Going Home

Fr. Larry was just dozing off when he heard a voice. “Get up Father. Someone at 55 Water Street is in desperate need of you.”

It was so bitterly cold! Fr. Larry rolled over and tried to go back to sleep. The voice sounded again! But this time, it was like a trumpet blast. The urgency of it almost knocked him out of the bed.

He ran down the stairs, there was no one there. Not even footprints in the snow. He was amazed. He knew that voice was real. It had thundered at him.

He dressed as fast as he could, took his little black bag and plunged into the midnight snowdrift.

At last he found the house. It was dilapidated with boards nailed across the front door and windows. Still driven by the urgency of the message he had heard, he knocked and then pounded on the door. There was no answer. A couple of windows were shattered. He looked into the darkness and called. Nothing.

Still, he thought, I’d better try the back. The rear door was ajar, but stuck. He pushed it open finally and stepped inside.

In the white glare of moonlight seeping through the dirty windows, he could see a man’s body huddled on the floor. Fr. Larry knelt beside him. The man was dressed in rags. He was a bum, a derelict. The smell of stale beer was nauseating. The old man was conscious. He was trembling. Father wrapped him in his overcoat.

He was able to hear his confession, gave him Holy Communion and the last rites. Afterwards, he told the dying man how he happened to be there, how he was directed to this ruined house by a voice he heard in the middle of the night.

Then he asked the man “You must have done something special in your life to gain this kind of extraordinary intervention. What was it?”

“No. Nothing,” the man mumbled. “I’ve never done anything. I’ve wasted away my whole life, never did anything for anybody.”

“But you must have done something?” Fr. Larry persisted. The old man just shook his head. “Nothing.”

“I’ll get help” Father started toward the door. As he reached it, he heard the man say, “Well there might have been one thing, accept I don’t like talking about it, because, I didn’t do it well or nothing.”

“What was it?” Fr. Larry whispered.

“Aw, Father, I don’t like to mention it, because I did it when I was drunk, sometimes in bars, making fun of it. I’d go to sleep in boxcars with other hobos, but I did it all these years, badly though.”

“What? What did you do?”

“When I was a little kid, my mom told me that if I’d say the “Mary Prayer” everyday as often as I would think of it, I wouldn’t die alone; that I wouldn’t die without having a priest to confess to and to give me the Last Rites. Oh, Father, I’m dying, ain’t I? And what my mom said was true.” He smiled. Then he sighed a little and went home to his Mother, both of them.

The happened a long time ago. It was told to me by one of our priests who is now in Alaska. It was told to him by Fr. Larry when he was a very old man.

“Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for me, please, now and at the hour of my death.”

The “Mary Prayer”, what a simple, hope-filled petition of love, for all of us, everyday, as often as we think of it.

The Weight of a Catholic Mass

The following true story was related to Sr. M. Veronica Murphy by an elderly nun who heard it from the lips of the late Reverend Father Stanislaus SS.CC.

One day many years ago, in a little town in Luxembourg, a Captain of the Forest Guards was in deep conversation with the butcher when an elderly woman entered the shop. The butcher broke off the conversation to ask the old woman what she wanted. She had come to beg for a little meat but had no money. The Captain was amused at the conversation which ensued between the poor woman and the butcher, “only a little meat, but how much are you going to give me?”

“I’m sorry I have no money but I’ll hear Mass for you.” Both the butcher and the Captain were good men but very indifferent about religion, so they at once began to scoff at the old woman’s answer.

“All right then,” said the butcher, “you go and hear Mass for me and when you come back I’ll give you as much meat as the Mass is worth.”

The woman left the shop and returned later. She approached the counter and the butcher seeing her said, “All Right then we’ll see.” He took a slip of paper and wrote on it “I heard a Mass for you.” He then placed the paper on the scales and a tiny bone on the other side but nothing happened. Next he placed a piece of meat instead of the bone, but still the paper proved heavier. Both men were beginning to feel ashamed of their mockery but continued their game. A large piece of meat was placed on the balance, but still the paper held its own. The butcher exasperated, examined the scales, but found they were all right. “What do you want my good woman, must I give you a whole leg of mutton?” At this he placed the leg of mutton on the balance, but the paper outweighed the meat. A larger piece of meat was put on, but again the weight remained on the side of the paper. This so impressed the butcher that he was converted, and promised to give the women her daily ration of meat.

As for the Captain, he left the shop a changed man. An ardent lover of daily Mass. Two of his sons became priests, one a Jesuit and the other a Father of the Sacred Heart.

Father Stanislaus finished by saying “I am of the Religious of the Sacred Heart, and the Captain was my father.”

From that incident the Captain became a daily Mass goer and his children were trained to follow his example. Later when his sons became priests, he advised them to say Mass well every day and never miss the Sacrifice of the Mass through any fault of their own.

St. Francis “saved” the old Latin Mass

“The whole of humanity fears, the whole universe trembles and heaven exults,

when on the altar, in the hand of the priest, there is Christ, the Son of the living God.

O wonderful favor! O sublime humility,

that the Lord of the universe, God and Son of God,

so humbles himself as to hide himself for our salvation, under the low form of bread.”

 - St. Francis of Assisi

St. Francis of Assisi “saved”  the old Mass:

In 1223 Saint Francis of Assisi, because of his desire to model his religious life with his followers after Our Lord and His Apostles, instructed his friars to adopt the form of the Mass that was believed to be used by St. Peter himself. St. Francis petitioned Pope Innocent III to adopt this ancient Rite of the Roman Church for his Order of Friars Minor.

St. Francis has been called the “savior” of this older form of the Mass which had fallen into obscurity by that time and was used by the Pope only on the Feast of the Chair of St. Peter (February 22nd). We have come to know this form of the Mass in recent decades as the “Traditional Latin Mass”, now officially referred to as; The Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite.

For many centuries before the time of St. Francis the Gallican Rite was the commonly used liturgical form of the Mass in the West. The Rule of St. Francis obliges that all clerics perform their duties according to the “Ordo of the Roman Church”, a precise 13th Century liturgical phrase for the Ancient Roman Rite.

Only three known copies of the liturgical books of the ancient Roman Rite were still in existence in 1215, one of which was falling to pieces. Pope Innocent III granted St. Francis’ request and gave him one of the three good surviving copies of the Sacramentum, Lectionary, Rituale and other books.

St. Francis founded his new Order as traveling preachers or “mendicants”. In order to make their traveling apostolate easier the Franciscans later combined the books necessary to celebrate Mass into one volume, that single volume was first published in 1245 and called the Missale Regulare. Pope Innocent IV attempted to reform the liturgy of the Roman Church by introducing this Missal into the Diocese of Rome in the same year, a reform which was widely unpopular with the Roman clergy until 1265 A.D.

Pope Nicholas III was a close collaborator with the superior of the Franciscan Order, St. Bonaventure of Bagnoregio. Pope Nicholas III, having heard from St. Bonaventure how well received the Missale Regulare of the Franciscan Order was throughout all parts of Europe, decided to take up once again the failed liturgical renewal of Innocent IV by re-establishing the Ancient Roman Rite as the proper Rite of the Diocese of Rome.

This Missale Regulare of 1245, was adopted with very minor alterations for the Diocese of Rome in 1265, and was republished in 1465 as the curial missal. It was this same Missale Regulare that Pope St. Pius V, by his Bull “Missale Romanum” of 1570 established as the official Missal for the Latin Rite. The liturgical decrees of the Ecumenical Council of Trent along with the invention of the printing press almost universalized the reintroduction of this older form of the Mass.

The Bull Missale Romanum granted all Roman Rite priests the perpetual privilege of celebrating the Roman Rite of the Mass according to this Missal.  The continued force of this privilege was confirmed by a commission of Cardinals in 1984 during the pontificate of Blessed John Paul II, reaffirmed and widened by Pope Benedict XVI in his encyclical “Summorum Pontificum” on July 7, 2007.

The Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite is profoundly part of the history and charism of the poor man of Assisi and his Order of Friars Minor.

For more on Franciscan history with the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite:

• Fr. Stephan J. P. Van Dijk, The Ordinal of the Roman Church, (Fribourg, 1975), esp. pp. XVI-LXIII  and Msgr. Pierre Batifol, History of the Roman Breviary, (Longmans, Green & Co., New York, 1912), pp. 160-64.
• P.-M. Gy, “L’Unification liturgique de l’occident et la liturgie de la Curie romaine,” Revue des sciences philosophiques et théologiques 59 (1975) 601-612. Not in UIL.
• Stephen J. P. van Dijk, ed., Sources of the Modern Roman Liturgy: The Ordinals by Haymo of Faversham and Related Documents (1243-1307), 2 vols. (Leiden, 1963). 264.027 C28S STX. “The documents selected represent a revision of the court liturgy … made by and for members of the Order of Friars Minor …”
• Stephen J. P. van Dijk and J. Hazelden Walker, The Origins of the Modern Roman Liturgy. The liturgy of the Papal Court and the Franciscan Order in the Thirteenth Century (Westminster, MD, 1960). 264.02 V28O STX.
• Stephen J. P. van Dijk, The Ordinal of the Papal Court from Innocent III to Boniface VIII and Related Documents(Fribourg, 1975). 264.02 C285O STX.
• Marc Dykmans, Le cérémonial papal de la fin du Moyen Age à la Renaissance (Rome, 1977). 264.02 D9912C STX.
• Bernhard Schimmelpfennig, Die Zeremonienbücher der römischen Kurie im Mittelalter (Tübingen, 1973). 264.02 SCH3Z STX.
• Arsène Le Carou, L’office divin chez les Frères Mineurs aus XIIIe siècle (Paris, 1928). 264.02 L49O STX.
• Franciscus-M. Guerrini, ed., Ordinarium juxta ritum sacri ordinis Fratrum Praedicatorum (Rome, 1921). Not in UIL.

Why NOT to attend the New Mass

St. Augustine said:  "He who devoutly hears Holy Mass will receive a great vigor to enable him to resist mortal sin, and there shall be pardoned to him all venial sins which he may have committed up to that hour."1

St. John Fisher said:  "He who goes about to take the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass from the Church plots no less a calamity than if he tried to snatch the sun from the universe."2

St. Alphonsus said:  "The devil has always attempted, by means of heretics, to deprive the world of the Mass, making them precursors of the antichrist, who before anything else, will try to abolish and will actually abolish the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, as a punishment for the sins of men, according to the prediction of Daniel, 'And strength was given him against the continual sacrifice.' "3  (Daniel 8:12)

St. Robert Bellarmine said:  "When we enter ornate and clean Basilicas, adorned with crosses, sacred images, altars and burning lamps, we most easily conceive devotion.  But on the other hand, when we enter the temples of the heretics, where there is nothing except a chair for preaching and a table for making a meal, we feel ourselves to be entering a profane hall and not the House of God."4

Martin Luther's slogan was:  "Take away the Mass, destroy the Church."5

St. John Vianney said:  "All the good works together are not of equal value with the Sacrifice of the Mass because they are the works of man, and the Holy Mass is the work of God."6

How did we get the Mass?

A general history

In his letter to the Corinthians in the year 88 A.D., Pope St. Clement of Rome (martyr and fourth Pope after St. Peter), wrote that Our Lord laid down the order of the Mass, referring to the Offertory, Consecration and Communion.  St. Justin the Martyr (in his writings, 155 A.D.) stated that after His Resurrection, Our Lord taught the Apostles how to say Mass.

Many liturgical historians believe that the writings of St. Clement and St. Justin were expressed in a formal way by St. Ambrose (approximately 360 A.D.) in a book titled, De Sacramentis.  De Sacramentis essentially contains the canonized Mass prayers.  The Mass prayers appeared in written form only three hundred years after Jesus Christ's death.  It was in the 4th century that Latin became the official language of the Church and the word missa was introduced.  This was probably introduced by St. Ambrose in the Leonine Sacramentary (Pope St. Leo in 450 A.D.) and the Gelasian Sacramentary (Pope Gelasius I in 498 A.D.).  The essential parts of this missal were found to be almost the same as those in the Tridentine Mass.  In the year 600 A.D., Pope St. Gregory the Great (590-604 A.D.) finished his Gregorian Sacramentary, which is essentially the Mass "codified" by Pope St. Pius V in 1570.7

The True Mass goes back to Apostolic times; and it was "codified", solidified, or set in stone by St. Pope Pius V in his Papal Bull Quo Primum Tempore on July 14, 1570.  Pope St. Pius V specified the exact Mass ritual "of and for" the Roman Rite.  Only this Liturgy or Ritual was to be used from that time until the end of time (for the Roman Rite).  The Canon with the exception of one short clause, inserted by Pope Gregory the Great, had remained unchanged ". . . until 1962, when John XXIII added the name of St. Joseph to the Canon of the Mass.  A total of 26 words have been added to the Traditional Canon, by Popes Leo (440-461 A.D.) and St. Gregory the Great (590-604 A.D.).  Thus, as the Council of Trent accurately states, the Canon is composed out of the very words of the Lord, the tradition of the Apostles, and the pious institutions of the holy Pontiffs."8

Names Given to the Roman Rite of the Mass

It is called "the Mass of All Times" (because it dates back to the Apostles in its essential elements--though it is eternal in its nature), the "Tridentine Mass" (named after the Council of Trent), the "Mass of Pius V" (after the Pope who actually "codified" it in 1570), and on occasion (but loosely and incorrectly) "the Latin Mass" (incorrectly because any Rite can be translated into Latin and because the Novus Ordo Missae itself was issued originally in Latin).9  The True Mass should be called the Roman Rite of the Mass.  This way there isn't any confusion.

New World Order:  New Order of the Mass

In the middle to late 60's, Rome started to have the Mass said in the vernacular and then in 1970, Paul VI gave us a whole new rite of Mass called the "Novus Ordo Missae".  It is not by chance that the enemies of the True Faith who are building "a Novus Ordo Seclorum" (a new world order) would establish "a Novus Ordo Missae" (a new order of the Mass) to destroy the Roman Catholic Church.  Even in the original Latin form, the New Mass was bad enough, but after going to the vernacular through the International Committee on English in the Liturgy (ICEL), disaster ensued, and the questions of validity were justified.  A total of 35 prayers or approximately 70% of the Tridentine Mass has been replaced or discarded.10

Ambiguous, Wishful Thinking; Binding No One

Here is what Paul VI put in the new Roman Missal on April 3, 1969:  #13 "We hope that the Missal will be received by the Faithful" and #15 "We wish that these, our decrees and prescriptions, may be firm and effective."11  To impose a law a pope must make it clear to the Church that a Law is being imposed, or that he is binding the Church to use this New Mass.  He did not do so.  Paul VI said on November 19, 1969:  "This Rite (New Mass) and its related rubrics are not in themselves a dogmatic definition."12  Paul VI did not and could not change the Roman Rite of the Mass.

The People Supercede the Priest as the Indispensable Element

It is not necessary to examine all four of the Eucharistic prayers in the New Mass.  However, let's look at Eucharistic Prayer #3:  The following words are addressed to the Lord:  "From age to age you gather a people to yourself, in order that from East and West a perfect offering may be made to the glory of your Name."13  This phrase makes it clear that it is the people, rather than the priest, who are the indispensable element in the celebration.

In the Encyclical Mediator Dei, Pope Pius XII condemned the statement that "the eucharistic sacrifice" is an authentic concelebration of the priest as well as of the people present.

Biblical Prefigurement of True and False Worship

The purpose of the True Mass is the praise and adoration of Almighty God through the Sacrifice of Christ, who is the invisible priest and victim.  The difference between the New Mass and the True Mass is the difference between Cain and Abel.  We are told:  "The Lord had respect to Abel and to his offerings.  But to Cain and his offerings, He had no respect"  (Gen. 4:3-5).  At the beginning of human history, the two brothers set the pattern of true and false religious observance for all time.  One was an immolation in expiation of sin, the other merely a friendly exchange of gifts between man and God.  One was acceptable, the other was not.14

Freemasonry Wields the Axe to the Root"

Archbishop Bugnini was a consultant in the Sacred Congregation of the Propagation of the Faith, and in the Sacred Congregation of Holy Rites.  He was also the chairman of the Concilium which drafted the Novus Ordo Missae.  Archbishop Annibale Bugnini was a freemason, initiated into the Masonic Lodge on April 23, 1963 (Masonic Register of Italy dated 1976).  Monsignor Bugnini was removed from his office in the Vatican when it became public that he was a Mason.  And instead of being publicly reproved, or required to renounce his Masonic membership, he was appointed Papal Nuncio to Iran."16

The president of this Concilium was Cardinal Lecaro, a man whom Cardinal Bacci called, "Luther resurrected."17

When we discuss the New Mass we must consider the authors.  Whereas Paul VI was formally and juridically responsible, it was actually composed by the Concilium, which consisted of some 200 individuals, many of whom had functioned as periti ("expert theologians") during Vatican Council II.  The Concilium was helped by six Protestant 'observers' (ministers) who played a huge part in developing the New Mass.  ". . . Paul VI publicly thanked them for their assistance in re-editing in a new manner liturgical texts ... so that the lex orandi (the law of prayer) conformed better with the lex credendi (the law of belief)."18  You need a new liturgy for a new religion.  The New Mass is the new law of non-Catholic belief.

Attempting the Destruction of the Roman Rite

Jean Guitton (an intimate friend of Paul VI) wrote:  "The intention of Pope Paul VI with regard to what is commonly called the Mass, was to reform the Catholic Liturgy in such a way that it should almost coincide with the Protestant liturgy.  There was with Pope Paul VI an ecumenical intention to remove, or, at least to correct, or, at least to relax, what was too Catholic in the traditional sense in the Mass and, I repeat, to get the Catholic Mass closer to the Calvinist mass."19

Tearing the Heart Out of The Roman Rite

Judging the Novus Ordo Missae (New Mass) in itself, in its official Latin form, Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci wrote to Paul VI on Sept. 25, 1969:  "The Novus Ordo represents, both as a whole and in its details, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session 22 of the Council of Trent."20  Of the 12 Offertory prayers in the Traditional Rite, only two are retained in the New Mass.21  And of interest is the fact that the deleted prayers are the same ones that Luther and Cranmer eliminated.  Why did they eliminate them?  Because, as Luther said, the "smacked of Sacrifice . . . the abomination called the offertory, and from this point on almost everything stinks of oblation."22  The Offertory and Consecration are the very heart of the True Mass.

Anything But A Sacrifice

Martin Luther said,  "The Mass is not a sacrifice ... call it Benediction, Eucharist, the Lord's Table, the Lord's Supper, Memory of the Lord or whatever you like, just so long as you do not dirty it with the name of a Sacrifice."23  16th century Protestant reformer, Thomas Cranmer said:  "The use of an altar is to make sacrifice upon; the use of a table to serve men to eat upon."24  When you line up the New Mass with the Anglican schismatic Book of Common Prayer (1549), they are almost identical; in fact, the Book of Common Prayer is more reverent than the New Mass.

The Law of Prayer Establishes the Law of Belief

There are over 400 mistranslations from the Latin.25  Almost 100 percent of the new Masses around the world are said in the vernacular.  Just changing the Mass into vernacular is, in itself, condemned.  Session 12, Canon 9 of the Council of Trent says:  "If anyone says ... that the Mass should be said in vernacular only, let him be anathema."26

Constitution, "Auctorem Fidei," August 28, 1794, Pope Pius VI (1775-1799) The Suitable Order to Be Observed in Worship #33.

The proposition of the Synod condemns the following in regard to the Mass:  "by recalling it (the Liturgy) to a greater simplicity of Rites, by expressing it in the vernacular language, by uttering it in a loud voice."  These changes were condemned by Pope Pius VI as "rash, offensive to pious ears, insulting to the Church, favorable to the charges of heretics against it."27

The New Mass is Pleasing to Protestant and Jew Alike

In the offertory of the New Mass the priest says precisely the same words as those which are used in the Jewish sater service.  These are the words:  "Blessed art thou, O Lord God of all creation.  For through your goodness we have this bread to offer, fruit of the earth and work of human hands it will become for us the bread of life.  This wine to offer, fruit of the vine and work of human hands it will become for us our spiritual drink."28  It's frightening to think that the offertory of the New Mass is taken word for word from the sater meal of the Jewish holiday of Passover.  In the New Mass the Priest offers bread and wine; however, in the True Mass, the Priest offers the Immaculate Victim.  It is a blasphemy to offer God bread and wine.

In the Novus Ordo Requiem Masses (the Mass for the Dead), the word "Soul" is not mentioned even once.29

Paul VI said on May 24, 1976:  "The New Ordo has been promulgated to replace the old after mature deliberation and in order to fulfill the Council's decisions."30  Canon 6 of the Council of Trent says:  "If anyone says that there are errors in the Canon of the Mass and that therefore it should be abrogated: let him be anathema."31

Back at the Council of Trent, in Session 22, the Council Fathers realized that the Mass was being attacked, and they basically said,  "Let's make sure the Mass remains intact."  After the Council, Quo Primum forever defined the liturgical morals - the Mass Liturgies, both Eastern and Roman.Quo Primum

St. Pope Pius V said dogmatically and infallibly in Quo Primum that:  "It shall be unlawful henceforth and forever throughout the Christian world to sing or to read Masses according to any formula other than this Missal published by us."

The Decree of Quo Primum was irrevocable, and Pope St. Pius V went on further to state in Quo Primum:  "This present Constitution can never be revoked or modified, but shall forever remain valid and have the force of Law . . . And if, nevertheless, anyone would ever dare attempt any action contrary to this Order of ours, handed down for all times, let him know that he has incurred the wrath of Almighty God, and the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul."32  (July 14, 1570)

Binding Peter's Successors

But, can one Pope change what another Pope has done?In pastoral matters, yes; in matters of Faith, No!  When we talk about the Liturgy we are talking about the Faith.  Quo Primum was not a discipline.  It dealt directly with Faith and morals.

Faith and Morals

 Faith:  What you must believe to be saved.

 Social Morals:  How man behaves towards other men.

 Liturgical Morals:  How man behaves towards God. Liturgy is not arbitrary or dispensable.  The Liturgy is the essence of Catholic Faith.

Wrath Foretold For Those Who Destroy the Immemorial Mass

The Bull on witchcraft by Pope Innocent VIII demonstrates that Quo Primum was infallible.  The Bull's language is not nearly as strong as Quo Primum, but ends with these words:  "If any man dare to go contrary to this command, which God forbid, let him know that upon him will fall the wrath of Almighty God, and the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul."  These are the exact words used in Quo Primum at the end.  In the introduction to the 1928 Catholic Encyclopedia it says (speaking about Innocent VIII's Bull):  "If any man shall presume to go against the tenor let him know that therein he will bring down the wrath of Almighty God and The Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul."  The commentary afterwards says:  "Could words weightier be found?"

Defining Truth and Binding the Faithful

The Encyclopedia goes on to say:  "Are we then to class this Bull in with the Bull Dogmatica Ineffabilis Deus where Pope Pius IX proclaimed the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception?  Such a position is clearly tenable, but even if we do not insist that the Bull of Innocent VIII is an infallible utterance, that it does not in set terms define a Dogma, although it does set forth sure and certain truths, it must be held to be a document of supreme and absolute authority, of dogmatic force."

Pope Pius XI said in his apostolic constitution "Divini Cultus" on December 20, 1928, addressing the connection of the Sacred Liturgy with the Church:  "The Liturgy is an undoubtedly sacred thing; for through it we are brought to God and are joined with Him; we bear witness to our Faith . . . Hence a kind of intimate relationship between Dogma and Sacred Liturgy, and likewise between Christian worship and the sanctification of the people.  Therefore, Pope Celestine I proposed and expressed a Canon of Faith in the venerated formulas of the Liturgy:  "Let the Law of Supplication, (prayer) establish the Law of Believing . . ."33

Anathemas Against the New Missal

7th Session, Canon 13 of the Council of Trent:  The correct Latin translation says:  "If anyone says that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church, customarily used in the solemn administration of the Sacraments, can be despised or can be freely omitted by the ministers without sin, or can be changed into other new rites by any pastor in the Church whomsoever, let him be anathema."34

This canon states very clearly that the Pope, who is the first and supreme pastor may never change any approved Rite of the Roman Catholic Church.  The Roman Rite was fixed forever by Pope St. Pius V in Quo Primum.  Paul VI tried to establish a whole new Roman Rite.  There is only one Roman Rite of the Mass; there cannot be two.

In the Profession of Faith in the Council of Trent, the following was always professed by the priest begin ordained; he promises and vows:  "I also receive and admit the accepted and approved rites of the Catholic Church in the solemn administration of all the aforesaid Sacraments."35

It is indisputable that according to the previous pronouncements of the Church that the New Mass is illegal, and therefore cannot be celebrated or attended.

The issue of whether there is a valid consecration in the New Mass is another question which we will now address.

The Requirements for Validity

In the decree to the Armenians in the Council of Florence, it states the following:  "All these Sacraments are dispensed in three ways, namely, by things as the matter, by words as the form, and by the person of the minister conferring the Sacrament with the intention of doing as the Church does; if any of these is lacking the Sacrament is not fulfilled."36

Minister, Intention, Matter, and Form

The four main things necessary for a valid celebration of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass:

 minister:  The celebrant must be a validly ordained priest.

 intention:  The celebrant must have the intention of confecting the Sacrament.

 matter:  The elements of the Mass must be wheaten bread and grape wine, made without additives.

 form:  The proper form (words) of consecration must be used.  According to the Council of Trent, these requirements cannot be altered by anyone, not even the Church itself, since they were established by Christ.

Is the New Mass Valid?

Let's first cover the issue as to whether the New Mass is valid by reviewing the vernacular.  In most every vernacular translation of the New Mass, the words "many" have been changed to "all" in the Consecration.  This is not a minor change!  It will be argued that in the New Mass the priest says,  "This is My Body" which are the same words used in the Tridentine Mass and so, if we use the right words for the Consecration of the Body, "This is My Body," we have a Sacrament.  They do not believe anything else is required.  Those who hold to this position ignore the defects in the "form" of the New Mass (essential words needed to confect the Sacrament).  Furthermore, they ignore the fact that the words in the form of the New Mass, while themselves essential to the form of the Sacrament, do not constitute the complete form of the Sacrament.  Others will argue that both consecrations are not imperative to have a valid Sacrament.  This is also contrary to the teaching of the Church.  The proper intention necessary is an intention to confect not one, but both Sacraments.  This is essential for a valid celebration of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

Both Consecrations are Necessary for a Valid Mass

St. Thomas Aquinas says:  "As often as the Sacrifice is offered, the consecration of both species is required, according to the will and institution of Christ.  For Christ at the Last Supper, consecrating each (both) species, commanded:  'Do this in commemoration of me' . . . the very notion of sacrifice . . . demands the consecration of both species." 37

De Defectibus

De Defectibus is a long document written by Pope St. Pius V which discusses certain defects which could arise in the celebration of Mass.  It is largely a point of reference so the celebration of Mass would remain the same in all lands for all times.  Defects were described in detail so that priests would always say Mass in the same manner.

Quo Primum and De Defectibus emanated from the Council of Trent.  Both of these documents were found in the front of all Altar Missals as an easy reference for priest offering the Holy Mass.  Quo Primum and De Defectibus were first included in the Missale Romanum in 1572.  They were deleted from the ICEL (Committee on English in the Liturgy) version in 1969.

De Defectibus Chapter X, Part 3, prescribes that a Mass interrupted after the Consecration of the Host (because of illness or death of the celebrant) must be continued by another priest, i.e., that the wine must be consecrated to complete and effect the Sacrifice.

In the 1917 Code, Canon 817 states:  "It is unlawful even in the case of necessity, to consecrate one species without the other, or to consecrate both outside the Mass."The complete form or words of Consecration needed for a valid Sacrament were clearly stated in the Council of Florence.

The Council of Florence, in 1442, declared that the following words must be used for a valid Consecration in the Mass:  "Wherefore the words of Consecration, which are the form of this Sacrament, are these:  'For this is My Body: 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."38

Various Mass Rites:  "For Many" or "For All"

". . . The Church hast traditionally recognized as valid -- some 76 different rites in various languages, many of which date back to Apostolic times, not one however, has ever used "all" in the form for the Consecration of the Wine."39  Even the Anglican Common Prayer Book of 1549 didn't change the word "many to "all" in the consecration and it was still declared by Pope Leo XIII to be invalid.

Little Words and Letters Can Mean a Lot

Some people may say that discarding or changing a word or words in the Mass isn't a big deal.  Church history has proven that little words, even little letters, can mean a lot.

The combats sustained by the Nicean Fathers against the Arians over the definition of the dogma of the Incarnation are witness to the uncompromising zeal for stating the truth without shade of alteration, gloss, or ambiguity which the faith demand in a time of crisis.  Major differences could have been settled at that time by the addition of one single letter.  The problematic homoousios denoting "consubstantial" needed only have been softened to homoiousios denoting "similar in nature."40

Jesus Christ, The Word of God has Spoken

Luke 16:17:  "It is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the Law to fall."

Matthew 5:18:  "For Amen I say unto you, till heaven and earth shall pass, one jot, or one tittle shall not pass of the Law, till all be fulfilled."

Perpetual Teaching of the Universal Church

The Church has always taught that the word "all", for very specific reasons, is purposely not used in the Consecration!

St. Alphonsus tells us:  "The words pro vobis et pro multis (for you and for many) are used to distinguish the virtue of the Blood of Christ from its fruits: for the blood of Our Savior is of sufficient value to save all men but its fruits are applied only to a certain number and not to all, and this is their own fault."41  Or, as the theologians say, this Precious Blood is sufficient to save all men, but in reality it does not save all -- it saves only those who cooperate with Grace.  The Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist is not a Sacrament for all men; it is a Sacrament for you and for many.

The Catechism by Decree of The Holy Council of Trent teaches that the additional words "for you and for many, are taken, some from St. Matthew, some from St. Luke, but were joined together by the Catholic Church under the guidance of the Spirit of God . . . With reason, therefore, were the words 'for all' not used, as in this place the fruits of the passion are alone spoken of, and to the elect only did His Passion bring the fruit of salvation."42

St. Thomas Aquinas expressed the same opinion in the Summa, III, Q78, Art. 4, Reply to Objection 8.  Pope Benedict XIV also expressed this opinion in De Missae Sacrificio.

Doubtful Consecration? Must Not Participate

Just for the reason that there is a doubtful Consecration in the New Mass, Catholics are obliged to abstain from any participation in such rites.  Fr. Jone's Moral Theology, Chapter under the Efficacy of the Sacraments Part IV #2, states under examples:  "To administer or receive a Sacrament invalidly is a much greater sin than to administer or receive it unfruitfully."43

Pope Innocent XI, in a decree of the Holy Office, March 4, 1679, condemned the idea that a person could follow a probable opinion regarding the value of a sacrament and abandon the safer course.44  Pope Innocent XI condemned this thinking not once, but twice!

Errors of Michael of Molinos (Condemned in the decree of the Sacred Office, August 28, 1687, by Pope Innocent XI and in the Constitutions "Coelestis Pastor," Nov. 20, 1687)45

11.  It is not necessary to reflect upon doubts whether one is proceeding rightly or not."  (Condemned)46

"Condemned as heretical, suspect, erroneous, scandalous, blasphemous, offensive to pious ears, rash, or relaxed Christian discipline, subversive, and seditious respectively."47Fr. Henry Davis says in his Moral and Pastoral Theology Vol. 2 p. 27:  "In conferring the Sacrament, as also in the Consecration in the Mass, it is never allowed to adopt a probable course of action as to validity and to abandon the safer course.  The contrary was explicitly condemned by Pope Innocent XI (1676-1689); to do so would be a grievous sin against religion, namely an act of irreverence towards what Christ Our Lord has instituted."48"It would be a grievous sin against Charity, as the recipient would probably be deprived of the graces and effects of the Sacrament.  It would be a grievous sin against Justice, as the recipient has a right to valid Sacraments.  Matter and form must be certainly valid.  Hence, one may not follow a probable opinion and use either doubtful matter or form.  Acting otherwise, one commits a sacrilege."49  That is one reason why the New Mass is a sacrilege.

Sacrilege By Which He is Offended

The New Mass is a sacrilege because it is a deliberate counterfeit of the established Mass of the Roman Rite.  The True Mass was given a definite and unchangeable form by St. Pope Pius V so sacrilege could be avoided and condemned.

St. Thomas Aquinas describes a sacrilege:  "In a sacrilege, we find a special type of deformation, namely the violation of a sacred thing by treating it with irreverence."  (Summa. II Q. 99, Art. 2)

What Part Does Truth Have With Error?

If the Novus Ordo Missae is not Catholic, then it cannot satisfy one's Sunday obligation, and would be a grievous sin to attend.  St. Thomas Aquinas said:  "Falsehood in outward worship occurs on the part of the worshipper, and especially, in common worship which is offered by minister impersonating the whole Church. For even as he would be guilty of falsehood who would, in the name of another person, proffer things that are not committed to him, so too does man incur the guilt of falsehood who, on the part of the Church gives worship to God contrary to the manner established by the Church or Divine Authority, and according to the ecclesiastical custom."  Hence, St. Ambrose says:  "He is unworthy who celebrates the mystery otherwise than as Christ delivered it."50

Pope Innocent III, one of the greatest jurists, said:  "No one may depart from the universal customs of the Church."51

Saint Pope Pius X said in Pascendi Dominic Gregis:  "For Catholics nothing will remove the authority of the Second Council of Nicea, where it condemns those who dare, after the impious novelties of some kind or to endeavor by malice or craft to overthrow anyone of the legitimate traditions of the Catholic Church.

"The English Martyrs' Blood Testifies Against the New Mass

The New Mass is strikingly similar to the service instituted by Cranmer (the liturgist of Henry VIII) following the Protestant Reformation.  Pope St. Pius V told Catholics, at that time, that they were forbidden to attend such services.  In fact, many went to their death rather than go to the churches where Cranmer's form of prayer was being said.  If true Catholics went to their death rather than attend a mass such as the Novus Ordo, the response of the faithful today must be the same.

A New Liturgy For A New Religion

You need a new liturgy for a new religion.  Just because the original Novus Ordo Missae had a few similarities to the True Mass, that doesn't make it Catholic.  Consider the following description of the early Lutheran service, as given by the great Jesuit scholar, Hartmann Grisar:  "One who entered the parish church at Wittenburg after Luther's 'victory' discovered that the same vestments were used for divine service as before, and heard the same old Latin hymns.  The host was elevated and exhibited at the consecration.  In the eyes of the people it was the same Mass as before, despite the fact that Luther omitted all the prayers which represented the sacred function of the Sacrifice.  The people were intentionally kept in the dark on this point.  'We cannot draw the common people away from the Sacrament, and it will probably be thus until the Gospel is well understood,' said Luther. 'The rite of celebration of the Mass,' he explained, is a 'purely external thing,' and he said further that 'the damnable words referring to the Sacrifice could be omitted all the more readily, since the ordinary Christian would not notice the omission and hence there was no danger of scandal.'"52

The Morality of the New Mass

The Council of Trent, Canons on the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, Canon 3 says:

 "If anyone says that the Sacrifice of the Mass is merely an offering of praise and thanksgiving, or that it is a simple memorial of the Sacrifice offered on the Cross, and that it should not be offered for the living and the dead, for sins, punishments, satisfaction, and other necessities: let him be anathema."53

The New Mass is only an offering of praise and thanksgiving.  At the New Mass anything can and does go.  If the only church in town happened to be a protestant church, a Catholic surely could not attend services there.  The same principle applies to the New Mass.  Since it is not a Catholic Mass, a Catholic has no business being there.  In fact, in most churches the New Mass would not even qualify to be a Protestant service.  Many New Masses have laughing, joking, clapping, singing, dancing, hugging, kissing, flutes, guitars, charismatics calling up spirits, homosexual priests, Eucharistic ministers, communion in the hand, immodest dress, no dresses, no head coverings, no reverence, etc...

As the Antichrist will be so evil because he will claim to be the Real Jesus and will not be, so the New Mass is evil because it claims to be the Real Mass and is not.  The New Mass is a deliberate counterfeit of the True Mass, and a non-Catholic service.  It is very clear that according to the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church it would be a grievous sin to attend the New Mass.  This is why the New Mass is deadly.

Notes:

1.St. Leonard, The Hidden Treasure, p. 157

2.Rev. T. E. Bridgett, The Life of Blessed John Fisher (London:  Burns & Oates, 1888).  Bishop St. John Fisher was martyred, along with St. Thomas More, by Henry VIII in 1535.

3.St. Alphonsus Liguori, The Dignities and Duties Of The Priest (London: Benzinger Bros., 1889), p. 212.

4.Octava Controversia Generalis.  Liber Ii. Controversia Quinta. Caput XXXI.

5.Fr. Paul Trinchard, Holy Mass, Holy Mary (MAETA: P.O. Box 6012, Metairie, LA, 1997), p. 41.

6.St. Leonard, The Hidden Treasure, p. 157

7.Fr. Paul Trinchard, Holy Mass, Holy Mary (MAETA: P.O. Box 6012, Metairie, LA, 1997), p. 4,5.

8.Dr. Rama Coomaraswamy, The Problems with the New Mass, p. 11.

9.Ibid, p. 9.

Fr. Paul Trinchard, New Mass in Light of the Old (MAETA: P.O. Box 6012, Metairie, LA, 1995), p. 20.

11.Fr. James Wathen, The Great Sacrilege, p. 178, 179.

12.Fr. Paul Trinchard, Novus Ordo Condemned (MAETA: P.O. Box 6012, Metairie, LA, 1997), p. 34.

13.Comment of Fr. Joseph Jungmann, the Mass:  An Historical, Theological And Pastoral Survey (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1976), p. 201.

14.On the Contrary (Veritas Press, Box 1704, Santa Monica, CA), p. 50.

15.Most Asked Questions About The Society Of Saint Pius X (Angelus Press, 2918 Tracy Ave., Kansas City, MO), p. 26.

16.Fr. James Wathen, Who Shall Ascend?, p. 178, 179.

17.La Tunica Stracciata by Tito Casini, Rome 1967 / Fr. Paul Leonard, A Theological Vindication Of Roman Catholic Traditionalism (Angelus Press, 2918 Tracy Ave., Kansas City, MO), p. 43.

18.Dr. Rama Coomaraswamy, The Problems with the New Mass, p. 24.

19.Latin Mass Magazine, Winter, 1995 / Christian Order, Oct. 1994.

20.Most Asked Questions About The Society Of Saint Pius X (Angelus Press, 2918 Tracy Ave., Kansas City, MO), p. 26.

21.Msgr. Frederick McManus, The Revival of the Liturgy, p. 217.

22.Dr. Rama Coomaraswamy, The Problems with the New Mass, p. 34.

23.Ibid., p. 29.

24.The Works of Thomas Cranmer (London: Parker Society), V. 2, p. 524.

25.Faith, Nov 1979.

26.Denzinger 956.

27.Denzinger 1533.

28.Fr. Donald Sanborn, Changes of Vatican II, Part IV (Catholic Restoration Bookstore, 2850 Parent, Warren, MI).

29.Fr. Anthony Cekada, "A Response", The Roman Catholic, Jan. 1987.

30.Fr. James Wathen, Who Shall Ascend?, p. 523.

31.Denzinger 953.

32.Fr. James Wathen, The Great Sacrilege, p. 173-175.

33.Denzinger 2200.

34.Denzinger 856.

35.Denzinger 996.

36.Denzinger 695.

37.De Eucharistia, Noldin-Schmitt, S. J., in "Summa Theologiae Moralis," III Innsbruck, 1940.

38.Denzinger 715.

39.Dr. Rama Coomaraswamy, The Problems with the New Mass, p. 55.

40.Solange Hertz, On the Contrary (Veritas Press, Box 1704, Santa Monica, CA), p. 75.

41.St. Alphonsus, Treatise On The Holy Eucharist

42.Patrick Henry Omlor, Questioning The Validity Of The Masses Using The New, All-English Canon (Athanasius Press; Reno, NV), p. 59.

43.Fr. Heribet Jone, Moral Theology (The Neumann Press, Westminster, MD, 1952), p. 311.

44.Denzinger 1151.

45.Denzinger p. 331.

46.Denzinger 1231.

47.Denzinger 1288.

48.Fr. Henry Davis, S. J., Moral And Pastoral Theology (London: Sheed And Ward, 1936), V. 2, p. 27.

49.Fr. Heribert Jone, Moral Theology (The Neumann Press, Westminster, MD, 1952), p. 323.

50.Dr. Rama Coomaraswamy, The Problems with the New Mass , p. 86.

51.Innocent III, de Consuetudine Theol. II-II, 104-105.

52.Dr. Rama Coomaraswamy, The Problems with the New Mass, p. 18.

53.Denzinger 950.

The Vision Of Pope Leo XIII

The Vision Of Pope Leo XIII

October 13, 1884

Exactly 33 years to the day prior to the great Miracle of the Sun in Fatima, that is, on October 13, 1884, Pope Leo XIII had a remarkable vision. When the aged Pontiff had finished celebrating Mass in his private Vatican Chapel, attended by a few Cardinals and members of the Vatican staff, he suddenly stopped at the foot of the altar. He stood there for about 10 minutes, as if in a trance, his face ashen white. Then, going immediately from the Chapel to his office, he composed the prayer to St. Michael, with instructions it be said after all Low Masses everywhere. When asked what had happened, he explained that, as he was about to leave the foot of the altar, he suddenly heard voices - two voices, one kind and gentle, the other guttural and harsh. They seemed to come from near the tabernacle. As he listened, he heard the following conversation:

The guttural voice, the voice of Satan in his pride, boasted to Our Lord:

"I can destroy your Church."

The gentle voice of Our Lord:

"You can? Then go ahead and do so."

Satan:

"To do so, I need more time and more power."

Our Lord:

"How much time? How much power?"

Satan:

"75 to 100 years, and a greater power over those who will give themselves over to my service."

Our Lord:

"You have the time, you will have the power. Do with them what you will."

Let us think about this for a minute. This happened in 1884. The devil said he needed 75 to100 years. Well, 75 years from 1884 is 1959. Wow, what a coincidence that it was on January 25, 1959, that John XXIII publicly summoned the Second Vatican Council.

Remember that after the vision, Pope Leo XIII immediately wrote the Prayer to St. Michael to help us overcome the devil in his quest. He instructed that it be said after every low Mass.

One of the first changes to come from Vatican II, was the deletion of the Leonine Prayers which included the prayer to St. Michael. These prayers were eliminated in 1964, the 80th year of the devils 75 - 100 years needed to destroy the Catholic Church. It would seem that this would be the time to especially say that prayer, not to delete it.

The 100th year would be 1984. By 1984 John Paul II had let the devil develop a church that is called Catholic, but is not. The devil has twisted and distorted church teachings so much that there truly is a brand new church, a new order (Novus Ordo) and the true church has been reduced in population to a mere shell of what it once was, but it will survive.

"That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world." Matt. 16:18 & 28:20

Saint Michael, the Archangel, defend us in battle; be our protection against the wickedness and snares of the devil. May God rebuke him, we humbly pray, and do thou, O prince of the heavenly host, by the power of God, thrust into Hell, Satan and all the other evil spirits, who prowl throughout the world, seeking the ruin of souls. Amen

Vulgar Religion?

Very often the following is heard from Newchurchers: "to find the Traditional Latin Mass useful, you have to understand every word of it." Is this a Catholic teaching or just another false Novus Ordo notion?

Reply.
This false notion has never been the Catholic one, nor is it the teaching of any major religion in the world. Not a single major world religion uses a vernacular tongue in its sacred services, the only exception being latter-day Protestantism. Even Martin Luther wanted sacred services to be in the three sacred tongues, Latin, Greek, and Hebrew.

• Mohammedans use not modern-day vernacular Arabic in its sacred services, but classical Arabic, of the time of Mohammed (approximately the 6th century after Christ). Moreover, Mohammedanism imposes the severest penalties upon those who would presume to "translate" the original Koran into modern tongues.
• Hindus use Sanskrit, a classical language, roughly contemporaneous to Latin and Greek. It has not been a vernacular language for over a millennium.
• Buddhists use classical Chinese, of approximately the time of Confucius, the 6th century before Christ.
• The Eastern Orthodox (those who have not gone "modern") use Biblical Greek, which dates from the 2nd century before Christ.
• Roman Catholics (those who have not gone over to the New Order sect) use ecclesiastical Latin, which dates from various times from the first millennium after Christ.

Before Bugnini and his Committee of Six Protestant Ministers violated the decree of the dogmatic Council of Trent and incurred its anathema, by introducing the vulgar tongues into the unCatholic Novus Ordo after Vatican II (1962-1965), those Catholics who did not know Latin certainly became familiar with it in the context of the Traditional Latin Mass. What Catholic didn't know the content of the Pater Noster, the Ave Maria, the Gloria Patri, the Confiteor, the Gloria in Excelsis, the Credo in Unum Deum, etc.?

Do the Novus Ordo sectarians understand their invalid Novus Ordo service better because it is dished out in vulgar tongues? Apparently not. Recent evidence indicates that very few Novus Ordinarians can recite the Apostles Creed or even the Hail Mary. That is notable, given that even Vatican II demanded that the disobedient Novus Ordinarians know in Latin the Pater Noster, Confiteor, Credo, etc.

The Morality of Tattoos and Body Piercing

by Father Peter Joseph

Many upright people are repelled by modern fads and fashions, such as tattooing, multiple earrings and other body piercing, but feel unequipped to give a clear judgment on the morality of such practices, or to rebut the charge that they are elevating their personal preferences into a moral code. In this article, I will set out some criteria that are relevant to making a moral judgment on these In the Old Testament, the Chosen People were specifically commanded: “You shall not make any cuttings in your flesh…or tattoo any marks upon you: I am the Lord” (Leviticus 19:28). Inspired by God, St. Paul admonishes us: “Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, which you have from God?” (1 Cor 6:19). Being a temple of the Holy Spirit, we owe our body due care and protection and decorum. In some cultures, a special bodily mark or design – on the forehead, for example – signifies a certain attainment or marital status, or whatever, and is socially acceptable. Ethiopian Christians, to name one group, wear tattoo crosses on their foreheads. In Samoa, it was once a widespread custom to tattoo the eldest son or daughter of the local ruling family. In Western societies, earrings and makeup are acceptable as a part of feminine fashions and public presentability. But certain types of body piercing and decorations in our society are extreme and unjustified, and some of them are motivated by anti-Christian sentiments.

It would be impossible to give black-and-white judgments on all bodily decorations. But we can point to a few negative aspects that should be of concern to a Christian. Unless otherwise stated, this article will refer to Western societies only. I will treat the more serious concerns first and then the less serious.

1. Diabolical images. Tattoos of demons are quite common, yet no Christian should ever sport an image of a devil or a Satanic symbol.

2. Exultation in the ugly. This is a mark of the Satanic, which hates the beauty of God’s creation and tries to destroy it and to ruin others’ appreciation of it. More than just being ugly, some body piercing is the expression of delight in being ugly.

We recognize bad taste in tattoos, rings and studs, by looking at their nature, size, extent and place on the body. Ironically, even florid and colorful tattoos fade over time and end up looking dark and dreary. When one considers how, in concentration camps, prisoners were treated like animals and branded on their arm with a number, it is amazing to think that people today adopt similar markings as if they were fashionable or smart. This is truly the sign of a return to barbarity, the behavior of people who do not have any sense of the dignity of the human person.

3. Self-mutilation and self-disfigurement. This is a sin against the body and against the Fifth Commandment. Some body piercing verges on self-mutilation. At best, multiple body piercing is self-inflicted abuse. A form of self-hatred or self-rejection motivates some to pierce themselves or decorate themselves in a hideous and harmful fashion. The human body was not made by God to be a pin cushion or a mural.

4. Harm to health. Doctors have spoken publicly on this health issue. In 2001, researchers at both the University of Texas and the Australian National University reported on harm to health caused by tattoos and body piercing. Some earrings (on the navel, tongue or upper ear) are unhealthy and cause infections or lasting harm such as deformities of the skin. They can also poison the blood for some time (septicaemia). Certain piercings (e.g., on the nose, eyebrows, lip, tongue) do not close over even when the object is removed. Such body piercing, therefore, is immoral, since we should not endanger health without a reasonable motive. When done unhygienically, tattoos and piercing cause infection. A used instrument, if not properly sterilized, can transmit hepatitis or HIV.

Some have hoped to avoid health dangers by getting “henna” tattoos, which are painted on rather than done with needles. Henna staining is an ancient Hindu wedding custom of painting floral designs on the feet and hands. A German Medical Association report this year found that tourists returning home with hennas done in Bali and Bangkok, among other places, were going to the doctor because of severe skin infections and sometimes lifelong allergies. In some cases also, the coloring agent used meant that the tattoo faded away, but after several weeks of skin irritation, the design reappeared in the form of a reddish tattoo, often very painful for the patient. Allergies developed from 12 hours to a week after the application of the henna, causing intense itching, redness, blistering and scaling.

5. A desire to shock and repel. It can be appropriate to shock people, as for example, when one recounts the plight of poor and hungry people, or protests against crimes or terrible exploitation. This can be a healthy thing, when done properly and with due care, to arouse people out of complacency, so that they realize something must be done. But to shock people for the thrill of shocking people, with no intention to promote truth and goodness, is not a virtue, but a sign of a perverted sense of values.

In evaluating tattoos under this heading of repulsiveness, we look at the nature of the images, the size and number of the tattoos, and their place on the body. In evaluating piercings, we consider similarly their extent and location on the body.

6. Indecency and irreverence. It is always immoral to get or exhibit tattoos of indecent images or phrases, or derisive figures of Our Lord or His Mother or holy things.

7. Signs of a sexual disorientation. Pirates used to be the only males who wore earrings (for whatever reason!) while sailors and side-show freaks were just about the only people with tattoos. What was once so restricted has now spread to wider sections of the community. In the 1970s, an earring worn by a man in the left ear, or the right, or both, was a code-sign of his personal orientation and thus a form of picking up partners. As such, it was blatantly immoral, and generally an advertisement of one’s immorality. Earrings in boys and men are so common now that they have lost that significance, but they are never positively demanded by social requirements, as a suit and tie are socially required on certain formal occasions. Even admitting the lack of clear symbolism now, I would expect any seminary to tell any inquirer that he would have to remove any earring or stud before entering, and question him as to when he started wearing it and why. A seminarian or priest sporting an earring is not socially acceptable in the Catholic Church. A good number of parishioners would wonder about the deeper reasons or motivation. No one in such a public position starts to wear an earring without making a deliberate decision. As a wise old Jesuit priest said to me once, “No one changes externals without having changed internals.” It is regarded as what people call “making a statement.” The same code of expected conduct applies to men in other professions, such as policemen or teachers.

Employers and principals should make rules outlawing any such jewelry for male staff and students. Especially for the young, such rules protect them both from themselves and from peer pressure. The fact is that, still today, earrings are prevalent among females, and in minority use among males.

8. Unsuitability. Sometimes people tattoo themselves with a big image of a crucifix or other holy pictures. The human body is a most unsuitable place for such an image, even if it be a beautiful one. Whenever these people go swimming, for example, they are exhibiting this image in an inappropriate fashion. No priest would ever go down to a shopping center in Mass vestments, not because there is something wrong with vestments, but because there is a time and a place for donning special religious symbols.
9. Vanity. Some men in particular tattoo their upper and lower arms in order to be ostentatious and impressive. It is a means of drawing attention to themselves. No one who meets them can fail to notice the tattoos – to the point at which it is in fact a constant distraction. It detracts from the person, and focuses attention too much on the body’s external appearance. The same can be said for a stud on the tongue, a ring in the nose, or earrings all over one’s ears and eyebrows. These are not part of our culture; at most, they are part of a certain subculture, a minority affectation, devoid of religious or positive social significance. No one is saying it is wrong to dress up, but here it is a question of moderation and discretion. Sacred Scripture implicitly recognizes that it is good for a bride to be adorned for her husband when the heavenly Jerusalem is compared to such a woman (Apoc. 21:2). It is good for a lady to be well dressed and to use makeup when the occasion calls for it, but everyone recognizes when the embellishment has gone over the top and makes her look seductive or cheap.

10. Immaturity and imprudence. An action acceptable or indifferent in itself can become wrong if the intention or motive is wrong. Some young people adopt outrageous fashions out of an immature desire to rebel against society or against their parents. Such disobedience against parents is sinful. Some do it out of an immature desire to conform to their friends, and others out of an equally immature desire to stick out from everyone around them. Some do it out of boredom, because it is something different, because it gives them a thrill, because it is something for their friends to admire and comment on. Mindless following of fads is always the mark of immaturity. For young people who live at home under their parents’ authority, it is enough if their parents express their disapproval of such fashions to know that they should not go ahead. Some young people go to further extremes and vie with each other as to who can pierce whatever part of the body the most. Parents must forbid such behavior absolutely.

Young people can hardly justify the big expenditure (not to mention the pain) involved in getting a tattoo. It is also unjustified and just plain silly to mark your body for life with images of no great worth or with the name of one’s current lover. A recent example I heard of gives an idea of the time and expense: a young girl had one arm tattooed up and down. It required two four-hour sessions and cost $1,000 (American).

Tattoos are more serious than other adornments since they are more or less permanent marks on the body. Many a man or woman have been tattooed gladly in youth, but regretted it not so many years later when they came to regard it as an embarrassing disfigurement. Once they mature, they pay dearly for the luxury of getting rid of it. The removal of tattoos is expensive and difficult – and can leave scars. The removal of big tattoos requires surgery under a general anaesthetic, with all the potential risks, plus the significant medical and hospital costs. The removal of large tattoos can leave big segments of the skin permanently disfigured or blotched, like skin that has been burnt. Many adults find themselves ineligible for some jobs, because businesses will not employ them with their hands covered in tattoos, impossible to conceal years after their youthful folly.

Universal Criteria
In any culture, things can arise, become acceptable, and become part of the culture – but this does not necessarily make them right. Here are some examples from foreign cultures that I regard as equally wrong. In one tribe of Africa, women wear gigantic and heavy earrings that change the shape of the earlobes. In another place, women put coils around their necks and elongate them unnaturally, or put plates in their mouths to make the lips protrude some inches. In China, there was once the practice of binding girls’ feet tightly to stop them from growing, because small, dainty feet were admired. These and other drastic alterations to the natural growth of the human body must be judged immoral, as forms of abuse springing from vanity.

It is not always possible to draw an exact line and say where the bounds of moderation have been exceeded. But this does not mean that there is no line. No one can define at what exact temperature a day passes from being cool to cold, but everyone knows that when the temperature is near zero, it is cold beyond dispute. Let us never fall for the ploy that tries to argue from borderline or difficult cases that there are no guidelines or principles, and that there is no such thing as a just mean or moderation, just because they are hard to define.

The human body is meant to be treated with care, not maltreated or disfigured. Its dignity and beauty must be kept and cultivated, in order that it be an expression of the deeper beauty of the soul.

Father Peter Joseph is vice-rector and lecturer in dogma at Vianney College, the diocesan seminary of Wagga Wagga, Australia.

Jesus Christ is in every book of the Bible…

In Genesis, Jesus is the Seed of the Woman
In Exodus, He is the Passover Lamb
In Leviticus, He is the Priest, the Altar, and the Lamb of Sacrifice
In Numbers, He is the Pillar of Cloud by day and the Pillar of Fire by Night
In Deuteronomy, Jesus is the Prophet, like Moses
Come and kneel before Him now

In Joshua, Jesus is the Captain of Our Salvation
In Judges, He is our Judge and Lawgiver
In Ruth, He is our kinsman Redeemer
In 1 and 2 Samuel, He is our Trusted Prophet
In Kings and Chronicles, He is our Reigning King
In Ezra, He is the rebuilder of the broken down walls of human life
Come and kneel before Him now

In Nehemiah, Jesus is our Restorer
In Tobit, He is the Messenger of New Life
In Judith, He is Weakness Turned into Victory
In Esther, He is our Advocate
In 1 and 2 Maccabees, He is the Leader who dies for God’s law
Come and kneel before Him now

In Job, Jesus is our Everliving Redeemer
In Psalms, He is our Shepherd
In Proverbs, He is our Wisdom
In Ecclesiastes, He is our Hope of Resurrection
In the Song of Songs, He is our Loving Bridegroom
In Wisdom, He is the emanation of God’s thought
In Ecclesiasticus, Jesus is our security
Come and kneel before Him now

In Isaiah, Jesus is the Suffering Servant
In Jeremiah, He is the Righteous Branch
In Lamentations, He is our Weeping Prophet
In Baruch, He is the Mercy from the Eternal One
In Ezekiel, He is the One with the Right to Rule
In Daniel, Jesus is the Fourth Man in the fiery furnace
Come and kneel before Him now

In Hosea, Jesus is the Faithful Husband forever married to the sinner
In Joel, He is the One who Baptizes with the Holy Spirit of Fire
In Amos, He is the Restorer of Justice
In Obadiah, He is Mighty to Save
In Jonah, He is our great foreign missionary
In Micah, He is the feet of one who brings Good News
Come and kneel before Him now

In Nahum, Jesus is our stronghold in the day of trouble
In Habakkuk, He is God my Savior
In Zephaniah, He is the King of Israel
In Haggai, He is the signet ring
In Zechariah, He is our Humble King riding on a colt
In Malachi, Jesus is the Son of Righteousness
Come and kneel before Him now

In Matthew, Jesus is God with us
In Mark, He is the Son of God
In Luke, He is the Son of Mary, feeling what you feel
In John, He is the Bread of Life
In Acts, Jesus is the Savior of the World
Come and kneel before Him now

In Romans, Jesus is the Righteousness of God
In 1 Corinthians, He is the Resurrection
In 2 Corinthians, He is the God of all comfort
In Galatians, He is your liberty. He sets you free
In Ephesians, Jesus is the Head of the Church
Come and kneel before Him now

In Philippians, Jesus is your Joy
In Colossians, He is your Completeness
In 1 and 2 Thessalonians, He is your Hope
In 1 Timothy, He is your Faith
In 2 Timothy, Jesus is your Stability
Come and kneel before Him now

In Titus, Jesus is Truth
In Philemon, He is your Benefactor
In Hebrews, He is your Perfection
In James, He is the Power behind your Faith.
In 1 Peter, He is your Example
In 2 Peter, Jesus is your Purity
Come and kneel before Him now

In 1 John, Jesus is your Life
In 2 John, He is your Pattern
In 3 John, He is your Motivation
In Jude, He is the Foundation of your Faith

In Revelation, Jesus is your Coming King

He is the First and the Last.The Beginning and the End. He is the Keeper of Creation and the Creator of All. He is the Architect of the Universe and the Manager of All Time. He Always Was, He Always Is, and He Always Will Be. Unmoved, Unchanged, Undefeated, and Never Undone.

He was bruised and brought healing. He was pierced and eased pain. He was persecuted and brought freedom. He was dead and brought life. He is risen and brings power. He reigns and brings peace.

The world can’t understand Him. The armys can’t defeat Him. Schools can’t explain Him and the leaders can’t ignore Him. Herod couldn’t kill Him. The Pharisees couldn’t confuse Him. The people couldn't hold him. Nero couldn’t crush Him. Hitler couldn’t silence Him. The New Age can’t replace Him. And Oprah can’t explain Him away.

He is Life, Love, Longevity, and Lord.  He is Goodness, Kindness, Gentleness and God. He is Holy, Righteous, Mighty, Powerful, and Pure.

His Ways are Right, His Words Eternal, His Rules Unchanging, and His Mind is on me.

He is My Redeemer, He is My Savior, He is My God, He is My Priest, He is My Joy, He is My Comfort, He is My Lord, and He rules my life.