Those of my present readers who are familiar with my previous writings will know that I have dwelt principally upon the "pro multis" ("for many") issue, demonstrating the invalidity of the Novus Ordo Missae in its various vernacularized versions, in particular in the ICEL's version in English. The invalidity results from the corrupted form for the wine consecration, the form of a sacrament being defined as the necessary words spoken by the minister in conferring or confecting a sacrament.

In The Necessary Signification In The Sacramental Form Of The Holy Eucharist, published in 1991, I went beyond the "pro multis" issue and devoted fifteen pages (Part I, Sec. 9, pp. 50-64) to a detailed discussion which further demonstrated the necessity for validity of the words "the mystery of faith" in the form for the wine consecration. Therefore the mass of evidence that the Novus Ordo Missae (NOM) is invalid is greater than, but of course includes, the "pro multis" issue. For those essential words "the mystery of faith" were in fact expunged from the wine consecration by Paul VI in his prototypal Latin edition of the Novus Ordo Missae.

The consequences of this are more far-reaching than those of the "pro multis" issue alone, because if the Novus Ordo Missae even in its Latin version is invalid by virtue of the deletion of the words "the mystery of faith" -- No "Mystery of Faith" : No Mass -- then the New Mass is invalid universally; it is per se invalid. Even those few vernacularized versions of the NOM that have faithful translations of pro multis are affected; faithful copies of a counterfeit original yield only more counterfeits. No "Mystery of Faith" : No Mass!

Yet another serious fact automatically follows: namely, that Paul VI was not a bona fide pope and the true Vicar of Christ on earth, at least not at the time he promulgated his Novus Ordo Missae. That this is necessarily a consequence of the invalidity of his prototypal edition of the Novus Ordo Missae, though immediately apparent to most readers, will nevertheless be discussed in this essay.

Now, some of my Adversarii may reject out of hand these notions, by pointing out that the words mysterium fidei are not found in the consecration forms in the majority of the Eastern rites and hence cannot possibly be essential for validity. I have already discussed and refuted this argument in The Necessary Signification In The Sacramental Form Of The Holy Eucharist (denoted hereinafter by the abbreviation "TNS"), and I shall do so again in this essay. Therefore my adversaries and other skeptics should not too hastily dismiss my case peremptorily.

The following is an excerpt from my Preface to Questioning The Validity Of The Masses Using The New, All-English Canon (1968): "Each paragraph of this monograph is numbered uniquely, so that all who wish to question or rebut any particular point, or many points, may with ease refer to what I have written. Not only will this aid my sincere opponents in citing chapter and verse against me, but it will also point up the insincerity of all blanket criticisms that avoid citing specifics." Similarly and for the same reasons each paragraph of this present essay is numbered.

Patrick Henry Omlor

October 1994

1. The sacramental form for the wine consecration printed in altar missals prior to the introduction of the Novus Ordo Missae is as follows: Hic est enim Calix Sanguinis mei, novi et aeterni testamenti: mysterium fidei: qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum.

2. The correct, literal English-language translation of this form is given thus in ante-NOM editions of The Saint Andrew Daily Missal: For this is the Chalice of my Blood, of the new and eternal testament: the mystery of faith: which shall be shed for you and for many unto the remission of sins.

3. For the validity of the Consecration of the Wine, and hence for the validity of the Mass, the entire form laid down in Missale Romanum (and reproduced in pars. 1-2 above) is required, and the mere words "This is the Chalice of my Blood" do not suffice.

4. That the entire form is necessary for validity and the introductory words, "This is the Chalice of my Blood," alone by themselves, do not suffice for a valid consecration is maintained by St. Thomas Aquinas, the authors of the Roman Catechism (Catechism of The Council of Trent), Pope St. Pius V, St. Antoninus, Pope Innocent III, the Salmanticenses, and many other theologians of great authority. A list of the names of thirty-nine such theologians (which is not exhaustive, but cited only as examples) is given on pp. 22-23 of TNS.

5. The school of opinion that the "short form" of words "This is the Chalice of my Blood" suffices for validity also includes theologians of repute. The matter has not been decided definitively by the Church. A thorough discussion of the pros and cons of this "entire form versus short form" controversy is given by Emmanuel Doronzo, O.M.I., Professor of Dogmatic Theology at Catholic University, Washington, D.C., in Article 10 on pp. 150-161 of his work entitled, Tractatus Dogmaticus De Eucharistia, Tom. I De Sacramento, published by Bruce, Milwaukee, 1947.

6. Father Doronzo himself, the preëminent scholar of recent times to have studied this matter, leans heavily towards the opinion that the entire form is necessary. I devoted the whole of Part I of TNS (pp. 1-67) to a discussion of "the entire form" versus "the short form" controversy. It is left to the interested reader to consult those pages, for there is not the space here to review all the evidence, based both on authority and on sacramental theology, that the entire form is necessary for validity.

7. Those of my Adversarii who follow the opinion that the words "This is the Chalice of my Blood" are the only words required for validity cannot base a refutation of my case on that hypothesis. For it is only a theological opinion, one that is greatly outweighed by the stature of the many eminent theological authorities opposed to it, whose cogent evidence and theological reasons are veritably invulnerable to refutation.

8. Although space limitations prevent us from presenting the learned commentaries of all the renowned authorities defending the entire form, it will be useful now at least to examine the doctrine of the "Prince of Theologians" regarding the necessity of the entire form for the Consecration of the Wine.

9. In Summa Theologica (III, Q. 78, A. 3) he writes: "Respondeo dicendum quod circa hanc formam est duplex opinio. Quidam enim dixerunt quod de substantia formae huius est hoc solum quod dicitur, Hic est calix sanguinis mei, non autem ea quae sequuntur. -- Sed hoc videtur inconveniens: quia ea quae sequuntur, sunt quaedam determinationes praedicati, idest sanguinis Christi; unde pertinent ad integritatem locutionis.

"Et propter hoc sunt alii qui melius dicunt quod omnia sequentia sunt [emphasis added] de substantia formae, usque ad hoc quod postea sequitur, Hoc quotiescumque feceritis, quae pertinet ad usum huius sacramenti, unde non sunt de substantia formae."

10. Which is translated as follows: "I answer that There is a twofold opinion regarding this form. Some have maintained that the words This is the chalice of My blood alone belong to the substance of this form, but not those words which follow. Now this seems incorrect, because the words which follow them are determinations of the predicate, that is, of Christ's blood; consequently they belong to the integrity of the recitation of the form.

"And on this account others say more accurately that all the words which follow [emphasis added; and these words which follow include the words 'the mystery of faith'] are of the substance of the form down to the words, As often as ye shall do this, which belong to the use of this sacrament, and consequently do not belong to the substance of the form."

11. In the same Summa Theologica (III, Q. 60, A. 8) St. Thomas explains what he means when he speaks of "the substance of the form": "Manifestum est quod si diminuatur aliquid eorum, quae sunt de substantia formae sacramentalis, tollitur debitus sensus verborum: et ideo non perficitur sacramentum." "Now it is clear that if anything that is of the substance of the sacramental form [emphasis added] would be suppressed, then that would destroy the essential sense of the words; and consequently the sacrament would be rendered invalid" [emphasis added].

12. Again in his treatise In 1 Cor. XI, (lect. 6), the Angelic Doctor teaches the same thing: "Sed circa ista verba quibus Ecclesia utitur in consecratione sanguinis, quidam opinantur, quod non omnia sint de necessitate formae, sed solum quod dicitur, 'Hic est calix sanguinis mei,' non autem residuum quod sequitur, 'Novi et aeterni testamenti, mysterium fidei, qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum.' Sed hoc non videtur convenienter dici: nam totum illud quod sequitur est quaedam determinatio praedicati: unde et ad ejusdem locutionis sententiam seu significationem pertinet. Et quia, ut saepe dictum est, formae sacramentorum significando efficiunt, totum pertinet ad vim effectivam formae."

13. Which in English reads as follows: "In regard to these words which the Church uses in the consecration of the Blood, some think that not all of them are necessary for the form, but the words 'This is the chalice of My Blood' only, not the remainder which follows, 'of the new and eternal testament, the mystery of faith, which shall be shed for you and for many unto the remission of sins.' But it would appear that this is not said correctly, because all that which follows is a determination of the predicate [namely, 'This is the chalice of my blood'] : hence those subsequent words belong to the meaning or signification of the same pronouncement. And because, as has often been said, it is by signifying that the forms of sacraments have their effect, hence all of these words appertain to the effecting power of the form." [Bold print emphasis throughout was added.]

14. It needs to be mentioned that, when speaking of the "entire form," the first word of the form in English -- namely, "For" ("enim") -- is not required for validity. All

theologians agree on this point. The Roman Catechism (Part II, Chap. 4, Q. 20) teaches that, although all other words of the form are essential, this word, namely, the conjunction "enim," is not required for validity, but "by all means is to be pronounced by the priest." St. Thomas remarks that the word enim "is set in the form according to the custom of the Roman Church, which derived it from Peter the Apostle" (Summa Th., III, Q. 78, A. 2, ad 5); and that although it is not part of the substance of the form, nevertheless if a priest would omit this word, "for," he would thereby perhaps sin through his negligence or contempt (Summa Th., III, Q. 60, A. 8).

15. Tommaso Cajetan (1469-1534), a Dominican cardinal, was the first "Thomist" to oppose publicly the mind of St. Thomas regarding the necessity for validity of the entire wine consecration form. In his "Commentaries" on the Summa, Cajetan, contradicting St. Thomas, boldly asserted that for the consecration of the Precious Blood nothing more is required than these four words: "This is my blood."

16. The "Commentaries" of Cajetan were published at Venice (1533) and later at Lyons (1540). In 1570, some thirty-six years after Cajetan's death, the reigning Sovereign Pontiff St. Pius V authorized the publication of a Roman edition. But at the same time St. Pius V explicitly ordered Cajetan's claim (viz., that the short form suffices for validity) to be expurgated.

17. Raymond Capisuccus, a Dominican cardinal and a true Thomist, wrote a learned treatise, published in 1677, entitled Controversiae theologicae selectae. In Controversy 3, under the heading "De forma consecrationis vini eucharistici," on p. 209 Capisuccus wrote the following: "They are in error who try to maintain that this was expurgated only because Cajetan downgraded St. Thomas's opinion too much. For Cajetan here does not merely downgrade the opinion of St. Thomas; he departs from it. Just as he departs from him on other matters, but those other divergences were not ordered to be dropped from the Roman edition. It is evident that Pope Pius V did not agree with this opinion [the expurgated one] of Cajetan's."

18. There is yet another most weighty authority supporting our position that the entire form for the wine consecration is required for validity. De Defectibus in Celebratione Missarum Occurrentibus (abbr. as "De Defectibus") is a section of the official rubrics for the celebration of Holy Mass, and it is to be found printed among the introductory pages of all legitimate (ante-NOM) altar missals.

19. In Part V of De Defectibus we read: "Verba autem Consecrationis, quae sunt forma hujus Sacramenti, sunt haec: 'Hoc est enim Corpus meum.' Et: 'Hic est enim Calix Sanguinis mei, novi et aeterni testamenti: mysterium fidei, qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum.' Si quis autem aliquid diminueret, vel immutaret de forma consecrationis Corporis et Sanguinis, et in ipsa verborum immutatione verba idem non significarent, non conficeret Sacramentum. Si vero aliquid adderet, quod significationem non mutaret, conficeret quidem, sed gravissime peccaret."

20. The English version of this reads: "The words of Consecration, which are the form of this Sacrament, are these: For this is my Body. And: For this is the Chalice of my Blood, of the new and eternal testament: the mystery of faith, which shall be shed for you and for many unto the remission of sins. Now if one were to omit, or to change anything in the form of the consecration of the Body and Blood, and in that very change of the words the [new] wording would fail to mean the same thing, he would not consecrate the Sacrament. If in fact he were to add something that did not change the meaning, it is true he would consecrate, but he would sin most gravely."

21. Could anything be clearer? Anything more incapable of being misunderstood? It begins by saying "The words of Consecration, which are the form of this Sacrament, are these:" Then the entire form, both for the Consecration of the Body and of the Blood -- including, of course, the words "the mystery of faith" -- is set down precisely.

22. Having specified the sacramental form in its entirety, the prescription then warns that if the priest-celebrant should omit anything at all (aliquid) of this form -- for example, omit the words "the mystery of faith" -- or use different wording that would change the meaning of the prescribed words, then "he would not consecrate the Sacrament"; he would celebrate no Mass at all.

23. What is the binding force of rubrics? In the article under the heading Rubrics by F. Cabrol in The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. XIII, p. 217, 1913 edition, we read:

"Obligatory Character. -- ...Writers distinguish between Divine and human rubrics, but as soon as rubrics are approved by the sovereign pontiff and promulgated in his name it seems to us that they emanate from a Divine-human authority, and none save the Church has the right to establish such rules. ...

"It may be said that the rubrics of the liturgical books are real laws; this follows from the definition: they are prescriptions for the good order of external worship in the Catholic Church, they emanate from the highest authority -- the sovereign pontiff -- and considering the terms in which they are promulgated it does not appear that the supreme head of the Church merely desires to give a counsel. ...[T]he minds of the sovereign pontiffs as expressed in their Bulls, which in establishing and promulgating rubrics, intend to make them real laws."

24. Some may argue that De Defectibus, being thus classified as a law, may be legitimately and validly changed by another Sovereign Pontiff; for example, Paul VI. I reply that the text of De Defectibus I cited above (in pars. 19-20) is not merely a law pertaining to a purely disciplinary matter -- that is, "prescriptions for the good order of external worship in the Catholic Church," as Cabrol puts it. Much more than the preservation of "good order of external worship" is intended here. These particular dicta are definitive teachings of sacramental theology regarding the sacramental form of the Holy Eucharist. They fall within the domain of dogmatic theology, rather than ecclesiastical law.

25. This is true because rubrics relating to the matter or the form of sacraments take on a new dimension. "The Rubrics, if we except the few which regard the matter and form of sacraments [emphasis added], are ecclesiastical laws ..." (Notes on the Rubrics of the Roman Ritual, by Rev. James O'Kane, Jas. Duffy & Co., Dublin, 1922, p. 14).

26. Simply examining Part V of De Defectibus drives this point home. It is a plain statement of theological fact on a most vital matter. In effect it says to the priest: "Here are the words you must recite. They are all essential. If you leave anything out or change anything you will not celebrate a valid Mass." What the informed priest will also know is that the full authority of the Sovereign Pontiff is behind this teaching.

27. An aside: An important point to note is that the aforementioned Part V of De Defectibus does not speak of two forms. The singular noun "forma" -- "The words of Consecration, which are the form of this Sacrament, are these:" -- means that the form of this Sacrament, although twofold in nature, is but a single form. Hence any of the proscribed violations of the form -- either of the part for the consecration of the bread or of that for the consecration of the wine -- invalidates the whole Sacrament. "Now if one were to omit, or to change anything in the form [N.B. "the form" : singular] of the consecration of the Body and Blood, and in that very change of the words the [new] wording would fail to mean the same thing, he would not consecrate the Sacrament."

28. Some persons who accept our arguments that the wine consecration is invalid and therefore the Mass itself is invalid, nevertheless believe that the hosts may be truly consecrated. If the interpretation in the preceding paragraph is correct, then such a belief is unfounded.

29. To prove the necessity for validity of the words "the mystery of faith" in the consecration form for the wine we have specifically named these authorities: St. Thomas Aquinas, the Roman Catechism, St. Pius V, St. Antoninus, Innocent III, the Salmanticenses, Raymond Capisuccus, O.P., Emmanuel Doronzo, O.M.I., and, lastly, Part V of De Defectibus.

30. We have cited the incident of the expunging by Pope St. Pius V of the contrary opinion held by Cajetan (supra, Part III, pars. 15-17).

31. The detailed and cogent evidence from the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas was presented in paragraphs 9-13 of Part II.

32. The whole of Part IV (pars. 1828) was devoted to a treatment of the doctrine of the Ordinary Magisterium of the Church found in Part V of De Defectibus in Celebratione Missarum Occurrentibus, which comprises part of the official rubrics of Missale Romanum.

33. The evidence thus far presented is based solely on arguments from authority. It is outside the scope of this present essay to give the arguments based on sacramental theology. This theological evidence that the entire form is necessary is found in several of my writings; for example, in Interdum #3, entitled "Res Sacramenti," and in Part II of TNS (pages 68-111), where a thorough treatment of the matter is presented.

34. An Adversarius who wishes to destroy my thesis must do the following things: either [1] show that I have not quoted correctly the authorities I have cited; or [2] show that, although I have cited them correctly, I have misunderstood their meanings and thereby unwittingly placed a false construction on what they teach; [3] present a solid, virtually irrefutable case, based on sacramental theology, that the mere words "This is the Chalice of my Blood" suffice for validity, and such a case must at the same time successfully refute my own case that is presented on pp. 68-111 of TNS; [4] produce authorities of greater weight who teach the opposite of my cited authorities.

35. To accomplish what is required in point [4] above would seem impossible. In his encyclical Aeterni Patris Pope Leo XIII stresses the unique role of St. Thomas in the affairs of the Church:

"The ecumenical councils have always been careful to hold Thomas Aquinas in singular honor. In the councils of Lyons, Vienne, Florence, and the Vatican one might almost say that Thomas took part and presided over the deliberations and decrees of the Fathers."

"But the chief and special glory of Thomas, one which he has shared with none of the Catholic doctors, is that the Fathers of Trent made it part of the order of the conclave to lay upon the altar, together with the code of sacred Scripture and the decrees of the Supreme Pontiffs, the Summa of Thomas Aquinas, whence to seek counsel, reason, and inspiration."

36. All of the words of the wine consecration form are found in Holy Scripture, with the exception of "and eternal" and "the mystery of faith." What, therefore, is the origin of these words? "[N]early all these words [of the wine consecration] can be culled from various passages of the Scriptures. Because the words, This is the chalice, are found in Luke xxii 20, and in 1 Cor. xi 25, while Matthew says in chapter xxvi 28: This is My blood of the New Testament, which shall be shed for many unto the remission of sins. The words added, namely, eternal and mystery of faith, were handed down to the Church by the apostles, who received them from our Lord..." (Summa Th., III, Q. 78, A. 3, ad 9).

37. St. Thomas therefore teaches here that the words "the mystery of faith" are derived from Tradition (Tradition with capital "T", which is one of the two sources of Divine Revelation), since they "were handed down to the Church by the apostles, who received them from our Lord."

38. It is not merely an "opinion" that the Angelic Doctor is here expressing; rather it is a fact of ecclesiastical history -- nay, a truth of Divine Revelation -- fully substantiated by the Papal authority of Innocent III in his doctrinal letter Cum Marthae Circa, Nov. 29, 1202. (Cf. Denzinger, Enchiridion Symbolorum, nos. 414-415).

39. An Archbishop of Lyons had inquired of Pope Innocent who it was that inserted "the mystery of faith" in the consecration form for the wine. In Cum Marthae Circa the Sovereign Pontiff replied as follows:

"You have asked (indeed) who has added to the form of words which Christ Himself expressed when He changed the bread and wine into the Body and Blood, which are in the Canon of the Mass that the general Church uses, but which we find expressed by none of the Evangelists. ... In the Canon of the Mass that expression, "the mystery of faith," is found interspersed among His words. ... Surely we find many such things omitted by the Evangelists from the words as well as from the deeds of the Lord ... Therefore We believe that the form of words as is found in the Canon, the Apostles received from Christ, and their successors from them" [emphasis added].

40. What is the force and status of Cum Marthae Circa? It is not just the theological opinion of a pope writing as a private theologian. Leeming calls it a "doctrinal letter" (Principles of Sacramental Theology, 1960, p. 255). Its very inclusion in Denzinger shows that it is part of the Ordinary Magisterium of the Church. Since those words "the mystery of faith" were received from Our Lord by the Apostles and handed down by them, they come down to us via Apostolic Tradition, one of the two sources of Divine Revelation. And that is why I claimed in par. 38 above that the words "the mystery of faith" are in the wine consecration of the Latin Rite through Divine Revelation.

41. Anyone who would be so bold as to gainsay the teaching of Pope Innocent III that the words "the mystery of faith" were in the Latin Rite consecration form from the very beginning would be obliged to show when, where and by whom these words were inserted at some later date. Such evidence cannot be found, and in quest of it one would in vain search the Apostolic Constitutions, the Decretals, the writings of the Apostolic Fathers and the Doctors, all extant official ecclesiastical records, or even the Apocrypha.

42. From p. 67 of A Short History of the Mass, by J. D. Crichton, published by The Incorporated Catholic Truth Society, London, 1983:

"Sufficient has been said about the Roman Canon above. All we need to comment on here is the expression 'mysterium fidei' which is found inserted in the words of the consecration of the wine in the seventh century edition of the Canon. It is thought, with some probability, to be the pious exclamation of a copyist who put it in the margin, from which it got into the text. Or it may have been uttered by the deacon."

43. These explanations will appeal to those of Crichton's gullible readers who believe in Santa Claus. And also perhaps to members of the Flat Earth Society. First of all he says these words are "found inserted in the words of the consecration of the wine in the seventh century edition of the Canon." That is undoubtedly true, but the incautious reader would be led to believe from that statement that the origin of the words "the mystery of faith" dates only from the seventh century.

44. Commencing by citing as unimpeachable evidence the "thought" of some anonymous authorities of unassailable sagacity; to wit: "It is thought, with some probability" -- he then advances the laughable theory that these words were "the pious exclamation of a copyist who put it in the margin, from which it got into the text." Some obscure, unnamed "pious" copyist, presumably one commissioned to make manuscript copies of the Canon of the Mass, commits the crime of tampering with the text, and lo! the change eventually gets incorporated in all copies of the missal used throughout the western Church! Great balls o' fire!

45. Canon E. E. Estcourt in The Question of Anglican Ordinations Discussed, (London, Burns & Oates, 1873), writes thus: "The care taken to preserve the Canon in its original authentic form we learn from other writers. 'In ancient times...,' says Muratori, 'to change the sacred words of the Canon was a crime.' [Emphasis added]. By the laws of Charlemagne it was ordered that only men of full age should be employed to transcribe it; and the councils of York and Oxford in the twelfth century decreed that the Archdeacon should examine every church whether there were errors or defects in the Canon, either by the faults of transcribers or the books being old" (pp. 279-280).

46. "Or it may have been uttered by the deacon" is Crichton's other illustrious theory. As a priest is reciting the solemn words of the wine consecration, and right after he has said "novi et aeterni testamenti," picture in your mind some feather-brained, garrulous deacon, who has no business "uttering" anything at all at that sacred moment, chiming in: "mysterium fidei." !!

47. What is the meaning, the theological significance, of these words, the mystery of faith, in the consecration form? "In this place, however," teaches the Roman Catechism, "these words bear an import different from that which they have when applied to baptism; for here 'the mystery of faith' consists in seeing by faith the blood of Christ, veiled under the species of wine ..." (Part II, Chap. IV, Q. 23).

48. Pope Innocent III teaches likewise that the theological significance of these words in the sacramental form is their expression of the doctrine of the Real Presence of the true Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ in the Sacrament of the Altar:

"Yet 'mysterium fidei' is mentioned, since something is believed there other than what is perceived; and something is perceived other than what is believed. For the species of the bread and wine is perceived there, but what is believed is the truth of the Body and Blood of Christ and the power of unity and love." (From the doctrinal letter Cum Marthae Circa cited earlier, Denz. # 414).

49. Catholics believe that hidden under the consecrated species of Bread and Wine is the Real Presence of the Sacred Humanity and Divinity of Our Lord. Present sacramentally is the same true body of Jesus that was conceived in the womb of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the same body that came forth in the stable at Bethlehem, the same Jesus Christ Who as the Divine Infant was held in the loving arms of St. Joseph. The same Divine Infant Who was borne on the shoulders of St. Christopher and Who appeared to St. Anthony and lay upon his breast. Yes, what we receive in Holy Communion is the true Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of the same Jesus Christ Who suffered His dolorous Passion and Death on Calvary for us, Who rose from the dead on the first Easter and Who ascended into heaven forty days later. It is the same Jesus Christ Whom we will meet at the terrifying moment of our particular judgment, and Who at the end of time will come again to judge the living and the dead.

50. This is what is meant precisely and exclusively by the phrase "the mystery of faith" in the wine consecration of the Mass: our belief in the Real Presence of Jesus Christ -- right now --in the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist. Among those things that are NOT meant here are the truths of our faith that Christ has died, that He is risen, and that He will come again.

51. Although this may be getting ahead of what will be discussed later, it is expedient to mention at this point that Paul VI not only removed the words "the mystery of faith" from the sacramental form itself, but inappropriately brought them in later. He wrote: "The words Mysterium Fidei, taken from the context of the words of Christ the Lord, and said by the priest, serve as an introduction to the acclamation of the faithful" (Apostolic Constitution promulgating the NOM). The "acclamation of the faithful" is "Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again."

52. From the treatise entitled Roman Theologians take a look at the New Order of the Mass (known also as the "Ottaviani Intervention"): "Then the acclamation assigned to the people after the Consecration ... brings us to the crowning ambiguity with regard to the Real Presence, under pretext of concern about the Last Day. Without a break the expectation of Christ's second coming at the end of time is proclaimed at precisely the moment when He is actually present on the altar -- as if the second coming, and not this, were the true coming" (p. 13 of the edition published by Ogilvie Foundation, Edinburgh, 1970; translated by Mary Ambrose).

From the hymn Lauda Sion, the sequence of the Mass for the feast of Corpus Christi, composed by St. Thomas:

"Dogma datur Christianis,

Quod in carnem transit panis,

Et vinum in sanguinem.

"Quod non capis, quod non vides,

Animosa format fides,

Praeter rerum ordinem."

"Hear what holy Church maintaineth,

That the bread its substance changeth

Into flesh, the wine to blood.

"Doth it pass thy comprehending?

Faith, the law of sight transcending,

Leaps to things not understood."

53. It is essential to understand exactly what we mean when we say the entire wine consecration form is necessary for the validity of the Sacrament, and, perforce, for the validity of the Mass. We do not mean necessary in an absolutely universal sense (relating to all rites), but in the limited sense, that is, with respect to our own Latin Rite. For what is essential in one of the rites of the Church is not necessarily essential in another rite.

54. Thus we do not mean that the form of words, exactly as laid down in the Roman Missal, must be used verbatim in all rites. This point is so obvious from an examination of the various Oriental liturgies that it hardly needs mentioning. An historical example, however, will be useful to illustrate how this fundamental fact can be misunderstood. After Pope Leo XIII had declared Anglican Orders to be categorically invalid because of a defective form of words (via his Bull Apostolicae Curae, 1896), the Anglican Hierarchy argued that there are Oriental liturgies which Rome has always acknowledged to be valid, but which do not employ the exact sacramental form of words for Holy Orders as is used in the Latin Rite.

55. This objection was answered by the Catholic Bishops of England in the famous Vindication of the Bull 'Apostolicae Curae':

"But you are also mistaken in thinking that matters have been left by Our Lord in such uncertainty, and that there is no one definite form which has prevailed in the Catholic Church, both in the East and in the West. If, indeed, you mean merely that no identical form of words has always and everywhere been in use ... you say what all will admit, and the Bull nowhere denies. ... The Bull, however ...is requiring, not that the form should always consist of the same words, but that it should always be conformed to the same definite type." (Both emphases in this paragraph appear in the original text.)

56. Let us now revert to the important idea that what is absolutely essential for the validity of a sacramental form in one rite or liturgy of the Church may not necessarily be essential in a universally absolute sense; that is, may not be essential for all, or even for any, of the other rites.

57. John De Lugo (1583-1660), the noted Spanish Jesuit and cardinal, reportedly examined numerous liturgies, showing that these words, 'This is My Body' 'This is My Blood', are the only consecrating words common to all liturgies. This does not prove that those words, and those words only, suffice as the valid sacramental form in any of the liturgies.

58. Consider the Sacrament of Confirmation. In our Latin Rite the form for the Sacrament of Confirmation is: "I sign thee with the sign of the cross, and I confirm thee with the chrism of salvation, in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost." In the Byzantine Rite the form for Confirmation consists of simply these nine words: "The seal of the gift of the Holy Ghost." The words, "the Holy Ghost," are the only words common to these two forms. Who in his right mind would infer from this that a sufficient form for validly conferring the Sacrament of Confirmation consists of the mere words "The Holy Ghost"?

59. We find the words, "the mystery of faith," in the Latin Rite form for the wine consecration; but we find those same words in none of the Oriental rites, save those of the Maronites, the Chaldeans and the Malabarites. From this only one thing can be deduced with certainty, namely, that those words are not essential for those rites that do not use them. It cannot be deduced that they are not essential for the consecrations in the Latin, Maronite, Chaldean and Malabarite rites, which do use them.

60. "Now while the Latin Church uses the entire form as laid down in the Roman Missal," observes Capisuccus (on pp. 213-214 of the work cited above in Part III, par. 17), "and whereas the other rites, of the Greek and of other Churches, do not have all those words in the form, it may be reasonably said that all those other forms were likewise instituted by Christ for the consecration of the wine, and that the Apostles and their successors had them from Christ. Hence Jacques Goar [see the article on Goar in The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. VI, pp. 606-607, 1909 ed.], in the Greek Ritual which he annotated, says: 'As to the question whence there arose a certain diversity between the Greeks and the Latins regarding the words of the Gospel requisite for the consecration, it is abundantly clear that this diversity arose from the traditions handed down by the different Apostles.'"

61. Continuing with Capisuccus: "And this does not change the fact that all those words which the Latin Church uses in the consecration of the wine are of the essence of that form. For it is one thing to say that all those words are not of the essence of the form as such, and it is another thing to say that they are not of the essence of the form that the Latin Church uses. Therefore we say that although all those words are not of the essence of the form as such, they are of the essence of the form in which they are found, such as that form which the Latin Church uses." Ibid. (Emphasis added).

62. "Hence from the fact that the Latin Church does use all those words, we may gather that Christ the Lord, although He did not require that all [rites] use the same identical words in the Consecration of the Blood, nevertheless He wished that they who do use all those words use them as being essential. [emphasis added]. Moreover He gave to those words the power to consecrate His Blood, provided that those words are in fact used. And consequently those words, seeing that they are in fact all pronounced, are of the essence of this form in which they are used." Ibid.

63. "Thus in our case -- that is, the form for the Eucharist -- the Greeks validly consecrate the blood of Christ through the form they use, in which the following words are not found: 'and eternal' and 'the mystery of faith.'... Now those of the Latin Rite consecrate validly through the form in which those words are in fact found; and in this case wherein the Latins use all those words, all those words are of the essence of the form which they use." Capisuccus, op. cit., pp. 214-215.

64. Hence we state that those words, "mysterium fidei," are not necessary in an absolute sense (which is self-evident by virtue of their absence from many of the liturgies), but we affirm that they are necessary for those rites in which God has willed that they be included.

65. For according to the Divine Dispensation, the inscrutable wisdom of which no man can comprehend, and according to what was so evidently willed by Our Lord when He handed these words down to certain apostles to be used among certain peoples of certain traditions and cultures -- that is, in the Western Church -- we must insist with the Angelic Doctor, whose teaching has been so lucidly defended by Cardinal Raymond Capisuccus, O.P., that the words "the mystery of faith" are necessary for the validity of the wine consecration in the Latin Rite. "In adhering rigidly to the rite handed down to us we can always feel secure; whereas if we omit or change anything, we may perhaps be abandoning just that element which is essential." (From Vindication of the Bull 'Apostolicae Curae').

66. Through God's Infinite Wisdom, Providence, design and foreknowledge of all things, it has turned out that only in the Western Church has the doctrine of the Real Presence been assailed. We know this to be true from the striking testimony of history. Berengarius, Tanchelmus of Antwerp, whose heresies in the 12th century were resisted and vanquished by St. Norbert, Wyclif, the Sacramentarians, Calvin, Zwingli, and the whole host of 16th-century Protestant Revolutionaries, etc. -- all these deniers of the Real Presence arose in the West.

67. With the one notable exception of Cyrillos Lukaris (1572-1637) (cf. TNS, pp. 61-62), the doctrine of the Real Presence has never been attacked by heretics in the Eastern churches; on the contrary, it has always been believed and upheld, even by the schismatics since the 11th century and by the early Oriental heretics. "In fact," we read in The Catholic Encyclopedia (Vol. V, p. 578, 1909 ed.), "even the Nestorians and Monophysites, who broke away from Rome in the fifth century, have, as is evident from their literature and liturgical books, preserved their faith in the Eucharist as unwaveringly as the Greeks, and this in spite of the dogmatic difficulties which, on account of their denial of the hypostatic union, stood in the way of a clear and correct notion of the Real Presence."

68. We know from the teaching of Pope Innocent III, which we cited earlier (the letter Cum Marthae Circa), that the words, "the mystery of faith," were included in our wine consecration from the beginning, having been handed down by the apostles who received them from Our Lord. Therefore one must conclude that these words are an essential part of the Latin Rite consecration form. Moreover, one may theorize that in God's Providence those words, "the mystery of faith," are in the Latin Rite -- though absent in the Eastern rites -- as a necessary bulwark in defense of the doctrine of the Real Presence, and as a stumbling block and most potent rebuke against those many deniers of this teaching who have sprung up from time to time -- and especially nowadays -- to attack it, such onslaughts deriving virtually exclusively from the rationalism of the West that has for so long a time infested and infected our Latin Church.

69. The English-language edition of L'Osservatore Romano dated May 8, 1969, carried a translation of the complete text of Paul VI's Apostolic Constitution, dated April 3, 1969, promulgating the Novus Ordo Missae. However, Paul VI's new words of "consecration" were not rendered into English.

70. "Thus, in each Eucharistic Prayer," wrote Paul, "we wish that the words be pronounced thus: over the bread: Accipite et manducate ex hoc omnes: hoc est enim Corpus meum, quod pro vobis tradetur; over the chalice: accipite et bibite ex eo omnes: hic est enim calix sanguinis mei novi et aeterni testamenti, qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum. Hoc facite in meam commemorationem.

"The words Mysterium Fidei, taken from the context of the words of Christ the Lord, and said by the priest, serve as an introduction to the acclamation of the faithful."

71. By having the introductory words, Accipite et manducate ex hoc omnes and accipite et bibite ex eo omnes and the final sentence Hoc facite in meam commemorationem in italics and in Latin -- that is, in the same type and style as the purported consecration form -- Paul erroneously implies that these words are (and presumably always have been) part of the consecratory formula necessary for validity. Such blurring of essential distinctions, a thing avoided at all costs by the Catholic Church, is, cela va sans dire, quite normal procedure in the Robber Church.

72. We have already discussed the false and deliberately misleading nature of the "acclamation." In effect the Novus Ordo Missae contains a denial of the Real Presence doctrine. For if a given expression has always had a particular meaning in its original context, and the very same expression is used in the very same setting but with an altogether different meaning attached, which different meaning is explicitly acclaimed, then one may reasonably infer that the original meaning was not only suppressed, but that the innovator has intended its denial.

73. Nevertheless one must admire the cleverness, or craftiness, behind this "acclamation" innovation. Even the most somnolent members of the clergy were bound to notice -- maybe not immediately, but at least eventually -- that in the "wine consecration" of Paul's "New Order" they were no longer saying the words "the mystery of faith." Forgetful of, or in some cases totally ignorant of, all (or perhaps only 99%) of the principles of sacramental theology and the historical facts we have been documenting herein, the Sacerdotes Somniculosi became quite relieved and everything appeared to be "all O.K." when they suddenly realized they were, after all, saying those words "the mystery of faith" -- and "after" all is to be taken literally -- due to that well planned, remarkably clever "acclamation" business.

74. A little over ten years before Paul promulgated his Novus Ordo Missae there was already a precedent for the omission from the wine consecration of the words "mysterium fidei." The Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office issued a Monitum (warning) dated July 24, 1958.

75. It reads as follows: "It has been made known to this Supreme Sacred Congregation that in a certain translation into the vernacular of the New Order of Holy Week the words 'the Mystery of Faith' have been omitted in the form for the consecration of the Chalice. Furthermore it has been reported that certain priests omit these same words in the actual celebration of Mass.

"Wherefore on this account this Supreme Congregation warns that it is nefarious [emphasis added] to introduce changes into so holy a thing and to mutilate or to falsify editions of liturgical books (cfr. can. 1399, §10).

"Let the bishops, therefore, see to it, according to the intention of the Commonitio [reminder] of the Holy Office of February 14, 1958, that the prescripts of the sacred canons on divine worship be strictly observed and let them be diligently vigilant lest anyone dare to introduce even the minutest change into the matter and form of the Sacraments [emphasis added].

"Given at Rome, from the Palace of the Holy Office, on the 24th day of the month of July in the year 1958."

{The original Latin text of this Monitum may be found in Acta Apostolicae Sedis, Volume 50, page 536.}

76. By way of prologue to the matter under discussion in this Part XI, it is necessary to present an explanation of the distinction between sacraments that Our Lord instituted in genere and those He instituted in specie.

77. From The Catholic Encyclopedia (Vol. XIII, p. 299, 1913 ed.): "Christ determined what special graces were to be conferred by means of external rites: for some sacraments (e.g. baptism, the Eucharist) He determined minutely (in specie) the matter and form: for others He determined only in a general way (in genere) that there should be an external ceremony, by which special graces were to be conferred, leaving to the Apostles or to the Church the power to determine whatever He had not determined, e.g. to prescribe the matter and form of the Sacraments of Confirmation and Holy Orders."

78. In the Eastern rites the sacramental matter for Holy Orders (for the order of presbyterate) is and always has been simply the bishop's imposition of hands. Up until Nov. 30, 1947, the matter of this sacrament (for ordination to the priesthood) in the Latin Rite was twofold; viz., the aforesaid imposition of hands and the "bestowal of the instruments," that is, the touching by the candidate of a chalice containing wine and a few drops of water, and a paten with host. Both elements of this twofold matter were considered to be essential for validity. On the aforementioned date Pope Pius XII issued the Apostolic Constitution Sacramentum Ordinis, wherein he determined that thereafter the valid matter for the Latin Rite would consist of only the first imposition of hands by the bishop, and not the bestowal of the instruments also.

79. Two things must here be noted. First of all, Pius, while stating: "by Our Apostolic Authority We do ... decide that the bestowal of the instruments at least for the future ('saltem in posterum') is not necessary for the validity..." (Denz. no. 2301), he nevertheless did not change the rites and ceremonies of the sacrament. The "bestowal of the instruments" remained, the only difference being that it was now not to be considered part of the essential sacramental matter.

80. The Pontiff also mentioned the possibility that the Church might even in the future revert to maintaining that the bestowal of the instruments is necessary for validity: "But if, according to the will and prescription of the Church, the same should some day be held necessary for validity also, all would know the Church is able even to change and to abrogate what She has established." (That is a possible reason he left intact this ceremony of the bestowal of the instruments.)

81. The second thing to note is that Pius XII did not touch upon a matter of such gravity -- the "substance" of a sacrament; i.e., its matter and form -- without giving a thorough and clear explanation. In fact he made it a point to recall the doctrine of the Church's Magisterium that the Church has no power over the substance of the sacraments. "[A]s the Council of Trent teaches," wrote Pius, "the seven sacraments of the New Law have all been instituted by Jesus Christ, and the Church has no power [emphasis added] over the 'substance of the sacraments,' that is, over those things which, with the sources of Divine Revelation as witnesses, Christ the Lord Himself decreed to be preserved in a sacramental sign."

82. The Catholic Encyclopedia (loc. cit.): "The Council of Trent declared that the Church had not the power to change the 'substance' of the sacraments. She would not be claiming power to alter the substance of the sacraments if she used her Divinely given authority to determine more precisely the matter and form in so far as they had not been determined by Christ" [emphasis added]. And that is all that Pope Pius XII did. But the Church has no power whatsoever to alter the sacramental form of the Holy Eucharist instituted in specie, wherein, by definition, Our Lord "determined minutely" the matter and the form.

83. The Sovereign Pontiff Pius XII had both the power and the right to determine further the matter of Holy Orders, since that sacrament was instituted by Christ in genere, "leaving to the Apostles or to the Church the power to determine whatever He had not determined, e.g. to prescribe the matter and form of the Sacraments of Confirmation and Holy Orders" (as quoted in par. 77 above).

84. The promulgating by Paul VI of a "New Mass" containing a changed sacramental form for the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist, instituted in specie by Our Lord, was ab initio, ultra vires null and void. For it was an action that was from the very outset (ab initio) null and void, inasmuch as such meddling with the substance of a sacrament transcended the powers (ultra vires) of Paul VI (or any other would-be innovator).

85. Here are four pronouncements of the Magisterium of the Church that prove this claim:

[1] "[T]he Roman Pontiff regarding the administration of the sacraments of the Church, can tolerate and even permit different rites of the Church of Christ, ... always without violating those things which pertain to the integrity and necessary parts [emphasis added] of the sacraments" (from the letter Super quibusdam of Pope Clement VI, Sept. 29, 1351).

[2] "It [the Council] declares furthermore that this power has always been in the Church, that in the administration of the sacraments, without violating their substance [emphasis added], she may determine or change whatever she may judge to be more expedient for those who receive them or for the veneration of the sacraments, according to the variety of circumstances, times and places" (Council of Trent, Session XXI, Ch. 2).

[3] "[I]t is well known that to the Church there belongs no right whatsoever [emphasis added] to innovate anything touching on the substance of the sacraments (Pope St. Pius X, in the letter Ex quo, nono, Dec. 26, 1910).

[4] [A]s the Council of Trent teaches, the seven sacraments of the New Law have all been instituted by Jesus Christ, and the Church has no power [emphasis added] over the 'substance of the sacraments,' that is, over those things which, with the sources of Divine Revelation as witnesses, Christ the Lord Himself decreed to be preserved in a sacramental sign" (Pius XII, Apostolic Constitution Sacramentum Ordinis, Nov. 30, 1947).

86. "The Church has no power," said Pius XII; "No right whatsoever," said St. Pius X. No bishop, nor all the bishops together unanimously, no council, no pope, no one at all has the right or the power to tamper with the substance of a sacrament, its essential matter or form, least of all Christ's own words in the form of the Holy Eucharist.

87. The very fact that the Holy Ghost, always guiding and protecting the Church, saw to it that these four aforementioned teachings came forth from the Magisterium on four different occasions would seem to indicate that Almighty God in His Providence and foreknowledge of all things was thereby giving faithful Catholics of our times the weapons to resist and rebuff anyone who, posing as legitimate authority, but in fact abusing his ostensible authority, would ever dare to attempt to change the essential form of the Holy Eucharist.

88. Pope Pius XII, defining the untouchable "substance" of a sacrament as "those things which, with the sources of Divine Revelation [emphasis added] as witnesses, Christ the Lord Himself decreed to be preserved in a sacramental sign," could not have more aptly described the words "the mystery of faith" in the wine consecration. For as was shown earlier (Part VI, par. 40) Pope Innocent III taught that those words "the mystery of faith" were received from Our Lord by the Apostles and handed down by them. Therefore we have those words via apostolic Tradition, which the Church holds to be one of the two sources of Divine Revelation.

89. The Jan.-Feb. 1994 issue of the Australian journal Catholic carried a letter from Michael Davies. "What is known as the Latin Typical edition [of the Novus Ordo Missae]," wrote Mr. Davies, "is protected by the Church's indefectibility and cannot be invalid and cannot contain anything heretical or harmful to the faith. The indefectibility of the Church protects only what is mandated or authorised for the universal Church (legislation for the Roman Rite alone is considered as coming into this category)."

90. Mr. Davies reasons that the doctrine of the indefectibility of the Church is totally incompatible with the promulgation by a Sovereign Pontiff of a Mass that is per se invalid. This reasoning is absolutely sound. For if the true Church of Jesus Christ were to foist upon the faithful of the Roman Rite a Mass that is invalid, She would thus deprive them of the primary source of grace for their sanctification. In such a case we would be bound to admit that the Church had indeed failed in its mission on earth; it would be defectible, which is impossible.

91. Let us consider from a different viewpoint Mr. Davies' argument based on the indefectibility of the Church. Let us deny his premise that Paul VI was truly Christ's Vicar and that he represented the true and indefectible Roman Catholic Church.

92. A true Vicar of Christ does not invalidate the Mass, or even place its validity in jeopardy, by expunging from the most sacred of settings the words handed down by Christ Himself; namely, "mysterium fidei" in the Consecration of the Mass. He is aware of and heeds the warning: "In adhering rigidly to the rite handed down to us we can always feel secure; whereas if we omit or change anything, we may perhaps be abandoning just that element which is essential." (From Vindication of the Bull 'Apostolicae Curae').

93. Paul VI expunged these words without explaining (as did Pius XII in Sacramentum Ordinis) the background for such a momentous and unprecedented decision; nor did he give any compelling and salutary reasons for his action -- for indeed there are none. Relying solely upon his supposed power and right and supreme authority as the supposed genuine sovereign pontiff, he simply presented his fait accompli to the Catholic Church, that Catholic Church of which he was ostensibly the head, but whose teachings and warnings he had abandoned and which he now clearly in no way represented.

94. The true Church does not and cannot contradict Herself. Therefore a true Vicar of Christ does not by his mere fait accompli act in contradiction to and disobey the infallible teaching of the Council of Trent and the teachings of three earlier Vicars of Christ, all four of which dicta (which we reproduced above in Part XII, par. 85) specifically deny him -- or indeed anyone -- the power and the right to touch the substance of a sacrament instituted in specie.

95. A true Vicar of Christ does not lightly disregard the teaching of St. Thomas and many other esteemed theologians regarding which words of the sacramental form for the Holy Eucharist are essential for validity. He does not guess that perhaps the Angelic Doctor and these other authorities all erred on this matter and maybe those words "the mystery of faith" are not essential after all.

96. A true Vicar of Christ does not ignore a Monitum issued by the Holy Office a mere ten years earlier, which specifically warned against the omission of these very words "the mystery of faith," remarking that "it is nefarious to introduce changes into so holy a thing," and, moreover, instructing the bishops to "be diligently vigilant lest anyone dare to introduce even the minutest change into the matter and form of the Sacraments."

97. A true Vicar of Christ does not have the temerity to risk, by fait accompli and the mere "stroke of a pen," the terrible consequence of invalidity which De Defectibus warns would ensue ipso facto from the deletion of anything from the Consecration Form laid down in the Roman Missal.

98. Finally, no Catholic, let alone a true Vicar of Christ, defies and contemns Divine Revelation, as did Paul VI in subtracting from that which Christ gave to the Apostles to be handed down: "Therefore We believe that the form of words as is found in the Canon, the Apostles received from Christ, and their successors from them." (Pope Innocent III, as cited earlier.)

99. Paul VI himself could not have denied that these words he expunged from the consecration form, "the mystery of faith," are words said by Our Lord without at the same time tacitly admitting that for years he daily uttered a lie. Because when he did at one time celebrate the true Mass he would say: "In like manner ... taking also this excellent chalice ... He blessed and gave it to His disciples saying: ... 'For this is the Chalice of My blood ... the mystery of faith ...'".

100. Since Paul VI in fact did all those things that a true Vicar of Christ would never do, the conclusion at which one must logically and necessarily arrive is clear: at least at the time he promulgated his Novus Ordo Missae Paul VI was not the bona fide pope and the true Vicar of Christ on earth. As Michael Davies implied (and correctly so) the indefectibility of the Church is incompatible with the promulgation of an invalid Mass by its true Sovereign Pontiff.

101. For had he been the legitimate and infallible voice of the true Church of Jesus Christ while foisting upon Catholics his Novus Ordo Missae, which we have shown is certainly invalid, then this so-called "true Church" would be proved to be a sham, a defectible imposture.

102. Indefectibility does not guarantee that many Catholics, particularly those who are sometimes designated as "nominal Catholics," could not be deceived and be deprived of the graces of the true Holy Sacrifice and the Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist, the primary sources of grace for their sanctification. Such a deprivation and such spiritual blindness could well be the result of God's punishment for the sinfulness and negligence of many, nay most, of us.

103. Indefectibility allows that terrestrial enemies of Christ and his Church, engulfed in the "smoke of Satan," to use the very words of Paul VI, would some day bring about the fulfillment of that which is foretold in the Holy Scriptures: "And they shall defile the sanctuary of strength, and shall take away the continual sacrifice, and they shall place there the abomination unto desolation" (Dan. 11:31); and also: "And from the time when the continual sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination unto desolation shall be set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred ninety days" (Dan. 12:11).

104. In this essay I have advanced two theses, the latter flowing necessarily from the former: [1] Paul VI's Novus Ordo Missae is per se invalid; and [2] its corollary that he was not a bona fide pope -- the true Bishop of Rome and the Patriarch of the West, the Vicar of Christ on earth. In refuting me an Adversarius must first disprove (or attempt to do so) my case that Paul VI's Novus Ordo Missae is invalid. But he cannot argue circularly by building his case on the premise that Paul VI was a true pope, incapable of promulgating an invalid Mass.

Home