In the Murky Waters of Vatican II

CP&S comment: We wish to make clear that in publishing this article on the unscrupulous ways the New Mass was thrust upon the faithful, in no way are we stating that the Novus Ordo Mass, when celebrated according to the rubrics set out by the CDF and in Canon Law, is an invalid Mass. The NOM is still the only available option for the majority of Catholics today. Nonetheless, its liturgy and form are undoubtedly severely lacking in many sacrificial aspects that were removed by team Bugnini, rendering it no comparison to the awesome Tridentine Mass, that had been the very centre of the Faith of the Catholic Church since the earliest centuries of Christendom.


By Dr. Remi Amelunxen

People are invited “to gather round”

[As we have already seen] when the Novus Ordo Mass was first introduced it was defined as “an assembly of the People of God under the presidency of the Priest”, no more than “a memorial” of the Resurrection and Ascension. (1)

In his work In the Murky Waters of Vatican II, Atila Guimarães points out two other extremely important points of the Mass modified by the Novus Ordo: the Offertory and the Consecration, with innovations made to accommodate the Protestants.

In the Offertory in the Tridentine Mass, many prayers such as the Suscipe Sancte Pater, the Offerimus Tibi Domini, the Deus qui humanae substantiae and the Veni Sanctificator clearly show the propitiatory character of the Sacrifice. All these prayer were eliminated in the Novus Ordo. (2)

There was another essential modification in the formula of the Roman Canon, again to make the Mass more acceptable to Protestants. We saw in the last article the introduction of the three new Canons, which desacralize the Mass and remove its essential sacrificial character. In the Novus Ordo Missae, the Consecratory formula was changed and fused into the preparatory prayer of the Consecration Qui pridie, with the two together becoming “the Narration of the Institution.”

With this, Guimarães notes, “It is implied that the Mass has been changed from a Sacrifice to merely a memorial supper. Importantly, the form of the Consecration of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass was definitively expressed at the Council of Florence in 1442, reiterated at the Council of Trent in 1545 and the Missale Romanum was codified by Pope St. Pius V in 1570 in the Bull Quo primum tempore.”

He continues: “The removal of the words ‘mysterium Fideifrom the Consecratory formula of the wine in the Novus Ordo contradicts these two councils and Quo primum, and could appear to be a deliberate attempt to eliminate the sacrificial nature of the Mass. This facilitates an acceptance of the Novus Ordo by Protestants and places grave doubts about Transubstantiation in the minds of the Catholic clergy and laity. Doubts of this magnitude can without a question contribute powerfully to increase the extraordinary crisis of Faith that is shaking large parts of the clergy.”(3)

Thus, he concludes: “The heart of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass has been profoundly modified by the Novus Ordo.”(4)

A futile Intervention
Naturally, the progressivists were pleased with the 1969 Institutio and Novus Ordo Missae, but the conservatives were not. On September 13, Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci sent Paul VI the well-known Intervention titled Brief Critical Examinaltion of the Novus Ordo Missae.

Ottaviani’s Intervention caused no essential changes in the form of the New Mass

In it they stated that the New Mass “represented 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, which erected an insurmountable barrier against any heresy that might attack the integrity of the Mystery.” (5)

To deflect criticisms of this document, a revised General Instruction was issued on March 26, 1970, with a Prologue to the Institutio presenting some principles of Catholic doctrine absent in the 1969 version.

However, a careful study of this Prologue shows no essential modifications regarding the 1969 document, and no significant change was made in the text of the Novus Ordo Missae itself. (6)

There was not “a more acceptable form” or even partial victory with the 1970 Institutio and New Mass, as trumpeted by some traditionalist and conservative writers to curry favor with the Una Vocecommission and authors of the Intervention.

Intent to destroy

Even in the original Latin form, the Novus Ordo was a doctrinal travesty that displayed its intent to destroy the Tridentine Mass. A total of 35 prayers or approximately 70% of the Tridentine Mass were replaced or discarded as well as many brief versicles and responses, more than 20 Signs of the Cross, 12 genuflections and multiple other acts of reverence.(7) Thus the break with Sacred Tradition and Dogma was accomplished.

Paul VI greets Protestant observers at a meeting of the Consilium to reform the Mass

It should be recalled that the authors of this travesty were the members of the committee called the Consilium headed by Archbishop Bugnini, whose Freemasonic connections are almost certain to be real. Assisting the group were six Protestant observers, whom Paul VI publicly thanked for their help 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).” (8) One can only wonder how Protestant heretics could offer any help in formulating the very rite that they rejected…

In conclusion, it should be noted that the Novus Ordo Missae of Paul VI in 1969 is remarkably in agreement with the Anglican Mass of Cranmer in 1549. An analogous procedure of gradual changes was also used to prepare the faithful to accept the dramatic changes and the explicit heresy of Anglicanism.(9)

With over 95% of the Roman rite Masses in the world being Novus Ordo, traditional Catholics who have access to Tridentine Masses are indeed blessed.

The present Pope Bergoglio dislikes the Tridentine Mass and we must pray he will not abrogate it, an act that would ipso facto be invalid.

Only when the Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Our Blessed Mother is made as mandated at the great apparition at Tuy, Spain, on June 13, 1929, to Sister Lucia in the presence of the Holy Trinity and the Blessed Mother, will this general apostasy end. That request was made 90 years ago, and it is unlikely the present Pontiff – who never refers to Fatima and the Rosary – will make that consecration.

It is most likely we are facing the great Chastisement that was predicted to fall on an unfaithful world at Fatima and Quito. But we have the promise of Our Lady that then, after that great cleansing, the Catholic Church will be restored to its former orthodoxy, purity and beauty.

(To be continued …)


  1. Atila S. Guimaraes, In the Murky Waters of Vatican II, Maeta: 1999, pp. 234-235.
  2. Ibid., pp. 230-233
  3. Ibid., pp. 233-234.
  4. Ibid., p. 234.
  5. The Ottaviani Intervention: A Critical Study of the New Mass, online edition
  6. A. Guimaraes, In the Murky Waters of Vatican II, p. 226.
  7. Fr. Paul Trinchard, Novus Ordo Condemned, Metairie LA: MAETA. 1997, p. 34.
  8. A. Guimaraes, In the Murky Waters of Vatican II, p. 260.
  9. This similarity is reviewed in great detail Fr. Noel Barbara, “A Disquieting Similarity Between the Protestant Reforms of 1549 and the Reforms of Paul VI Since Vatican II” Fortes in Fide, No. 12, 1983.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to In the Murky Waters of Vatican II

  1. Mary Salmond says:

    Looking forward to “to be continued”!


  2. Michael says:

    “….rendering it no comparison to the awesome Tridentine Mass, that had been the very centre of the Faith of the Catholic Church since the earliest centuries of Christendom.”

    The Tridentine Mass took 9 centuries to develop and in some respects the earliest Mass was closer to the Novus Ordo. Accordingly, I disagree with this comment- unless the 9th century and beyond can somehow be described as the earliest centuries of Christendom.


  3. Gertrude says:

    Dom Hugh Somerville-Knapman has also written eloquently in The Catholic Herald this week. It can be found here:


  4. kathleen says:

    It is a truly excellent article by Dom Hugh Somerville-Knapman, which has also been picked up by Father Z and made into a great Podcast (that he calls a PODCAzT). He gives an interesting introduction beforehand and further details on its conclusion. Highly recommended!


  5. Crow says:

    Reading this article, I am struck by the author observing that the changes were deliberate. We, as Catholics, are inclined to believe that when someone says or does something, they actually believe it. That world-view, and the requirement of obedience, allowed accomodation by the clergy and faithful, of radical changes that transformed the faith. The liturgy is the centre and focus of the faith. The traditional Latin Mass is a form of catechesis and the Novus Ordo, while a valid Mass, nevertheless de-catechises the faithful (and, perhaps, the clergy, which may account for the many who have fallen away from the faith). As observed before, when the Latin Mass is offered, the parishes and vocations thrive. However, the powers-that-be are suppressive if any developments in a traditional direction ( see Tasmania for an example, and I would not be surprised if the current Pope bans the traditional Mass if it becomes too successful). To me, it seems odd that people who speak about having the best intentions for the faith are displeased when young people gravitate to the traditional rite. It makes me mighty suspicious….


  6. Crow says:

    Thank you for the link to the article by Don Hugh Somerville-Knapman, Gertrude. It is interesting that these perspectives are being voiced now. The anniversary prompts it, but also the consequences which are all too apparent. I think though, that when the good author suggests a willingness to reform, he is attributing a good-will that I do not perceive in these people. My evidence? In the article, he refers to the character of Bugnini as described as a ‘scoundrel’, which, no doubt, is true. Then, in the face of heavyweight intellectual and theological opposition, Bugnini railroaded through changes that would never have been contemplated in any era previously. These changes were complied with or supported by bishops in key positions throughout the world. Now we have a Pope who would, except for the pronouncement of the wonderful Benedict XVI, ban the traditional Mass in the blink of an eye and who, to invest some canonical regularity into the Vatican 2 changes, has actually canonised this Pope! This is not harmless and well-meaning. It is not an attempt to ‘ modernise’ that missed the mark- this was an emasculation of the faith in the face of considerable opposition and it is continuing.


  7. johnhenry says:

    Never accept what our so-called betters – popes and prelates – say without returning to the fundamentals of our Faith from whence cometh our help. The Bible and Tradition.

    The joke religion called Mormonism (Mormons, as a rule, are exceptional people) are learning this today.

    I’ve never approved of the Mormon prohibition on coffee and liquor, but this is too much. They almost sound like Cupich, Tobin, Rosica, the Argentine and others.


  8. Mary Anne says:

    Does anyone have an opinion or information on ‘The Warning’ ? When everyone in the world will know the state of their soul as God sees them, at the same time … AKA ‘The Illumination of Conscience’ … Saints have prophesied it … St. Edward Campion, Bl Anna Maria Taigi, etc. Just wondering.


  9. johnhenry says:

    Michael ( 15:49) makes a point worthy of consideration – that liturgy is a living thing and did not stop being a living thing centuries ago – but what has happened since the innovations of Vatican II are more akin to the Night of the Living Dead than liturgy bringing us closer to Jesus.


  10. Michael says:

    Thanks John Henry

    Your comment reminds me of one the previous Pope made about no good fruit coming from Vatican II before amending the Novus Ordo Mass to make it more like the Tridentine Mass.

    Another point he made was that no Pope has interpreted the conciliar documents so we have no authorative understanding of them. Instead the unqualified interpret them in a way inconsistent with the Church’s requirement of continuity and consistency. They conveniently use them to support their own agenda of innovation. It is a shame that he didn’t undertake the task of authorative interpretation himself.


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s