in Mexico on July 24, 2022, the 1998 Host pulsated for about thirty seconds. In both Betania and in Mexico, the pulsating hosts generated a visible electromagnetic field. The difference between the two is this: the beating heart in Betania radiated a range of fiery hues within the generated electromagnetic field. The EMR field generated in Mexico was more monochromatic.

Can the Miracles be Fraudulent.    

Satan and his demons would like nothing more than to deceive us about the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. But do they have the power to do that? No. According to Brother André Marie:
Demons cannot access our intellects, [but] it does not mean they cannot influence them. By dredging up (and “jumbling up”) the various images stored in our sense memory, they can indirectly affect our intellect and will. According to Saint Thomas, they cannot put images in our memory that were not already there. They can only access previously stored sense data, presenting them to us in various combinations in a provocative way. What an incentive to keep our memory free of all sinful images! We must therefore be on our guard, and not give ammunition to the Enemy by our imprudent use of the Internet, TV, and other media that “the rulers of the world of this darkness” influence so heavily.
“Imagination” in the philosophical sense is not what it is in common parlance. It is the repository not only of visual images (“pictures”), but also of phantasms derived from the other four external senses. So, included in the potential diabolic arsenal are other phantasms, e.g., sound bites of uncharitable things we or others have said, which may easily arouse us to anger, hatred, depression, or discouragement. And yes, the demons want to stir all those things up in us.
As Satan is called not only “the tempter” (Matt. 4:3), but also “a liar and the father thereof” (John 8:44), we know that his malefice includes lying deception. This goes for his fellow demons, too. Given what has been said of their power over the sense memory and imagination, they are capable of presenting images in our brains that we later make into ideas in our minds.[41]
A phantasm is only a vision that can never withstand the scrutiny of the scientific analysis that all Eucharistic miracles must undergo. When God lifts the sacramental veil, and we see his Real Flesh and Blood, Aquinas tells us it is not an illusion or a hallucination; God is not deceiving us.
He tells us:
The same reverence is shown to it as was shown at first, which would not be done if Christ were not truly there, to Whom we show reverence of latria. Therefore, when such apparition occurs, Christ is under the Sacrament… as was said already, this is not deception, because it is done “to represent the truth,” namely, to show by this miraculous apparition that Christ’s body and blood are truly in this Sacrament. And thus, it is clear that as the dimensions remain, which are the foundation of the other accidents, as we shall see later on (Q. 77, A. 2), the body of Christ truly remains in this Sacrament.[42]
For this reason, God would never allow Satan to create a phantasm of a consecrated host, veiled or unveiled. Even the most powerful of angels cannot create anything that has a physical being. For example, in Tobit 12:19, the angel Raphael says to Tobias, “All these days I merely appeared to you and did not eat or drink, but you were seeing a vision” (Tobit 12:19). In other words, when Raphael was eating, it was only a phantasm that Tobias was seeing.
Neither angels nor evil spirits can create a phantasm that could accurately imitate the properties of a glorified physical (but not mortal) body. The Eucharistic miracle at Lanciano is a perfect example. Jesus’ glorified human nature is now transcendent; he is not bound by space or time; he cannot be physically affected by the cosmos or anything in physical creation. But, on the other hand, he can affect all creation through his Divine Light. Consider these facts: 1) weight is a function of mass times the gravity of the planet; 2) Jesus’ glorified body can no longer be affected by the gravitational pull of earth; 3) in Eucharistic miracles during which the sacramental veil of the consecrated Host is lifted, the flesh and blood that is present can be weighed and measured.
What does this mean? Created gravity can no longer exert a downward pulling force on Jesus’ physical glorified body. However, the accidents inhere to the substance of his now immortal body — including his weight and dimensive qualities— still concomitantly exist in Jesus’ complete substance, i.e., the Eucharist. I will explain this phenomenon in a way that will aid our understanding of this fact.
For several reasons, the pull of gravity varies. So, weighing one hundred pounds in one location on the planet might change to one hundred and five pounds elsewhere. Let’s assume Jesus’ heart weighed five pounds at the time of his crucifixion. If we were to weigh Jesus’ glorified heart, made present in a Eucharistic miracle, the weight of his heart would never change because the physical world can exert no influence on his glorified body.
It would remain the same no matter where in physical creation it was weighed (the Mass is celebrated, and hosts are consecrated around the entire inhabited planet). Thus, any of the variables that can affect weight in physical creation, including in the vacuum of space, could not affect the weight of Jesus’ glorified body, either in part or whole.
Through the Eucharistic Miracle in Lanciano, Italy, we can see an example of the phenomenon being discussed. At Lanciano, the sacred veils were lifted from a consecrated host revealing the visible flesh and blood of Jesus. The Host was Transubstantiated, i.e., changed into Jesus’ flesh and blood via the Consecration — not by the subsequent act of removing the sacramental veil.
The now visible Blood of Jesus is divided into five unequally-sized parts. Each of the five blood clots weighs 15.85 grams, which is the identical weight of the five clots weighed together![43] These facts confirm that the glorified and transcendent body of Jesus in the Eucharist is physical — but not mortal. That these parts were able to be weighed proves their physical presence. If they were ethereal, they would not have weight. Thus, showing that the dimensive accidents of his body still inhere to his glorified body. That “each of the five clots of Blood weighs 15.85 grams [0.56 ounces], which is the identical weight of the five clots weighed together, tells us that this weight was not the result of the gravitational pull on the Lanciano blood samples physically existing at the time His glorified blood was scaled.

Theological and Liturgical Conclusions

As was said earlier, many Traditionalists make one or both claims about the NOM. First is the claim that the Novus Ordo Mass is invalid. Second is the claim that the NOM is less holy and less efficacious in communicating Grace than the TLM. Let’s examine the theological and liturgical significance of both.

Is The Novus Ordo Mass Invalid

Let’s examine the three primary reasons behind the claims that all Novus Ordo Masses are invalid.

1.      Quo Primum

As stated previously, there are four main reasons why many Traditionalists believe the Ordinary Form of the Mass is invalid. Briefly, they are 1) violation of Form (e.g., invalid words of consecration); 2) lack of a validly Ordained celebrant (according to Sedevacantist’s beliefs); 3) lack of proper intent on the part of the celebrant; and 4) violations against the Encyclical Quo Primum.
Pope Paul VI promulgated the new Roman Missal (for the current Ordinary Form) in 1969, but it wasn’t published until 1970. This Missal is used in all Roman Rite Masses worldwide (there may be some exceptions of which I am unaware). What may change among the various locations is the vernacular (the language) in which the Mass is celebrated.
I am not aware of any objective studies that justify the belief that Latin is more efficacious in liturgies than any other language. Factors leading to this belief are subjective, anecdotal, and inspired by the words of demons (e.g., they hate Latin)— who follow the father of all lies. Did Jesus say the words of consecration in Latin? Not very likely. At the time of Jesus, Latin was used only by Romans for matters of military administration. For civil matters, Romans used Greek.
So, at the Last Supper and for exorcisms, Jesus almost certainly used either Aramaic or Hebrew. Therefore, did Jesus choose an inferior, less efficacious language? Extrapolating on Traditionalist thought, it would seem so. The main reason that Latin is important to the Church is this: Latin is a dead language! Consequently, there is no interpretational drift. What a Latin word meant hundreds of years ago, it means in 2022 and onward. This is vital for a Church that teaches unchangeable Truth. If demons hate Latin, this would be the reason they hate it — NOT because Latin is more efficacious. It is not.
 Furthermore, demons are extrememly self-centered. Hey would not do anything that they hate — unless commanded by the priest in the name of Jesus during an exorcism[43-B]. Yet, during exorcisms, demons have freely spoken in Latin. They speak in any of the worlds languages. Words have power — not languages.
Of the seven Eucharistic miracles that have occurred since 1970, at least five of the consecrated miraculous hosts were likely the result of a Roman Rite Mass celebrated in the vernacular, using the 1969 Roman Missal. In other words, all the claims made by the more radical Traditionalists employing Quo Primum as the reason are verifiably false. God, Himself, has provided proof positive. The proof is in the Transubstantiation of Hosts consecrated using the 1969 (updated in 2010) Roman Rite Missal and subsequently the subject of Eucharistic miracles. Specifically, when the sacramental veil (i.e., the accidents of bread and wine) was removed, it revealed that which was present but hidden ever since its consecration — i.e., the True body, blood, soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ. In addition, some of the false claims of the Traditionalists may even constitute a material (as opposed to a formal) heresy. This heresy occurs when it is asserted that a language is more powerful than the Son of God. Words have power, but language — not so much. Transubstantiation proves the point.

2.     “Intent” as a Requirement for a Valid Consecration of the Host

Earlier, we listed the three main reasons that some Traditionalists believe the NOM is invalid. There is actually a fourth requirement, i.e., intent, relative to the valid confection of the Eucharist. The view held by many Traditionalists on the necessity of proper priestly intent when consecrating the hosts can lead to some very problematic consequences for the Church and the laity.
The following is a fair representation of the view of many Traditionalists on the subject of the required intent in confecting the Eucharist at Mass:
In the Summa, St. Thomas affirms: The minister’s “intention is required, whereby he subjects himself to the principal agent; that is, it is necessary that he intend to do that which Christ and the Church do.” (Part III, q. 64, a. 8).
Msgr. Glenn offers an interpretation of this text:
“The one who confers a sacrament must truly intend to confer it. He must employ the determinate matter or sign. He must mean the words [the Form] which make the sign sacramentally significant. If the intention of the minister [that is, the person who administers the Sacrament] is amiss, the Sacrament is not validly conferred.”[44]
Some Traditionalists believe “proper intent” is lacking for most post-conciliar priests celebrating the NOM. Prof. Remi Amelunxen presents a representation He writes:
The crux of intentio interna lies in the fact that it is directed to inner signification of the sacramental rite, not merely the external execution of the rite. And external intention does not appear to fulfill the requirement of the priest doing what the Church does. As stated by Ludwig Ott above, to confect the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist and simultaneously confect the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass supports the requirement for intentio interna, which mandates belief in Transubstantiation.[45]
Further down we will present some evidence by priests who had lost that inner belief, yet experienced Eucharistic miracles. If Remi Amelunxen’s belief about intent is correct, the question becomes: on what reliable basis are the communicants to believe they are receiving a consecrated host? After all, nobody can see inside the celebrant’s spiritual soul to form a correct judgment of his intent — into his moral state. Yet, that is precisely what these Traditionalists are pushing. What’s next? The priests must confess to the congregation so that we know the host will truly become Jesus and, therefore, know we are not engaging in idol worship. Good luck finding anyone left in the ministry.
The ripples resulting from Amelunxen’s belief are almost incomprehensible. If we could not know that a valid consecration has occurred, the entire congregation could be guilty of worshipping an idol, i.e., the unconsecrated substance of bread and wine. Even though the congregants would not be culpable, the damage incurred would still be monumental.
Here is an interesting fun fact that would result from following Amelunxen’s beliefs: In order to judge whether the Mass will be valid, Amelunxen and his Traditionalist ilk would have us do something that Scripture forbids us to do — judge the hearts of our priests. I could provide a comprehensive list of Bible passages forbidding that practice, but a limited number are listed in a subsequent paragraph. Remi Amelunxen proposes a form of heresy known as Donatism (explanation in a latter section).
Now, let’s look at some Truth. According to the 1913 edition of the Catholic Encyclopedia, “Heretical or schismatical ministers can administer the sacraments validly if they have valid Orders, but their ministrations are sinful (see Billot, op. cit., thesis 16).”[46]
As for affecting Transubstantiation, the priest is responsible for only the external intent (proper Form, the words of consecration); the intent to validly confect the Eucharist by using the correct Form for consecration. The Council of Trent, Canon 11 states: “If anyone says that, in ministers, when they effect and confer the sacraments, there is not required the intention at least of doing what the Church does [i.e., external intent — using the proper words for consecrating the hosts — SML], let him be anathema.”[47] Despite what the Council of Trent said, some Traditionalists are prideful enough to think they are better informed than is a Church Council. See also this article from The Catholic News Agency.
Jimmy Akin writes:
It is not necessary for the priest to have the specific intention that Transubstantiation take place so long as he has the general intention to celebrate the Sacrament of the Eucharist, even if he has a very erroneous understanding of that Sacrament. …Thus, for the Eucharist, but also for other sacraments, only the general intention to “do the thing that Christians do” is needed for validity: “Objectively considered, the intention of doing what the Church does suffices. The minister, therefore, does not need to intend what the Church intends, namely to produce the effects of the sacraments. . . . It suffices if he has the intention of performing the religious action as it is current among Christians” (Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, 344). This is also the interpretation of Aquinas (ST III:64:9-10).[48]
There is not a single person (including Traditionalists) who can judge another’s heart correctly, for we cannot know the hearts and thoughts of others. We can’t even judge ourselves accurately, let alone others. Only God knows. Those who hold that valid Transubstantiation is dependent on the status of the priest’s spiritual soul have been inhaling the smoke that entered the Church through a crack in the Church.
Here are God’s thoughts on our attempts to judge hearts:
“Then hear in heaven Your dwelling place, and forgive and act and render to each according to all his ways, whose heart You know, for You [i.e., God] alone [emphasis SML] know the hearts of all the sons of men” (1 Kings 8:39).
“Would not God find this out? For He knows the secrets of the heart” (Psalm 44:21).
“I am He who searches the minds and hearts” (Rev. 2:23).
— “But, O Lord of hosts, who judges righteously, Who tries the feelings and the heart” (Jeremiah 11:20).
— “But the Lord said to Samuel, ‘Do not look at his appearance or at the height of his stature, because I have rejected him; for God sees not as man sees, for man looks at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart’” (1 Samuel 16:7).
“Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye” (Mt. 7:1-5).
To be sure, a priest who lacks proper belief and/or intent may also be a severe sinner because, according to many Traditionalists, he would be perpetuating a fraud on the laity; depriving them of what is the “source and summit” of the Church’s gifts. But, according to Amelunxen’s mischaracterization, he would have you believe this lack of proper intent is rampant in the current Roman Rite.
Here are Amelunxen’s own words: “My experience in questioning four post-conciliar priests who say Novus Ordo Masses, however, demonstrates that disbelief is more common than many realize.”[49]
According to Patrick Madrid:
By denying the intrinsic efficacy [emphasis SML] of the sacraments the Donatists claimed the sacraments could be celebrated validly only by those in the state of grace. They required the re-baptism of any Catholic who came over to their sect.
Donatists had the outward forms of Catholicism, including bishops, priests, and deacons, Mass, and the veneration of the relics of martyrs. The heresy of Donatism lay not primarily in the denial of particular Catholic doctrines but in the assertion that only “sinless” men could administer the sacraments validly.[50]
According to Fr. John Hardon, Donatism was “Originally a schism and then a heresy of the fourth and fifth centuries, claiming that the validity of the sacraments depends on the moral character of the minister; also, that sinners cannot be members of the Church, nor can they be tolerated by the true Church if their sins are publicly known.”[51]
As emphasized in the quotes above, the sacraments are intrinsically efficacious [remember, all seven Sacraments communicate Sanctifying and Actual graces (both intrinsic and extrinsic) — SML]. Therefore, when ill-informed Traditionalists say the Novus Ordo Mass is less efficacious, they unwittingly propagate Donatism. This error is even further heightened by their intimation that the ten to fifteen types of Actual External Graces they self-identify (listed in a subsequent section) are all that is needed for their Mass to be superior to the Novus Ordo Mass. Hmm! I think Jesus might have something to say about their efforts to contain His power in a small-sized box. I, too, have more to tell in the “The Value of the ‘Extrinsics’ at Mass” section further below.
Below are two real-world examples proving that intrinsic faith (i.e., intent) is not necessary for the priest to confect Transubstantiation:
1). “In the eleventh century a heretical doctrine that denied the presence of Jesus in the Eucharist gained currency and spread rapidly throughout Europe. Even some of the priests came under its poisonous influence. One such victim was Bernardo Oliver, parish priest of Ivorra. Lingering doubts about the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist constantly haunted him. Miracle: One day while celebrating Mass Fr Bernardo was shocked to find the wine in his chalice turn [into] Blood which in turn began to overflow the chalice onto the corporal, from the corporal to the altar-cloth, and from there finally on to the ground. The celebrant was overawed at this development. Kneeling down he adored the Lord in the Eucharist and recited an act of faith [which, by the very desire/necessity to do so, shows that in the priest’s own opinion, faith was not present before this miracle — SML] with a joyful heart.”[52]
2). “A priest-monk of the Order of St. Basil was celebrating the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass according to the Latin Rite. Although his name is unknown, it is reported in an ancient document that he was ‘… versed in the sciences of the world, but ignorant in that of God.’ Having suffered from recurrent doubts regarding Transubstantiation (the change of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ), he had just spoken the solemn words of Consecration when the host was suddenly changed into a circle of flesh, and the wine was transformed into visible blood. Bewildered at first by the prodigy which he had witnessed, he eventually regained his composure, and while weeping joyously, he spoke to the congregation: “O fortunate witnesses, to whom the Blessed God, to confound my unbelief [emphasis SML], has wished to reveal Himself visible to our eyes! Come, brethren, and marvel at our God, so close to us. Behold the flesh and blood of our Most Beloved Christ.”[53]
Is both internal and external intent required, as Amelunxen asserts? Absolutely Not. To claim the lack of interior “intent” of the spiritual soul of the priest can negate the possibility of validly confecting the Eucharist is truly the heresy known as Donatism. It asserts that the sinfulness of a priest is more powerful than Jesus Christ, who is the one who is actually confecting and offering the True and Perfect Sacrificial Offering — his Body, Blood, Human Spiritual Soul, and Divinity — to the Father.
According to St. Catherine of Siena (a Doctor of the Church), the Eucharist cannot be spoiled or lessened to any degree by the sins of priests. She writes:
[The priests] are the workers who have the keys to the wine cellar, that is, the blood poured forth from this vine [the Eucharist at Mass] ... (And this blood is so perfect in itself that you [the communicant] cannot be deprived of its benefits through any fault in the minister.) [St. Catherine of Sienna, The Dialogue, Suzanne Noffke, O.P (997 MacArthur Blvd., Mahwah, NJ 07430: Paulist Press, 1980), p.62-63.] ...
So you see, in no way can the heat and color and brightness that are fused in this light be divided — not by the scant desire the soul brings to this sacrament, nor by any fault in the soul who receives it or in the one who administers it. It is like the sun, which is not contaminated by the filth it shines on. Nothing can contaminate or divide the gentle light in this sacrament. Its brightness is never diminished and it never strays from its orbit, though the whole world shares in the light and heat of this Sun. So this Word, this Sun, my only-begotten Son, never strays from me, the eternal Sun and Father. In the mystic body of holy Church he is administered to everyone who will receive him. He remains wholly with me and wholly you have him, God and human, just as I told you in the example of the lamp. Though all the world should ask for his light, all would have it whole, and whole it would remain. [St. Catherine of Sienna, The Dialogue, Suzanne Noffke, O.P (997 MacArthur Blvd., Mahwah, NJ 07430: Paulist Press, 1980), p. 209.]
To sum up, the offering of the Mass is perfect. The graces given to the communicant are perfect. Period. No ifs. No ands. No buts! Only the communicants free will can reject the grace, but that does not lessen value of the Mass by one iota. This FACT applies to both Rites. The efficacy of the Mass in both Rites can NOT be accurately ascertained by anyone who is not a Person within the Trinity.
I’ve said it before, and I will repeat it here: many Traditionalists are very poorly catechized — dangerously so! I blame many TLM priests for that failure. Somehow, the words Pharisees and Sadducees (i.e., religious elites) keep coming to mind. St. Paul was a Pharisee. His intentions were honorable, but his false beliefs led him to use his zeal to perpetrate severe persecution. He thought he was protecting Judaism. But he wasn’t. I see that zeal in many of the Traditionalists. That is good, but it is misdirected because of substandard catechetical teaching. More on that later.

3.     The Form (Words) Used for Consecration

The Church, and the Church alone, specify the proper Form for every Sacrament. Often, but not always, the Form (the words used to confect the Sacrament) are taken directly from Scripture. For example, the Form used to consecrate the Eucharist is taken directly from our Lord’s words at the Last Supper. Some Traditionalists claim the Form used in the Ordinary Form as prescribed in the 1969 Roman Missal is invalid. Let’s quote the words of consecration in the three Gospels that talk about it at the Last Supper. The required words of consecration are bolded.
They are:
1). Luke: And he took bread, and when he had given thanks he broke it and gave it to them, saying, ‘This is my body which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.’ And likewise the cup after supper, saying, ‘This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood’” (Lk. 22:19-20).
2). Mark: “Take; this is my body’ And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, and they all drank of it. And he said to them, “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many’” (Mk. 14:22-24).
3). Matthew: “Take, eat; this is my body” “Drink of it, all of you; for this is my blood of the covenant” (Mt. 26:26-28).
What can we draw from these three passages? First, while all three use the exact same words of consecration for the bread, they they each use different wording before and after the words of consecration. As for the blood, two out of three use the exact same words for consecrating the wine, but not so in Luke. Further, all of them use different wording before and after the consecration words. Let’s compare that to the words used in the Pauline Mass to the words used in the Roman Missal.
The words (words of consecration are bolded) used in the 1570 Roman Missal are:
Who, the day before He suffered, took bread into His holy and venerable hands, and having lifted up His eyes to heaven, to Thee, God, His almighty Father, giving thanks to Thee, blessed it (+), broke it, and gave it to His disciples, saying: Take ye and eat ye all of this: for this is my body.In like manner, after He had supped, taking also into His holy and venerable hands this goodly chalice again giving thanks to Thee, He blessed it (+), and gave it to His disciples, saying: Take ye, and drink ye all of this: for this is the chalice of my blood, of the new and everlasting testament, the mystery of faith, which for you and for many shall be shed unto the remission of sins.
The words of consecration (bolded) used in the 1969 Roman Missal are:
On the night he was betrayed, he took bread and gave you thanks and praise. He broke the bread, gave it to his disciples, and said: Take this, all of you, and eat it: this is my body which will be given up for you.
When supper was ended, he took the cup. (Luke 22:20) Again he gave you thanks and praise, gave the cup to his disciples, and said: Take this, all of you, and drink from it: this is the cup of my blood, the blood of the new and everlasting covenant. It will be shed for you and for all so that sins may be forgiven. Do this in memory of me.
Clearly, the words of consecration between Scripture, the 1570 Missal, and the 1969 Missal are virtually the same. However, in every case, the words before and after the words of consecration are varied. Indeed, neither the words of consecration nor the words surrounding the consecration are enough to be considered insufficient Form to nullify Transubstantiation.
The 1969 Roman Rite Missal is used worldwide. Consequently, whether a Novus Ordo Mass is celebrated in the U.S. or India, it would be celebrated according to the same Roman Rite, but likely in the vernacular and employing the very same Form (i.e., words of consecration).
Transubstantiation seals the deal as to whether the Vatican is correct or the Traditionalists are. At least five of the seven Eucharistic miracles occurring since the NOM started were very likely confected in the Missal used in the NOM — in a Form many Traditionalists say is both illicit and invalid. Therefore, it can be said: Case closed! Traditionalists’ claims about Form are false!
What has been said above can also be said of the claims the Sedevacantists make. They say the NOM is invalid, but for different reasons. They believe the Chair of Peter is vacant (in their view). Thus, there are no validly ordained priests that can consecrate the hosts. Are they wrong? Absolutely. As was said in the last paragraph: Transubstantiation seals the deal. At least five of the seven Eucharistic miracles occurring since the NOM started were very likely confected in the NOM — in a Form that all Sedevacantists say is both illicit and invalid. Case closed! Sedevacantists’ claims are false and heretical!

Traditionalists Claim the Novus Ordo Mass is Less Holy, Less Efficacious

The Eucharist is confected in both the Ordinary and Extraordinary Forms of the Mass — provided the Mass is validly confected. However, many Traditionalists claim that the Novus Ordo Mass is invalid for one reason or another. This claim has been conclusively proven false by the existence of Eucharistic miracles involving hosts consecrated by a priest celebrating Mass in the NOM. Both forms are equally efficacious. There is no such thing as a more or less holy/efficacious in a valid Mass regardless of whether the claim refers to Sanctifying or Actual graces.

Sanctifying and Actual Grace Through the Mass

In every Sacrament, both Sanctifying and Actual graces are given.[54] To understand why that is so, one must understand the spiritual soul. All grace is a gift of God communicated through the Holy Spirit residing fully in the human spiritual soul of the incarnate Son of God, Jesus Christ. Sanctifying Grace is the overflow of the Holy Spirit dwelling in Jesus’ human spirit to our human spirit (i.e., our inner heart). The overflow of our inner heart (i.e., the upper powers of the spiritual soul) to the soul (the lower powers of the one spiritual soul — there is no duality in the spiritual soul [CCC, n. 367]) controls the function of our body at every level. This process is what constitutes Actual Grace.
According to the Catechism:
“The Eucharist is ‘the source and summit of the Christian life.’ The other sacraments, and indeed all ecclesiastical ministries and works of the postulate, are bound up with the Eucharist and are oriented toward it. For in the blessed Eucharist is contained the whole spiritual good of the Church [emphasis SML] namely Christ himself, our Pasch.”[55]
I would add the following: For in the blessed Eucharist is contained the whole spiritual good of the Church, existing throughout all of eternity (see The Eternal Now of the Crucifixion in Definition of the Cross: Wood and Nails.
What can we conclude from the text above? There is no such thing as more or less efficacious Grace! All Grace is perfect because it originates from a perfect God and is communicated to us through the instrument of Christ’s perfect humanity. The terms more perfect and less perfect are oxymorons. To say that any Grace — whether Sanctifying or Actual (see above) — is more or less perfect incorporates the heresy of Donatism. Man cannot affect the Grace given to us by God! Man is not more powerful than God!! Man cannot corrupt the Grace communicated to us from God!!!
 What is in our control is how we respond to that Grace. If we are open and receptive to it, it will be as efficacious for every communicant as God intends. However, it will be rendered useless if an individual is not open and receptive to it. That fact is what renders Grace less efficacious. Not any imperfection of the Grace itself!

Fr. Chad Ripperger and Traditionalist Thought.

Many Traditionalists believe that the TLM is superior to the NOM. Is this belief widespread? Fr. Chad Ripperger, a prominent figure in the Traditionalist movement and a member of the F.S.S.P., had this to say, “Among the traditional faithful, there appears to be a kind of intuitive sense that the old rite [TLM] of Mass is more efficacious than the new rite [NOM].”[56]
Without a more precise wording that clarifies his words, one is very likely to interpret Rippenger’s words to mean that the Novus Ordo Mass, in general, is subject to imperfection. Based on a large number of debates I have had with so-called RadTrads, they do indeed interpret his words at face value. They do believe the Novus Ordo Mass (in general) is imperfect — even invalid. Is it? Absolutely and definitely not! Let’s examine that claim in more detail.
Ripperger bases his belief on the 1913 edition of the Catholic Encyclopedia. He quotes it, writing:
We must also sharply distinguish between the intrinsic and the extrinsic value of the Mass (valor intrinsecus, extrinsecus). As for its intrinsic value, it seems beyond doubt that, in view of the infinite worth of Christ as the Victim and High Priest in one Person, the sacrifice must be regarded as of infinite value, just as the sacrifice of the Last Supper and that of the Cross. ...But when we turn to the Mass as a sacrifice of impetration [obtaining by prayer or petition] and expiation, the case is different. While we must always regard its intrinsic value as infinite, since it is the sacrifice of the God-Man Himself, its extrinsic value [i.e., the value of the Actual graces] must necessarily be finite in consequence of the limitations of man. The scope of the so-called “fruits of the Mass” is limited.[The Catholic Encyclopedia (The Gilmary Society, New York, 1913), vol. 10, p. 17.]
While the text of the Catholic Encyclopedia is mostly, but not wholly correct when it is interpreted outside the context of Eucharistic theology (i.e., the infinite nature of the Mass and the Nuptial Union through which grace is given). Furthermore, scripural exegesis is not coupled with a proper understanding of the economy of Grace, serious deficiencies will result — as is the case with the views of many Traditionalists.
To begin with, many Traditionalists will attempt to propagate the belief that there are ten to fifteen extrinsic graces communicated during the TLM that they claim makes the TLM superior to the NOM. Not only is this claim ridiculous, it is also heretical. The heresy of Donatism occurs when man declares himself (usually without even being conscious of the fact) to be more powerful than God. An example is when one asserts that a sinful (or even heretical) priest negates Transubstantiation simply because of his sinfulness, i.e., the priest’s sins are more powerful than the High Priest who is actually celebrating the Mass. An example of this is Judas. After betraying Jesus, he took his own life because he believed his sins were too bad for God to forgive him. In other words, Judas’ evil was more powerful than God’s ability to forgive.
This heresy is precisely what some Traditionalists commit when they put Jesus in an artificial and miniscule (when compared to the myriad types Hardon describes) box, so to speak, relative to intrinsic and extrinsic Actual graces communicated at Mass. They are, in effect, saying they know better than Jesus himself which Actual graces are needed to make his sacrifice perfectly efficacious or more perfect relative to a NOM. They say the only efficacious Internal and External Actual graces available to Jesus in the Mass are the ten to fifteen graces listed elsewhere. So, do these fallen mortal men know what is best for all the Baptized? Do they have more in-depth knowledge about their fellow man than the God who numbers every hair on our head (Lk. 12:7)? See Actual Grace to refresh our understanding of the folly of that claim.
To understand the infinite nature of the Mass and our part in the offering of it, let’s look at a couple of quotes from Venerable Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen’s book, The Mystical Body of Christ. We read:
Jesus can never be separated from his Mystical Body any more than his Divinity can be separated from his humanity. For the Mystical Body of Christ is Christ’s Incarnation, prolonged through space and time [emphasis SML]. Sheen explains that the Church “continues Christ, expresses Christ, develops all the virtualities, potentialities of Christ, makes it possible for Him to extend Himself beyond the space of Palestine and the space of thirty-three years to prolong his influence unto all times and to all men—in a word, it de-temporalizes and de-localizes Christ so that He belongs to all ages and all souls.”[57]
Sheen tells us that Jesus’ body is integral to his true human nature, but without its own separate personhood. Instead, his entire human nature exists within the Eternal Person of the Son of God. What is the significance of that fact?
Sheen writes:
His human nature is as entire and intact as any human nature; He is as perfectly human as any of us, being man in the truest sense of the term. And although the human nature in Christ is something new (for He assumed it in hypostatic union only at the Incarnation), nevertheless the personality [all emphasis SML] of that human nature is not new, but eternal. Such was the meaning of our Lord when answering the Jews concerning the death of Abraham and His comparative age: “Amen, amen, I say to you, before Abraham was made [past tense —SML] I am [present tense, the eternal now]” (Jn 8:58). … Each of the actions of His human nature is to be attributed to His Person. But His Person is the Person of God—therefore, each and every action of His human nature had an infinite value because it was done by the Person of God. Hence, a sigh, a word, or a tear would have been sufficient to have redeemed the world, because it was the sigh, the word, or the tear of God.[58]
This one flesh Marriage is symbolized by Jesus’ being nailed to the Cross, i.e., becoming one salt of DNA — one flesh with man. This symbolism is the same as in the parable of the vine and the branches (John 15:1-17). In this parable, the DNA of the vine is also the same DNA that forms the branches. This Marriage on the Wood of the Cross can also be seen in passages referring to both Elijah (1 Kgs 17:21-22) and Elisha (2 Kings 4:27-35).
The Value of the “Extrinsic(s)” at Mass
So, what is the value of the “extrinsic(s)” produced due to our union with Jesus on the Cross at Mass? As was said previously, every Sacrament communicates both Sanctifying and Actual graces. Most Traditionalists seem to believe there are about 10-15 cookie-cutter types (enumerated later) of Actual Grace communicated at a Tridentine Mass that they say makes it a perfect Mass, superior to the NOM. This understanding is extraordinarily wrong and a heresy known as Donatism. Besides the heresy, the following explains why their belief is erroneous.
Theologian Fr. John Hardon tells us:
Essentially or partially (according to many theologians) actual grace is a supernatural motion or promotion of the mind and will to a certain salutary act. God takes the initiative physically. If I say “yes,” God “moves along with me” and I (my grace-moved will) produce the act under God, so that the act proceeds from God and from me moving under God. God starts the process in my mind and will. I assent. God and I produce the act. The salutary value of it is due to God [thus possessing eternal value — SML]: He is acting with an eye to the Beatific Vision.
God is the God of the present, and He uses things which move me now. Often His starting point is a prayer, but not always. Sometimes it is love of mother, sickness, death, or any apparently fortuitous event. God works in many ways. He appeals to people in different ways and to the same person in different ways at different periods of life. We outgrow certain things. So He calls, draws us in another way [Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J., “Grace Considered Extensively,” The Real Presence Association / Inter Mirifica, http://www.therealpresence.org, 1998 (accessed 09/06/2022)].
By reading the paragraph above, are we beginning to see how foolish are the Traditionalist claims that an artificially-imposed box of ten to fifteen Actual graces make the TLM superior to the NOM? Elsewhere, Hardon explains to us the theology of Actual Grace. When describing the types of Actual Grace, he used two words to describe the number of the kinds of Actual Grace available to all mankind in the Mass and in our everyday lives. Those two words are myriad and countless. Just as there are no two persons who are exactly alike, there are no two persons who receive the exact same Actual Grace(s). Jesus knows each person perfectly. He knows what our most significant spiritual needs are. Therefore, he custom designs the graces needed to give us those graces of which we are in greatest need.
The truth of the above can be seen in St. Paul’s words, “And to keep me from being too elated by the abundance of revelations, a thorn was given me in the flesh, a messenger of Satan, to harass me, to keep me from being too elated. Three times I besought the Lord about this, that it should leave me; but he said to me, ‘My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness’” (2 Cor. 12:7-9). In other words, God’s graces to Paul were custom designed to meet his spiritual needs. Does God know what we need better than we do?
Paul tells us, “Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmity. For we know not what we should pray for as we ought; but the Spirit himself asketh for us with unspeakable groanings. And he that searcheth the hearts, knoweth what the Spirit desireth; because he asketh for the saints according to God” (Rom. 8:26-27 DRA 1899). Matthew adds, “Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him” (Mt. 6:8).
Frank Sheed helps us to understand the economy of grace by telling us:
God gives actual grace, that is, a supernatural impulsion, to the will; the will thus moved moves the intellect to make its act of assent. … The whole process is attributed to God.* This does not leave prayer and intellectual inquiry no function at all; but their function is solely preparatory: in the production of the virtue of faith itself they have no direct role. …
God, we say, moves the will, which moves the intellect. But God does not do violence to nature. He does not force either will or intellect to act against the nature He has given them. The function of prayer and humility [including at Mass — SML] is so to prepare the will that when the impulsion comes from God it is ready to go with that impulsion, with no violence done to its own nature as a will. .[Frank J. Sheed, Theology and Sanity (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1993), 406.]
*Man’s consent is not necessary in order to receive the gift (we can’t block the gift from God) of this efficacious grace. The gift is given — period. The communicant’s spiritual soul (and thus, the physical body) is changed — period. There is nothing lacking in God’s gift of grace. As a consequence, the grace is efficacious (as far as it is a gift from God that produces beneficial change to the recipient) because all graces come from the Holy Spirit through the instrumentality of Jesus’ humanity. Now, whether it becomes fruitful on the recipient’s part relies on the free will of the recipient of that gift. If it is not cooperated with, the efficacious grace becomes sufficient grace. Note that the grace-produced changes are not lost, they simply become grace-produced changes not acted upon. The changes made to our spiritual soul and body remain, unless lost or diminished through sin. God never gifts grace that is less than perfect or less than sufficient for all who receive it.
The Traditionalists proposition that the ten to fifteen External (or all other) Actual Graces become worthless (less efficacious) if the finite recipient rejects them. Once again, this artificially limits Jesus’ power (a material heresy). It would be true to state that the gifted graces are less efficacious for an individual person when cooperation with them is refused. However, the person and the Mass are two entirely different things. The Mass is not rendered less efficacious. On the contrary, all expressions in the Holy Spirit (the gifts of grace) are always infinitely fruitful. The Spirit is never sterile. In this instance, the Holy Spirit uses evil (i.e., the rejection of the gifts of grace by the communicant) to produce an even greater good — greater fruitfulness — as shown below.
Quoting Aquinas, Rev. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange writes (in Ia, q. 19, a. 6 ad I):
“Whatever God wills absolutely, is done (otherwise He would not be omnipotent), although what He wills antecedently (or only conditionally) may not be done,” for in this instance God permits the opposite evil for the sake of a greater good.
Rev. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange tells us:
Quesnel’s propositions (Denz., nos. 1359-75) were also condemned [emphasis SML] for the same reason, that is, for denying sufficient grace and reducing all internal grace to efficacious, under which, for him, liberty from necessity would not remain. Similarly, the twenty-one propositions of the Synod of Pistoia (Denz., no. 1521) were condemned. The motive for their condemnation, as set down, is that, like the Jansenists, they hold “the interior grace of Christ is not given to him by whom it is resisted. . . . but only that is properly the grace of Christ which makes us act.” Hence, according to the Pistoians, the only sufficient grace which is given is external, such as preaching or good example.
Consequently, if Traditionalists are saying that, in addition to Sanctifying Grace, the only other graces available to Mass-goers are the ten to fifteen External Actual Graces we discuss elsewhere, then they are propagating heresy. There are, in fact, myriad other Intrinsic, External, and Extrinsic Actual graces available to them at Mass — when united with Christ on the Cross. If that is not what they believe, how could they possibly know that the NOM is less efficacious than the TLM [Rev. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P., “Grace: Commentary on the Summa Theologica of St. Thomas,” EWTN, https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/grace-chapter-five-10053, 2022 (accessed 09/17/2022)]?
St. Augustine writes:
The same limitation applies to the mind. “Let us understand this if we can. Sometimes God so deals even with His holy ones as not to give them either the assured knowledge or the conquering delight for performing a certain good work, to make them realize that they receive what light they need to illumine their darkness not of themselves but from Him. He is the one who bestows the serenity that causes the earth of their souls to bear fruit. When we plead with Him to grant us help to practice and perfect our justice, what else are we asking but to have opened what is closed, and to make pleasant what is not to our taste?”[59]
And finally:
In the anti-Pelagian writings of St. Augustine we have the first detailed exposition of the nature of actual Grace. “It is God,” he quoted St. Paul, “who of His good pleasure works in you both the will and the performance. Wherein the apostle clearly shows that even our good will is performed in us by the operation of God [emphasis — SML]. Indeed, unless the will have something occur to it by which it is attracted and invited, it can never be moved; this occurrence is not in the power of man” but only of God.[60]
From the above, we can confidently say that whatever Mass we attend, be it NOM or TLM, the value of the extrinsics is perfectly suited for everyone who attends and becomes one-flesh (as symbolized by the nails) with Jesus on the Cross. The Mass can only be appreciated and understood in the context of the wedding of the Bride and the Bridegroom. This one-flesh union is explained more thoroughly in the Cross and Resurrection Page, but I will quote some of that text here:
Two events are necessary to bring about the eternal fulfillment of the Covenant of Salt, which is foreshadowed during the marriage and marriage at Cana. The first is Baptism. The second is the Crucifixion.
First event: Baptism
According to Dr. Brant Pitre:
If Jesus is the Bridegroom and the Church is his bride, then Christian Baptism is more than just a sign of repentance, an ordinance, or a ritual of initiation; it is the bridal bath by which Jesus cleanses us from sin so that we can be united to God.
Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the Church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, that he might present the Church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish (Ephesians 5:25–27).
With these words, Paul is describing Baptism in terms of an ancient Jewish wedding custom. As New Testament scholar Peter Williamson puts it: “In both Jewish and Greek cultures of that time, the immediate cosmetic preparation of the bride included a bath with fragrant oils so that she could be as clean and as beautiful as possible [for presentation to the Bridegroom — SML]. Baptism, Paul is saying, is the Church’s bridal bath that prepares her to be united to her bridegroom.” Notice one key difference between this Jewish custom and the mystery of Baptism. In an ordinary Jewish nuptial bath it was the bride herself or her attendants who would wash and anoint her. When the Church is washed with water, however, it is the Bridegroom himself who bathes his bride in the waters of Baptism, so that she might be “holy” (Greek hagios) and cleansed from sin. Strikingly, in later Jewish tradition the betrothal of a Jewish bridegroom and bride actually came to be known as “making holy” or “consecration” (Hebrew qiddushin)—because the bride was “made holy” or “set apart” (Hebrew qadosh) for her husband.[61]
Second event: The Crucifixion; Re–presented at Mass
Pitre continues:
If Jesus is the Bridegroom Messiah and the sinful human race is his bride-to-be, then when exactly is his wedding day? And how is he married to his bride? Given everything we’ve seen so far about the Last Supper being his wedding banquet and the water from his side the nuptial bath, the reader has probably already guessed the answer: Jesus’ wedding day is the day of his death, the day of his Crucifixion. … In Jesus’ own words: “the Son of man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many” (Matthew 20:28; cf. Mark 10:45). But none of these notions gets us quite all the way to the idea that the Crucifixion was also a marriage. In what sense can it be described in this way? What possible resemblance could there be between the brutal and bloody methods of Roman Crucifixion and the beauty and joy of a wedding?
The parable of the Sons of the Bridechamber stands out as one of the most important passages in the Gospels. It is the only passage in which Jesus explicitly refers to himself as ‘the bridegroom’ (Mark 2:19).[62]
The parable of the Sons of the Bridechamber was given by Jesus in response to a question by the Pharisees. They asked Jesus why the followers of John the Baptist and the Pharisees themselves were fasting, but not His Apostles. In Jewish tradition, fasts are common. John and his disciples routinely fasted. Pharisees performed public fasts at least twice a week. Jesus responded to their question by saying:
Can the sons of the bridechamber fast while the bridegroom is with them? As long as they have the bridegroom with them, they cannot fast. The days will come, when the bridegroom is taken away from them, and then they will fast in that day (Mark 2:19–20).
In the parable of the Sons of the Bridechamber, Jesus is answering the question by drawing an analogy between himself and his disciples and the bridegroom and the male members of an ancient Jewish wedding celebration. … Jesus clearly identifies himself as ‘the bridegroom’ (Greek ho nymphios) (Matthew 9:15; Mark 2:19; Luke 5:34). He does so to suggest that the present time, while he and his disciples are [still] together, is like an ancient Jewish wedding feast: it’s a time for celebration, not for fasting. (Ibid., p. 86).[63]
Through this parable, Jesus is identifying his public ministry with the seven days of festive celebration in preparation for the Marriage ceremony. Now we come to the part where we understand the meaning of the sons of the bridechamber. What is the meaning of the bridegroom being taken away?
Jesus also suggests that the day of his death will be his wedding day. Although the disciples cannot fast while the bridegroom is with them, Jesus concludes the parable by declaring that the time will come when his disciples will take up fasting: “The days will come, when the bridegroom is taken away from them, and then they will fast in that day” (Mark 2:20). ... When Jesus speaks of the departure of the bridegroom, he is referring to one particular part of the seven-day wedding celebration: the night of consummation. As one rabbinic tradition puts it: “A bridegroom is exempt from reciting the Shema’ on the first night, or until the close of the [next] Sabbath if he has not consummated the marriage (Mishnah, Berakoth 2:5).” On the night of consummation, the bridegroom would leave his friends and family and enter into what was known as the “bridal chamber” (Hebrew huppah) in order to be united to his bride, not to emerge again until morning. This aspect of ancient Jewish weddings is described in several places. For example, the book of Psalms says: In [the heavens God] has set a tent for the sun, which comes forth like a bridegroom leaving his chamber [Hebrew huppah], and like a strong man runs its course with joy (Psalm 19:4–5).[64]
Putting all of this together, Pitre summarizes:
Although the wedding celebration lasted for a whole week, the climax of the wedding was the night of consummation, on which the bridegroom would consummate the marriage in the bridal chamber and not emerge until morning. It was only on that day—the wedding day—that the bridegroom would finally be separated from his groomsmen and be joined to his bride, leaving the sons of the bridechamber to “mourn” the loss of their friend. … If Jesus is the bridegroom and his disciples are the sons of the bridechamber, then the day on which he will be “taken away” from them can only mean one thing: the day of his passion and death.[65]
What does this all mean? In each Mass in which we are still in a state of Grace, when we receive Communion, we experience the nuptial union of the Bride (each of us as members of the Mystical Body of Christ) to the Bridegroom. We are united to Christ as a perfect offering to the Father. All of the individual offerings that we join to Christ on the Cross are made part of a perfect, unblemished, and infinite offering to our Father. Jesus could never make an imperfect offering to our Father. Remember what Sheen tells us above.
Finite Versus Infinite offering
Jesus makes our prayers, sufferings, acts, words, etc., a perfect offering to our Father.
To understand the biblical bases upon which we know that through our being nailed to Jesus on the Cross in our reception of the Eucharist, let us explore the theology behind the New and Eternal Covenant of Salt, i.e., the Eucharist. A covenant means much more than a civil covenant in the Biblical sense. It is a solemn oath and a gift of persons — a gift which is also a unity.[66] Nowhere in Scripture can a passage be found in which God is establishing a salt covenant with man, yet we know that salt covenants exist.
Three passages refer to them (2 Chron. 13:4-5, Lev. 2:12-14, Num. 18:18-20). There is also no specific text in Scripture defining a Covenant of Salt versus a more generic covenant. The distinction between biblical covenants and biblical covenants of salt is this — covenants are the terms/conditions of the oath. At the same time, Covenants of Salt are the duration of the rewards of the unbroken oath.
Berith is a Hebrew word meaning covenant, alliance, etc. In Scripture, a covenant can be between two men, two nations, or between God and man. One of the earliest known rituals through which a covenant was entered into was this: When entering into a covenant between two men or two nations, an animal was cut in half, after which the two parties would walk between the two halves (cf. Gen. 15; Jer. 34:18-19). On the other hand, if the two parties were God and man, the animal(s) would be split in two, then the two halves were laid one on top of the other (e.g., Gen. 15). The former indicated a covenant of salt between two men. The latter is between God and man. This action indicates a one-flesh, one-salt relationship between the two parties.[67][68][69] This layering points to our being nailed to the Cross with Jesus and the requirement to add salt to all the offerings of the Levitical priests on behalf of the man making the offering.
Through the Eucharist, we become one flesh with Jesus on the Cross. We become one flesh, one family with the Son of God. This bond is why all Jews were required to add salt to their offerings. Jesus is the unblemished sacrificial offering; our bodies are the salt added to every offering the ancient Jews were required to make. Only the incarnate Son of God could ever be identified as being without blemish. Therefore, the salt that had to be added to the salt of the offering is our salt (of DNA). Our sufferings/offerings are made acceptable and pleasing (cf. Malach. 1:10-11, Is. 64:6, 1 Pt. 2:4-5) to the Father when, and only when, we unite them with the Son’s infinitely and eternally perfect offering on the Cross.
It is not a coincidence that the root Hebrew word of berith is ברה (brh), which means: 1) to consume food, to administer food, to provide food; and 2) enter into a covenant.[70] So perhaps we can understand a little better why Jesus tells us, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh [an organic salt] and drinks my blood [water mixed with organic salt] has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides  in me, and I in him” (Jn. 6:53-56). This is the wedding feast of the Lamb.
Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI writes:
In the Old Testament the shared enjoyment of bread and salt, or of salt alone, served to establish lasting covenants (cf. Num 18:19; 2 Chron 13:5; cf. Hauck, TDNT I, p. 228). Salt is regarded as a guarantee of durability. It is a remedy against putrefaction, against the corruption that pertains to the nature of death. To eat is always to hold death at bay — it is a way of preserving life [see Jn. 6:53-56 quote in previous paragraph— SML]. The “eating of salt” by Jesus after the Resurrection, which we therefore encounter as a sign of new and everlasting life, points to the risen Lord’s new banquet with his followers. It is a covenant-event, and in this sense it has an inner association with the Last Supper, when the Lord established the New Covenant. So the mysterious cipher of eating salt expresses an inner bond between the meal on the eve of Jesus’ Passion and the risen Lord’s new table fellowship: he gives himself to his followers as food and thus makes them sharers in his life, in life itself [through a one-flesh relationship, as seen by two people (Jesus and each of us) walking between the one-flesh of the animal)].[71]
Scripture tells us salt covenants are multigenerational (e.g., 2 Chron. 13:4-5). Any time succeeding generations are included in a covenant, it inevitably follows that man’s seed is involved. It cannot be otherwise. Anytime man’s seed is involved, man’s salt/dust of DNA is inevitably involved. Elaborating on 2 Cor. 6:16-18, Dr. Scott Hahn teaches that a covenant with God creates kinship[72] and forges a family bond[73] deeper than we can imagine. What do families have in common? The answer is a closely shared salt of DNA. The very use of the word covenant reinforces the interpretation of the scriptural word salt as meaning the salt of DNA — the salt we all (including Jesus) share with our first parents. We are all fruits from the same tree of Adam.
In all God’s promises made to man, the fulfillment of the promise is conditioned on man fulfilling his end of the bargain. Man’s part is what constitutes the salt component of a Covenant of Salt with God. In addition to keeping God’s Laws and Commandments in OC days, all Israelites had to make themselves an offering to God.[74] What are we? We are salt and light (Mt. 5:13-16). We are also told that all of Israel’s offerings had to be salted.[75] Leviticus 2:13 tells us, “[Y]ou shall not let the salt of the covenant with your God be lacking [SML].”
God’s part of any covenant could never be lacking. He never falls short of anything. God is never linked to salt in any way. The human element of Jesus would be the only exception, but not in the context of any Trinitarian lacking. This exception is precisely why God chose to take on human salt/dust — to become a man. Only the Son of God’s salt of DNA could never be lacking in a salt covenant. Only fallen man’s part of the deal (his salt) could be lacking. Only Jesus’ salt is an acceptable and pleasing sacrificial offering to God. Leviticus is telling us that by joining our salt to the Paschal Lamb on the Cross, our offerings to the Father are made perfect — because Jesus would never offer anything imperfect to his Father.
Pope Benedict XVI places profound significance on Luke’s wording when discussing Jesus’ eating with his Apostles. According to Benedict, the word that Luke used is synalizômenos. Benedict tells us this wording is significant to Luke; he must have deliberately chosen to employ it. The literal translation of the phrase is “eating salt [SML] with them.”[76] What Jesus ate with his Apostles was food. Of what does food consist? Primarily the salt of DNA together with biological water. If I’m not mistaken, Idit was organic and, therefore (according to Luke), organic salt. But, of course, the meaning of this phrase goes much deeper (Benedict links it to the Eucharist and, therefore, the Crucifixion).
As for fallen man, only the incarnate Son of God could ever be identified as being without blemish. Therefore, only through the salt of his body, in whom the Trinity dwells, could there be an unblemished offering to the Father. The salt added to the salt of the unblemished offering is fallen man’s salt (of DNA). Therefore, our sufferings/offerings are rendered acceptable and pleasing (cf. Malach. 1:10-11, Is. 64:6, 1 Pt. 2:4-5) to the Father, but only when we unite them with the Son’s infinitely and eternally perfect offering of his salt.
It had to be eaten after an oblation was offered to God on the altar (the offering was not valid otherwise). In all of ancient Israel, it was understood that by eating the offering (to which salt was added), the offeror would become one with that offering and thus participate in the benefits of the altar sacrifice.[77] So perhaps we can understand a little better why Jesus tells us, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him” (Jn. 6:53-56).
St. Catherine of Siena is a Doctor of the Church. During her life, she was given the privilege of having direct communications with God. She was told to write the contents His conversations with her. In other words, she was told, in essence, to take dictation. She tells us how our sufferings and tears become of infinite value.
She writes:
How the four stages of the soul, to which belong the five aforesaid states of tears [which flow from the spiritual soul — containing the inner heart — SML], produce tears of infinite value [emphasis — SML]: and how God wishes to be served as the Infinite, and not as anything finite. “These five states are like five principal canals which are filled with abundant tears of infinite value, all of which give life if they are disciplined in virtue, as I have said to thee. Thou [St. Catherine] askest how their value can be infinite. I do not say that in this life your tears can become infinite, but I call them infinite, on account of the infinite desire of your soul from which they proceed. I have already told thee how tears come from the heart, and how the heart distributes them to the eye, having gathered them in its own fiery desire. As, when green wood is on the fire, the moisture it contains groans on account of the heat, because the wood is green, so does the heart, made green again by the renovation of Grace drawn into itself among its self-love which dries up the soul, so that fiery desire and tears are united. And inasmuch as desire is never ended, it is never satisfied in this life, but the more the soul loves the less she seems to herself to love. Thus, is holy desire, which is founded in love, exercised, and with this desire the eye weeps. But when the soul is separated from the body and has reached Me, her End, she does not on that account abandon desire, so as to no longer yearn for Me or love her neighbour, for love has entered into her like a woman bearing the fruits of all other virtues. It is true that suffering is over and ended, as I have said to thee, for the soul that desires Me possesses Me in very truth, without any fear of ever losing that which she has so long desired; but, in this way, hunger is kept up, because those who are hungry are satisfied, and as soon as they are satisfied hunger, again; in this way their satiety is without disgust, and their hunger without suffering, for, in Me, no perfection is wanting.
Thus is your desire infinite [emphasis SML], otherwise it would be worth nothing, nor would any virtue of yours have any life if you served Me with anything finite. For I, Who am the Infinite God, wish to be served by you with infinite service, and the only infinite thing you possess is the affection and desire of your souls [emphasis SML]. In this sense I said that there were tears of infinite value, and this is true as regards their mode, of which I have spoken, namely, of the infinite desire which is united to the tears.[78]
The infinite desire St. Catherine relates is the same type of wording used by Pope Francis to describe what occurs at Mass. He writes:
“I have earnestly desired to eat this Passover [the Eucharist is how our holy desire is purified and offered to the Father] with you before I suffer.” (Lk 22:15) These words of Jesus, with which the account of the Last Supper opens, are the crevice through which we are given the surprising possibility of intuiting the depth of the love of the persons of the Most Holy Trinity for us. …[79]
We may not even be aware of it, but every time we go to Mass, the first reason is that we are drawn there by his desire for us [just as our Father is drawn to us by holy desire — SML]. For our part, the possible response — which is also the most demanding asceticism — is, as always, that surrender to this love, that letting ourselves be drawn by him. Indeed, every reception of communion of the Body and Blood of Christ was already desired by him in the Last Supper [emphasis SML]. …[80]
Liturgical silence is something much more grand: it is a symbol of the presence and action of the Holy Spirit who animates the entire action of the celebration. For this reason it constitutes a point of arrival within a liturgical sequence. Precisely because it is a symbol of the Spirit, it has the power to express the Spirit’s multifaceted action. In this way, going over again the moments I just mentioned, silence moves to sorrow for sin and the desire for conversion [emphasis SML]. It awakens a readiness to hear the Word and awakens prayer. It disposes us to adore the Body and Blood of Christ. It suggests to each one, in the intimacy of communion, what the Spirit would effect in our lives to conform us to the Bread broken.[81]
 St. Catherine says the body and spiritual soul will be eternally imprinted with the fruits that the body and spiritual soul did together. At our resurrection on Judgment Day, our bodies will be “imprinted” with the fruits of the sufferings and labors endured by the body in partnership with the inner heart in the practice of virtue. Upon our resurrection, our body becomes immortal and glorified, i.e., eternal. Outside of space and time. This imprinted ornamentation, so to speak, will not occur through the power of the body but through the power of the spiritual soul, as it was before the fall.[82] This imprinting makes sense in light of the philosophical understanding that the soul, which is eternal, is the substantial form of the body.[83].

Regular Claims Made by Many Traditionalists:

Heresy Note: The following text is taken directly from a Traditionalist’s website. It is representative of Traditionalist thought. All of the author’s assertions below seem to falsely conflate the degree of receptivity of the Actual Grace given to each communicant (and thus experiencing varying degrees of individual efficacy) with the unchangeable Perfection of all the graces gifted to communicants via the High Priest’s (i.e., Jesus Christ — the Person actually confecting a perfect Transubstantiation of the hosts) offering of the Mass to the Father. By uniting ourselves with Jesus on the Cross at Mass, he perfects our imperfect offerings and sufferings so that those are pleasing and acceptable offerings to the Father. If this is the meaning they intend to convey, then their statement that the TLM Mass is superior to the NOM propagates the heresy known as Donatism.
Here are the verbatim (italicized words are author's words) claims about why the TLM is superior to NOM:
Extrinsic Value of Mass varies based on: [in each of the following points, consideration of the Heresy Note above will help determine whether or not heresy is being propagated]
1). the current state of holiness of the whole Catholic Church [false and potentially heretical based on the claim it results in a superior Mass to the NOM — SML — SML]
2). status as a priest (Pope > Bishop > Priest > Priest without faculties (no extrinsic merit) [false and heretical relative to the claims that priests celebrating Novus Ordo Masses are not validly ordained — SML]
3) holiness of the priest [false and propagates the heresy of Donatism — SML]
4) degree of virtue and Grace of the faithful [false when conflating individual value, but also heretical when applying it to the Mass itself — SML]
5) decora (greater beauty = greater merit) [False. Actual Grace is individual and custom designed by God to maximally draw each individual to a closer relationship via an increase in holy desire. Remember, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. It is also an error for Traditionalists to assume the types of beauty listed above are the ONLY types of beauty God communicates through the Mass. Also, heretical based on the claim it results in a superior Mass to the NOM — SML]
6) the Ritual itself [this point is too vague to accurately evaluate — SML]          
Less sacrilege
Communion kneeling, on the tongue, and by a priest only versus Communion standing and in the hand, in the hand, and often by Extraordinary Ministers [False. These are not sacrilege. However, they are a heresy when based on the claim it results in a superior Mass to the NOM Furthermore, since Eucharistic miracles have occurred involving hosts consecrated in the 1969 Roman Missal, following the General Instructions of the Roman Missal (aka GIRM), the claims in this assertion are absolutely disproven — SML]
Decora is superior in Latin Mass:
1). More Pomp [while the description may be true, the conclusion reached is still potentially heretical based on the claim it results in a superior Mass to the NOM — SML]
2). Greater Beauty [while the description may be true, the conclusion reached is both wrong and potentially heretical based on the claim it results in a “superior” Mass to the NOM — SML]
The Ritual itself is superior in Latin Mass
1). Ad Orientum (priest facing away from the people toward God) is more God centered [while the description may be true, the conclusion reached is both wrong and potentially heretical — see Heresy Note above — SML]
2). More solemn [while the description may be true, the conclusion reached is both wrong and potentially heretical based on the claim it results in a “superior” Mass to the NOM — SML]
Less overt improvisation [that is probably true but is still heretical based on the claim it results in a “superior” Mass to the NOM — SML]
3). Latin > English      
Other TLM Benefits:
1). Tradition- (used traditionally by the Church) [To say the Latin is the “Tradition” of the Church is subjective and not historically accurate. Furthermore, citing Quo Primum, claims have been made by many Traditionalists that Mass must be celebrated in Latin. If not, the Mass is said to be invalid. Eucharistic miracles involving hosts consecrated in Novus Ordo Masses prove the falsity of that claim. If the claim citing Quo Primum is false, then the claim is also a propagation of Donatism — SML]
2. Unity (same language across the entire Church) [Hmm! Then why are there so many Traditionalist groups who are either in Schism or very close to it. One could cut the disunity existing within the Church with a knife — SML]
3). Unchangeable (the vernacular meanings change after many years) [This is true. That is why each new Missal is first written in Latin, then translated into the vernacular. When the vernacular suffers definition drift when compared to the Latin original, the vernacular translation is adjusted. That is one of the reasons given for the new translation of the Roman Missal which was approved by the Vatican in 2010]
4). Sacred (one of the three languages on the Cross of Christ; with Greek and Hebrew) [see the refutation for “Tradition” above — SML]    

Do the Regular Traditionalist Claims Justify a Judgment of Inferiority and/or Invalidity of a Valid Mass?

1)     The first question is: Do the claimants believe that the ten to fifteen items represent the totality of intrinsic and extrinsic Actual Graces communicated via the Mass?
a)  If yes, claimants commit a heretical error by placing Jesus’ power into a finite box, the size of which is determined by fallen men who claim there are only ten to fifteen Actual Extrinsic Graces (and completely ignoring Actual Intrinsic Graces) available through the Mass. As was revealed earlier, Jesus custom designs Actual Graces to meet the unique needs of each communicant such that we can say there are as many types of Actual Graces as there are people who have, are, and will live.
Here is a good analogy (hat tip to Fr. Bruce): You take your friends to a four-star restaurant. You tell the waiter you want to sample their best dishes so that you can judge their food's quality. Surprisingly, they bring out a dinner salad, a Salisbury steak dish, and some corn. In effect, they are telling you these three items are all that they have from which to please your palate. Obviously, the restaurant is not giving you the best dishes with which to impress you. They didn’t even give you a selection from which to choose. The dishes are prepared well and taste good but not impressive. They didn’t even try to find out what are your favorite foods. Jesus, on the other hand, has an infinite supply of dishes; he knows exactly the foods you love and are the healthiest for you; without even asking. Through the Mass, Jesus will custom-plan and cook the dishes that will give you the perfect dining experience.
b)  If no, they cannot make a correct judgment about the superiority or inferiority of any Form of Mass when compared to a different Form. It is the height of Pharisaic-like pride to claim that capability. They cannot read the hearts of every Mass attendee to determine whether he or she freely choose to cooperate with the grace or not. The pride necessary to believe that is monumental.
i)   There is a Scripture passage that conveys that pride. It says:
[Jesus] also told this parable to some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous and despised others: “Two men went up into the temple to pray [one in a superior temple (in my fallible judgment — SML) and the other to an inferior temple (in my fallible judgment) — SML], one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, ‘God, I thank thee that I am not like other men [who I have the abiliy to judge accurately — SML], extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week, I give tithes of all that I get.’ But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me a sinner!’ I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other; for every one who exalts himself will be humbled, but he who humbles himself will be exalted” (Luke 18:9-14).
2)    Do the claimants assert possessing the knowledge to accurately judge whether each communicant will cooperate with the grace(s) given, or not?
a)     If yes to question #2, claimants are violating Scripture teachings (i.e., words of Truth) that tell us only God can judge hearts. Therefore, they make themselves liars. In fact, no man can judge whether one Mass is inferior/superior to a different Form of Mass. Furthermore, they can’t even judge the degree to which it is so. And, of course, there is that pride issue again. Complicating the problem is the fact that Efficacious Grace, when not cooperated with, does not disappear. Instead, of being truly sufficient grace[84] (remember St. Paul and his thorn in the flesh), it becomes merely sufficient. Sanctifying Grace builds upon our human nature. All Actual Grace, even Sufficient Actual Grace, can be described as helping to perfect our human nature. Thus, it is fruitful.
b)     If no, how can they justify doing it? To make an accurate assessment, they would have to answer in the affirmative to question #2, then judge the heart and will of every Mass attendee in every Form of the Mass throughout the world. I would be helpful to recall the quote used by Ripperger on the extrinsic value of the Mass. It reads:
But when we turn to the Mass as a sacrifice of impetration [obtaining by prayer or petition] and expiation, the case is different. While we must always regard its intrinsic value as infinite, since it is the sacrifice of the God-Man Himself, its extrinsic value [i.e., the value of the Actual graces] must necessarily be finite in consequence of the limitations of man. The scope of the so-called “fruits of the Mass” is limited [The Catholic Encyclopedia (The Gilmary Society, New York, 1913), vol. 10, p. 17].
Remember, this was written in 1913, before the Novus Ordo Mass even came into existence. The Mass that it was written about was the TLM, using the pre-1969 Missal. So, when the Gilmore Society tells us the extrinsic value must necessarily be finite in consequence of the limitations of man. The scope of the so-called fruits of the Mass is limited,” it is referring to the TLM, which is touted as being superior to the NOM. So apparently, the ten to fifteen graces they claim make the Mass superior, are not subject to those same finite limitations of which the Catholic Encyclopedia informs us. Therefore, they are actually answering yes to question #2 above. They believe they are capable of quantifying the finite consequences vis a vis the fruits.
So, where does that leave us? Once again, on the doorstep of error and profound pride. To propagate this error constitutes blasphemy against the power of our High Priest and King.

To Those Members of the Clergy Who Identify With the (so-called) Traditional Latin Mass

Let me begin by setting the record straight. I have no problems with the TLM. During my first twenty years of attending Mass, it was only celebrated in the old rite. There were some aspects of that Form that I liked; there were some I did not like. But, as a whole, I intensely love and prefer the NOM. With the NOM, I am reminded that I am a member of the common priesthood (via Baptism) who participates (but not as an Ordained Minister) in the offering of the Mass, which is the primary duty of all priests, including the members of the common priesthood at Mass. In the TLM, I felt more like a spectator.
It is for this very reason that the Second Vatican Council reformed the Liturgy. We are members of the common priesthood who, up until then, were relegated to the bleachers during Mass. So Pope Francis, elaborating on the desires of St. John Paul II and Benedict XVI for the results of the Second Vatican Council, tells us:
The continual rediscovery of the beauty of the Liturgy is not the search for a ritual aesthetic [and yet, it is almost exclusively this ritual beauty that Traditionalists claim the TLM is superior to the NOM — SML], which is content by only a careful exterior observance of a rite or is satisfied by a scrupulous observance of the rubrics [n. 22]. …If there were lacking our astonishment at the fact that the paschal mystery is rendered present in the concreteness of sacramental signs, we would truly risk being impermeable to the ocean of grace that floods every celebration [n. 24; emphasis SML]. …The fundamental question is this: how do we recover the capacity to live completely the liturgical action? This was the objective of the Council’s reform [n. 27]. …We owe to the Council — and to the liturgical movement that preceded it — the rediscovery of a theological understanding of the Liturgy and of its importance in the life of the Church. As the general principles spelled out in Sacrosanctum Concilium have been fundamental for the reform of the liturgy, they continue to be fundamental for the promotion of that full, conscious, active, and fruitful celebration (cf. Sacrosanctum Concilium, nn. 11; 14), in the liturgy “the primary and indispensable source from which the faithful are to derive the true Christian spirit” (Sacrosanctum Concilium, n. 14) [n. 16].[85]
I have no problems with anyone who prefers to attend the TLM. However, I don’t believe either is more or less efficacious than the other. It would be impossible for one to be more or less efficacious than the other. The only way someone could even consider that claim is to be ignorant of both theology and the economy of Grace.
Furthermore, I admit there have been liturgical abuses in the NOM. However, every Council has been dogged by controversies and confusion, which sometimes took decades or centuries to resolve. The Second Vatican Council is no exception. Whenever I encounter such abuses, which is not often, I confront the abuser.
I greatly respect all priests, whether of the TLM or NOM persuasion. God holds all priests responsible for caring for their flocks and spiritual children. All priests have a solemn responsible for properly catechizing their flock. Failing to fulfill that obligation is glaring regarding intentional/inherent sterilization (artificial birth control). The deafening silence of the Church relative to Humanae Vitae is deplorable. It is the crack through which the smoke of Satan has entered the Church. This smoke is causing the Church’s division over the Second Vatican Council’s actions.
This division is not of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is Divine Charity and Unity, which is not what we currently see. This article attempts to clear out some of the smoke of Satan. I hope those who read it recognize my intentions for what they are: a desire for Truth in Charity. Post-conciliar priests must irradicate the Mass of actual liturgical abuses and actively catechize their flock regarding the hard issues. Old rite priests must catechize their flocks so that they cease their efforts to denigrate the NOM and, therefore, the Son of God. I have personally experienced and witnessed the consequences of this denigration (dare I say blaspheming) of the NOM.
I have personally experienced the division created within families due to positions held regarding the OF and EF of the Mass. Not just in mine but also other families. A good friend of mine was led away from the True Church by a family member. My friend was starting to experience diminishing mental capacity when his son convinced him to leave the Church for a sedevacantist cult. This choice greatly distressed the rest of his family, all of which (except for the son mentioned above) are faithful Catholics. Despite our combined attempts to convince him to stay, we were unsuccessful. He died outside of the Church. I have witnessed so-called rad trads mock those who loved the NOM on social media. I have seen them post laughing emojis on the posts of those defending the NOM and expressing their love of it. These divisive behaviors have caused them to cease engaging in such conversation. I have never seen the NOMers respond in kind.
I have hoped that the priesthood within the Traditionalists would act as the calming heads during this divisive time. But the early evidence is a bit disappointing.
Writing about the division in the Church, Cindy Wooden tells us:
While the liberal permission to use the older Mass has not promoted the hoped-for healing of the rift with members of the Society of St. Pius X, established by the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, the archbishop said, “what we have got now is a movement within the Church herself, seemingly endorsed by her leaders, that sows division by undermining the reforms of the Second Vatican Council through the rejection of the most important of them: the reform of the Roman Rite. … Since St. John Paul allowed some use of the older liturgy and, especially since Summorum Pontificum, Di Noia said, “the thing has gotten totally out of control and become a movement, especially in the U.S., France, and England — a movement that aggressively promotes the Traditional Latin Mass among young people and others as if this ‘Extraordinary Form’ were the true liturgy for the true Church.”[86]
Do the priests themselves harbor elitist attitudes? The Catholic News Agency, quoting FSSP District Superior Fr. Benoît Paul-Joseph, wrote:
“[The archbishop] wanted [the FSSP] to concelebrate for the Chrism Mass during Holy Week, but we haven’t done it for years, as we have reservations on the New Mass and we don’t celebrate at the same pace,” … Contacted by CNA to discuss the claim, the Archdiocese’s communication office lamented that, as the Fraternity is committed exclusively to celebrating the extraordinary, its priests refuse to “occasionally concelebrate with other priests in the ordinary form.”[87]
I want to repeat a previously quoted text, then follow up with an additional comment. According to Malcolm Schluenderfritz:
I find, however, that those traditionalists who are merely interested in older forms of the liturgy tend to absorb by osmosis the many spiritual and intellectual problems that characterize the [Traditionalist] movement. In particular, they come to see the earlier Form of the Roman Rite not as a matter of personal preference, but rather as objectively superior, due to its supposed antiquity and Perfection. This inaccurate understanding frequently produces an attitude of superiority toward other Catholics and the hierarchy.[88]
Many Traditionalist priests and laity believe they are saving the Church (just as St. Paul felt about Judaism) with their criticisms and attacks on the NOM. But, on the contrary, I see a new generation of modern-day Pharisaical types increasingly engaging in divisive and heretical behaviors.
While both the TLM and the NOM are perfect and efficacious offerings of Jesus to the Father, many more radical Traditionalists are (likely ignorant of the fact) expressing heretical and blasphemous views about the NOM. I still have hope, but I’m afraid that as long as the Church remains silent about the root cause of this divisiveness, i.e., ignoring the teachings of Humanae Vitae and the resulting widespread employment of intentional and inherent sterility, the smoke of Satan within the Church will prevent that hope from coming to fruition.
If the Traditionalists fall into full-blown schism, the responsibility for that failure will rest squarely on the shoulders of the shepherds. You priests have a duty to speak out in love against these abuses. Silence is de facto cooperation with their behaviors. I pray for unity within the Mystical Body of Christ.

Other Resources That Defend the Liturgical Reform of Second Vatican Council


Books:

1). Theologian Ronald L. Conte Jr., In Defense of Pope Francis.
This work of Roman Catholic theology defends Pope Francis and the papacy itself based on the indefectibility of the Church and the prevenient grace of God. The author argues that Pope Francis is a valid Pope, and that no valid Pope can ever fall into apostasy, heresy, or schism, nor can he ever teach material heresy.
2). Apologist Dave Armstrong, Reflections on Radical Catholic Reactionaries.
Dave Armstrong has sought to analyze the premises, presuppositions, logical and ecclesiological bottom lines and (in a word), the spirit of a false and divisive radical Catholic reactionary strain of thought held by a distinctive and tiny sub-group of Catholics. The term traditionalism has been co-opted by groups and schools of thought within Catholicism that vary quite widely. The book doesn't oppose the Tridentine Mass, or traditional liturgical practice and devotion (nor traditional morality and catechesis), but rather, far more radical ideas held by some Catholics.
3). Dave Armstrong, Pope Francis Explained: Survey of Myths, Legends, and Catholic Defenses in Harmony with Tradition.
It seems that everyone wants to make the pope into their own image. Those outside the Church want him to be so-called "progressive" and are more than willing to project this attribute onto him, in a huge campaign of wishful thinking. But radical Catholic reactionaries, on the extreme right on the Catholic ecclesiological spectrum, become alarmed that the Church is compromising itself. A third group of obedient orthodox Catholics understand the pope's role and the nature and status of Catholic dogmas (which do not change), yet are confused by something a new pope says or does.
4). By Joseph A. Jungmann (Author), Francis A. Brunner (Translator), The Mass Of The Roman Rite : Its Origins and Development (Missarum Sollemnia) (2 Volume Set).
Quote from a review: [This book] is a magisterial treatment of the development of the Western liturgical tradition from its beginnings at the Last Supper through the changes which were instituted as a result of the Council of Trent. It is an invaluable source for the process by which the western rite developed. Fr. Jungmann throughout shows amply the variety of liturgical forms that developed in the west (examples from the gallican, mozarabic, sarum, etc.) and the gradual unification into the Roman Rite. Fr. Jungmann approaches his subject with awe and respect and at the same time is a relentless historical critic - this is a very difficult position to maintain. A large part of the value of this book is found in the author's ability to walk that narrow line. This book was influential with the Liturgical Reformers who changed so much after the Vatican Council II (though the changes wrought by the reformers far exceeded spirit and text of Fr. Jungmann's work).

Articles

1).  Dr. Jeff Mirus, “Vatican II on the Liturgy: Particular Norms & the Eucharist.”
Dr. Mirus writes a series of article summarizing The Second Vatican Council. I will list only Those articles dealing with Liturgy.
“Vatican II on the Liturgy: Overview & General Norms”
“Vatican II on the Liturgy: Introduction.”
2).  Dr. Jeff Mirus, “Questions raised by Pope Francis’ document on the liturgy.”
This article is excellent for helping us to understand the differences that exist between the Novus Ordo Mass as the Council envisioned it, versus how it is actually being celebrated.
3).  Dave Armstrong, “Infallibility, Councils, and Levels of Church Authority.”
Explanation of the Subtleties of Church Teaching and Debate with Several Radical Catholic Reactionaries
4).  The 1910 Catholic Encyclopedia:
Infallibility of Ecumenical Councils:
Infallibility of Popes:
https://web.archive.org/web/20150905074927/http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm#:~:text=Explanation%20of-,papal%20infallibility,-The%20Vatican%20Council
5).  Dave Armstrong, “Is a Catholic at Liberty to Selectively Choose Which Catholic Dogmas He Will Abide By?”
The late Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J., was one of the leading catechists in the world and one of the most respected Catholic priests; adviser to Popes Paul VI and John Paul II, and catechist of Mother Teresa's Missionaries of Charity (I have a Tribute Page about him now, and I knew him personally), used to frequently say: “to doubt even one received dogma of the Catholic Church is to lose the supernatural virtue of faith.”
6).  Matt1618: This website can be thought of as the depository of great articles which refute every false claim made by Traditionalist.

Updated 09/17/2022
Updated 09/22/2022

ENDNOTES:

[1]. Brian Kranick, “One in the Eucharist,” Sacramental Life, http://sacramentallife.com/category/common-priesthood/, 04/27/2016 (accessed 02/26/2019).
[2]. Brian Kranick, “Baptism, Initiation into the Common Priesthood,” Sacrament Life, http://sacramentallife.com/2015/10/baptism-initiation-into-the-common-priesthood-october-15-2015/, 10/15/2015 (accessed 02/26/2019).
[3]. I am not aware of any objective studies that justify the belief that Latin is more efficacious in liturgies than any other language. Factors leading to this belief are subjective, anecdotal, and inspired by the words of demons (e.g., they hate Latin)— who follow the father of all lies. Did Jesus say the words of consecration in Latin? Not very likely. At the time of Jesus, Latin was used only by Romans for matters of military administration. For civil matters, Romans used Greek. So, at the Last Supper and for exorcisms, Jesus almost certainly used either Aramaic or Hebrew. Therefore, did Jesus choose an inferior, less efficacious language? Extrapolating on Traditionalist thought, it would seem so. The main reason that Latin is important to the Church is this: Latin is a dead language! Consequently, there is no interpretational drift. What a Latin word meant hundreds of years ago, it means in 2022 and onward. This is vital for a Church that teaches unchangeable Truth. If demons hate Latin, this would be the reason they hate it — NOT because Latin is more efficacious. It is not.
[4]. Malcolm Schluenderfritz, “Ordinary Form of the Mass (Novus Ordo, New) compared to the Extraordinary Form of the Mass (Traditional, Tridentine),” CatholicBridge.com, https://www.catholicbridge.com/catholic/mass-new-vs-old.php, Accessed 08/12/2022.
[5]. Gelsomino Del Guercio, “What did Paul VI mean by saying ‘the smoke of Satan has entered the Church’?,” Aleteia, https://aleteia.org/2018/07/06/what-did-paul-vi-mean-by-saying-the-smoke-of-satan-has-entered-the-church/, 07/06/18 (accessed 06/07/2020).
[6]. Gelsomino Del Guercio, “What did Paul VI mean by saying ‘the smoke of Satan has entered the Church’?,” Aleteia, https://aleteia.org/2018/07/06/what-did-paul-vi-mean-by-saying-the-smoke-of-satan-has-entered-the-church/, 07/06/18 (accessed 06/07/2020).
[7]. Pope Paul IV, Encyclical Letter Humanae Vitae, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, http://www.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae.html, July 25, 1968, (accessed 6/27/2020), n. 2.
[8]. Stephen Michael Leininger, The Beast in Scripture is Not Coming. It Is Here: Part III, STOSS Books, https://www.stossbooks.com/blog/index.php?7-06----the-beast-in-scripture-is-not-coming--it-is-here--part-iii, 07/26/2020 (accessed 08/11/2022).
[8-A]. Gelsomino Del Guercio, “What did Paul VI mean by saying ‘the smoke of Satan has entered the Church’?,” Aleteia, https://aleteia.org/2018/07/06/what-did-paul-vi-mean-by-saying-the-smoke-of-satan-has-entered-the-church/, 07/06/18 (accessed 06/07/2020).
[8-B]. Gelsomino Del Guercio, “What did Paul VI mean by saying ‘the smoke of Satan has entered the Church’?,” Aleteia, https://aleteia.org/2018/07/06/what-did-paul-vi-mean-by-saying-the-smoke-of-satan-has-entered-the-church/, 07/06/18 (accessed 06/07/2020).
[8-C]. Pope Paul IV, Encyclical Letter Humanae Vitae, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, http://www.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae.html, July 25, 1968, (accessed 6/27/2020), n. 2.
[8-D]. Stephen Michael Leininger, The Beast in Scripture is Not Coming. It Is Here: Part III, STOSS Books, https://www.stossbooks.com/blog/index.php?7-06----the-beast-in-scripture-is-not-coming--it-is-here--part-iii, 07/26/2020 (accessed 08/11/2022).
[8-E]. Fr. Chad Ripperger, “10 Problems In The Traditional Catholic Movement,” Tumblar House Catholic Books, https://www.tumblarhouse.com/blogs/news/problems-in-the-traditional-catholic-movement, August 18, 2019 (accessed 09/12/2019).
[9]. Catholic Straight Answers, “If a priest is in the state of mortal sin, can he still offer the Mass and perform the other sacraments?” Catholic Straight Answers, https://catholicstraightanswers.com/if-a-priest-is-in-the-state-of-mortal-sin-can-he-still-offer-the-mass-and-perform-the-other-sacraments/, 2022 (accessed 08/12/2022).
[10]. Hardon, John (2013-06-25). “Sanctifying Grace,” Catholic Dictionary: An Abridged and Updated Edition of Modern Catholic Dictionary (p. 456). The Doubleday Religious Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.
[11]. A Professor of Dogmatic Theology, John Hardon was an aggressive defender of Catholic orthodoxy. In fact, during his studies at Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome (circa 1950), it was his duty to collect all the heretical books that had been checked out of the library by graduate students. He became known as an agent of orthodoxy and an enemy of the modernists who were striving to update the Church to their views of the faith [Elizabeth Mitchell, “Father John A. Hardon, S.J.: Biography,” Father John A. Hardon Archive and Guild, S.J., http://www.hardonsj.org/biography: Father John A. Hardon, SJ, Archive and Guild, 2013 (accessed 07/31/2013)]. At the request of Pope Paul VI, he wrote the 1975 edition of The Catholic Catechism [Ibid.]. He also wrote the Modern Catholic Dictionary and a detailed catechetical study program for the Holy See when Pope John Paul II requested that Mother Theresa’s Missionaries of Charity be trained in catechesis. He served as a consultant for the drafting of the Catechism of the Catholic Church promulgated by Pope John Paul II. He received the Papal Medal in 1951 and the St. Maximilian Kolbe Award in Mariology in 1990 [Ibid.]. Hardon died in December of 2000. Cardinal Raymond Burke initiated the Cause for Hardon’s canonization in 2005 and obtained the imprimatur of the Congregation for the Causes of Saints in Rome; Fr. Robert T. McDermott is the Postulator for the Cause [James Maldonado Berry, “A Preacher “In and Out of Season”: Fr. Hardon’s Cause for Sainthood,” Catholic Exchange, http://catholicexchange.com/preaching-the-gospel-%e2%80%9cin-and-out-of-season%e2%80%9d-fr-hardon%e2%80%99s-relevance-for-today/, June 22, 2010 (accessed 10/31/2013)]. All of his writings have been given a nihil obstat [James Maldonado Berry, “Father John A. Hardon, S.J.: More on the Archive and Guild,” Father John A. Hardon, S.J., https://hardonsj.org/biography/: Father John A. Hardon, SJ, Archive and Guild, 2013 (accessed 07/31/2013)].
[12]. CCC, n. 460.
[13]. Fr. John A. Hardon S.J., “History and Theology of Grace: Sanctifying Grace,” The Real Presence Association, http://therealpresence.org/archives/Grace/Grace_011.htm#:~:text=If%20we%20are%20regenerated: Inter Mirifica, 1998 (accessed 06/23/2014). Used with permission from Inter Mirifica.
[14]. Hardon, Catholic Dictionary: An Abridged and Updated Edition of Modern Catholic Dictionary, p. 456.
[15]. John Hardon, (2013-06-25). “Sacramental Grace.” Catholic Dictionary: An Abridged and Updated Edition of Modern Catholic Dictionary (p. 442). The Doubleday Religious Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.
[16]. Hardon, “History and Theology of Grace: Actual Graces,” http://www.therealpresence.org/archives/Grace/Grace_013.htm: therealpresence.org. Used with permission from Inter Mirifica.
[17]. Hardon, “History and Theology of Grace: Actual Graces,” http://www.therealpresence.org/archives/Grace/Grace_013.htm: therealpresence.org. Used with permission from Inter Mirifica.
[18]. St. Aurelius Augustin of Hippo, On the Trinity, Book 8, Chapter 5, Section 8.
[19]. Francis Selman, Aquinas 101: A Basic Introduction to the Thought of Saint Thomas Aquinas, (Notre Dame: Christian Classics, Ave Maria Press, 2007), p. 63.
[20]. cf. Ibid.
[21]. Fr. John A. Hardon S.J., “History and Theology of Grace: Grace Considered Extensively,” The Real Presence Association, http://www.therealpresence.org/archives/Grace/Grace_002.htm#05: Inter Mirifica, 1998 (accessed 06/23/2014).
[22]. cf. Ibid.
[23]. John A. Hardon S.J., “History and Theology of Grace: Actual Graces,” The Real Presence Association, http://therealpresence.org/archives/Grace/Grace_011.htm, 1998 (accessed 05/08/2014). Used with permission from Inter Mirifica.
[24]. Aquinas, Summa Theologia, I-II, q. 111, a. 1.
[25]. Ibid.
[26]. Ibid.
[27]. Ibid.
[28]. Ibid.
[29]. Ary Waldir Ramos Diaz, “The future Pope Francis was in charge of dealing with this reported Eucharistic miracle,” ALETEIA, https://aleteia.org/2020/06/13/the-future-pope-francis-was-in-charge-of-dealing-with-this-reported-eucharistic-miracle/, 06/13/20 (accessed 08/17/2022).
[30]. Ary Waldir Ramos Diaz, “The future Pope Francis was in charge of dealing with this reported Eucharistic miracle,” ALETEIA, https://aleteia.org/2020/06/13/the-future-pope-francis-was-in-charge-of-dealing-with-this-reported-eucharistic-miracle/, 06/13/20 (accessed 08/17/2022).
[31]. The Eucharistic Miracles of the World, Exhibit created by Carlo Acutis, Associazione Amici di Carlo Acutis, http://www.miracolieucaristici.org/en/Liste/scheda_b.html?nat=messico&wh=tixtla&ct=Tixtla,%202006, (accessed 08/17/2000).
[32]. The Eucharistic Miracles of the World, Exhibit created by Carlo Acutis, Associazione Amici di Carlo Acutis, http://www.miracolieucaristici.org/en/Liste/scheda_b.html?nat=messico&wh=tixtla&ct=Tixtla,%202006, (accessed 08/17/2000).
[33]. Ibid.
[34] Philip Kosloski, “This Eucharistic host was filmed bleeding and pulsating like a heart on fire,” ALETEIA, https://aleteia.org/2019/06/17/this-eucharistic-host-was-filmed-bleeding-and-pulsating-like-a-heart-on-fire/, 06/17/19 (accessed 08/17/2022).
[35]. The Eucharistic Miracles of the World, Exhibit created by Carlo Acutis, Associazione Amici di Carlo Acutis, http://www.miracolieucaristici.org/en/Liste/scheda_b.html?nat=messico&wh=tixtla&ct=Tixtla,%202006, (accessed 08/17/2000).
[36]. The Eucharistic Miracles of the World, Exhibit created by Carlo Acutis, Associazione Amici di Carlo Acutis, http://www.miracolieucaristici.org/en/Liste/scheda_b.html?nat=messico&wh=tixtla&ct=Tixtla,%202006, (accessed 08/17/2000).
[37]. Ibid.
[38]. The Eucharistic Miracles of the World, Exhibit created by Carlo Acutis, Associazione Amici di Carlo Acutis, http://www.miracolieucaristici.org/en/Liste/scheda_b.html?nat=polonia&wh=legnica&ct=Legnica,%202013, (accessed 08/17/2022).[39]. The Eucharistic Miracles of the World, Exhibit created by Carlo Acutis, Associazione Amici di Carlo Acutis, http://www.miracolieucaristici.org/en/Liste/scheda_b.html?nat=polonia&wh=legnica&ct=Legnica,%202013, (accessed 08/17/2022).
[40] The Eucharistic Miracles of the World, Exhibit created by Carlo Acutis, Associazione Amici di Carlo Acutis, http://www.miracolieucaristici.org/en/Liste/scheda.html?nat=venezuela&wh=betania&ct=Betania,%201991, (accessed 08/17/2000).
[41]. Brother André Marie, “The Demonic,” Catholicism.org, https://catholicism.org/ad-rem-no-190.html, August 13, 2012 (accessed 08/18/2022)
[42]. Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, III, Q. 76, Art. 8.
[43]. Blessed Carlo Acutis, “Eucharistic Miracle of Lanciano,” http://www.miracolieucaristici.org/en/download/lanciano.pdf.
[43-B]. Fr. J. Godfrey Raupert, “An Exorcism in 1907,” Catholic Exchange, https://catholicexchange.com/an-exorcism-in-1907/, August 30, 2022 (accessed 09/02/2022).
[44]. Prof. Remi Amelunxen, “The Priest’s Intention in Consecrating the Eucharist,” Tradition in Action, https://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/f060_Intention.htm, April , 2012 (accessed 08/18/2020).
[45]. Prof. Remi Amelunxen, “The Priest’s Intention in Consecrating the Eucharist,” Tradition in Action, https://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/f060_Intention.htm, April , 2012 (accessed 08/18/2020).
[46]. Daniel Kennedy, “Sacraments.” The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 13. (New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1912), http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13295a.htm, 31 Aug. 2022 (accessed 09/01/2022).
[47]. 7th Session of March 1547. The Latin text reads: Si quis dixerit in ministris dum sacramenta conficiunt et conferunt non requiri intentionem saltem faciendi quod facit ecclesia: anathema sit.
[48]. Jimmy Akin, “Invalid Masses,” Catholic Answers, https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/invalid-masses, May 1, 1999 (accessed 08/12/2022).
[49]. Prof. Remi Amelunxen, “The Priest’s Intention in Consecrating the Eucharist,” Tradition in Action, https://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/f060_Intention.htm, April , 2012 (accessed 08/18/2020).
[50]. Patrick Madrid, “Donatism,” Catholic Answers, https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/donatism, April 4, 1994 (accessed 08/29/2022).
[51]. “The Donatists came into existence in Africa during the disorders following the persecution under Diocletian (245-313). A man named Caecilian was consecrated Bishop of Carthage in A.D. 311, but a group of rigorists claimed that he was not a valid bishop because his consecrator, Felix of Aptunga, had been a traditor, i.e., an apostate. The objectors were supported by the bishops of Numidia, who proceeded to consecrate Majorinus as a rival to Caecilian. Majorinus was soon afterward succeeded by Donatus (fourth century), from whom the movement took its name. The claims of the sect were condemned by Pope Miltiades (310-14), and by the Council of Arles (314). When civil authority also opposed the Donatists, their churches were seized and many were exiled. Yet Donatism did not disappear until the Moslem invasion of Africa in the seventh century. Source: John Hardon, “Donatism,” Modern Catholic Dictionary, (Bardstown, Kentucky: Eternal Life Publishing, 2008), p.170.
[52]. Fr Antony Netikat, 100 Eucharistic Miracles: Proved by Science – Approved by Church, ATC Publishers, Kindle Edition, p. 34.
[53] Joan Carroll Cruz, Eucharistic Miracles, TAN Books, Kindle Edition, (p. 3).
[54]. Hardon, John (2013-06-25). “Sacramental Grace.” Catholic Dictionary: An Abridged and Updated Edition of Modern Catholic Dictionary (p. 442). The Doubleday Religious Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.
[55]. Catechism of the Catholic Church, p. 1324.
[56]. Fr. Chad Ripperger, “The Merit of the Mass,” The University of Arizona, http://www.u.arizona.edu/~aversa/modernism/Merit%20of%20the%20Mass%20%28Fr.%20Ripperger,%20F.S.S.P.%29.pdf, Summer 2003 (accessed 08/15/2022).
[57]. Venerable Fulton J. Sheen, The Mystical Body of Christ, Location 181-185.
[58]. Venerable Fulton J. Sheen, The Mystical Body of Christ, Location 23-25.
[59]. St. Augustine, “De Peccatorum Meritis et Remissione,” MPL 44:170.
[60]. Philippians 2:13; St. Augustine, “De Diversis Quaestionibus,”MPL 40:118, 128; CCC 2001.
[61]. Brant James Pitre PhD, Jesus the Bridegroom, The Crown Publishing Group. Kindle Edition, p. 138-139.
[62]. Pitre, Jesus the Bridegroom, p. 82-84.
[63]. Pitre, Jesus the Bridegroom, p. 82-84.
[64]. Ibid., p. 89-90.
[65]. Ibid., p. 91.
[66]. Hahn, A Father Who Keeps His Promises: God’s Covenant Love in Scripture, 24.
[67]. Hahn, S. (Ed.). (2009), in Catholic Bible Dictionary (p. 169). New York; London; Toronto; Sydney; Auckland: Doubleday.
[68]. M. G. Easton, “Covenant,” (1893), In Illustrated Bible Dictionary and Treasury of Biblical History, Biography, Geography, Doctrine, and Literature (p. 164). New York: Harper & Brothers.
[69]. Richard Whitaker et al., “Berith,” The Abridged Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew-English Lexicon of the Old Testament: From A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament, by Francis Brown, S.R. Driver and Charles Briggs, Based on the Lexicon of Wilhelm Gesenius (Boston; New York: Houghton, Mifflin and Company, 1906).
[70]. Richard Whitaker et al., “Berith,” The Abridged Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew-English Lexicon of the Old Testament: From A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament, by Francis Brown, S.R. Driver and Charles Briggs, Based on the Lexicon of Wilhelm Gesenius (Boston; New York: Houghton, Mifflin and Company, 1906).
[71]. Pope Benedict XVI, (2011-03-10). Jesus of Nazareth Part Two, Holy Week: From the Entrance Into Jerusalem To The Resurrection (Kindle Locations 3437-3444).
[72]. Scott Hahn. (2011-07-18). A Father Who Keeps His Promises: God’s Covenant Love in Scripture. St. Anthony Messenger Press, Servant Books. Kindle Edition, 15.
[73]. Scott Hahn, A Father Who Keeps His Promises: God’s Covenant Love in Scripture, 27.
[74]. Rabbi Moshe Yoseph Koniuchowsky, written in an email to ‘heb_roots_chr@hebroots.org, “Children of Salt,” Covenant of Salt, http://www.hebroots.org/hebrootsarchive/0209/0209b.html: (accessed 4/08/2008).
[75]. Ibid.
[76]. Pope Benedict XVI, (2011-03-10). Jesus of Nazareth Part Two, Holy Week: From the Entrance Into Jerusalem To The Resurrection (Kindle Locations 3436-3437). Ignatius Press. Kindle Edition.
[77]. Burge, Gary M. (2012-08-07). Jesus and the Jewish Festivals (Ancient Context, Ancient Faith) (Kindle Locations 1184-1187). Zondervan. Kindle Edition.
[78]. Catherine of Siena, The Dialogue of the Seraphic Virgin Catherine of Siena, trans. Algar Thorold (London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trübner & Co., 1896), 190.
[79]. Promulgated by Pope Francis, Apostolic Letter Desiderio Desideravi, https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/apost_letters/documents/20220629-lettera-ap-desiderio-desideravi.html, June 29, 2022 (accessed 8/29/2022).
[80]. Ibid., n. 6.
[81]. Ibid., n. 52.
[82]. St. Catherine of Siena, The Dialogue, trans. Suzanne Noffke, O.P (Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 1980), 86.
[83]. Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, I, q. 76.
[84]. Actual grace considered apart from the supernatural effect for which it was bestowed. It may therefore mean the grace that does not meet with adequate co-operation on the part of the human recipient, and then it is merely sufficient grace. It is enough to enable a person to perform a salutary act, but who freely declines to co-operate. Or it may simply mean the grace that gives one the power to accomplish a salutary action, as distinct from an efficacious grace, which secures that the salutary act is accomplished. Quoted from: John Hardon, “Sufficient Grace,” Modern Catholic Dictionary, (Bardstown, KY: Eternal Life, 2001, 2004, 2008), p. 524.
[85]. Pope Francis, Apostolic Letter Desiderio Desideravi, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/apost_letters/documents/20220629-lettera-ap-desiderio-desideravi.html, June 29, 2022 (accessed 09/06/2022).
[86]. Cindy Wooden, “Traditional Latin Mass 'movement' sows division, archbishop says,” National Catholic Reporter, https://www.ncronline.org/news/parish/traditional-latin-mass-movement-sows-division-archbishop-says, Jul 20, 2021 (accessed 08/29/2022).
[87]. Solène Tadié, “Why is a French Catholic archdiocese expelling the FSSP?” The Catholic News Agency, https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/248015/why-is-a-french-catholic-archdiocese-expelling-the-fssp, Jun 16, 2021 (accessed 08/29/2022).
[88]. Malcolm Schluenderfritz, “Ordinary Form of the Mass (Novus Ordo, New) compared to the Extraordinary Form of the Mass (Traditional, Tridentine),” CatholicBridge.com, https://www.catholicbridge.com/catholic/mass-new-vs-old.php, Accessed 08/12/2022.
All material on this site is protected by copyright and may not be reproduced without written permission
Translate this web page
All material protected by copyright
SiteLock
Back to content