An Open Letter to the new Bishops- Arthur D’Mello and John Menezes


                 Flat No. C-6, Garden View, 2nd Flr.

               A.G. D’Mello, B.A., B.Com., LL.B., D.L.W.P.M.                                482, Mia Mohamed Chotani Road

Advocate                                                                                                            Mahim, Mumbai – 400 016

Tel: 022 24463223>

  June 18, 2013


  1. Dominic Savio Fernandes                                      2.     John Rodrigues

Episcopal Vicar &                                                            Rector, St. Pius X College

Bishop Elect                                                                       & Bishop Elect

Archdiocese of Bombay                                                             St.Pius X College

Archbishop’s House                                                                     Aarey Road, Goregaon

Mumbai 400 001                                                                Mumbai 400 063

Subject:   1. New Church, New Religion

2. Mass deception


The media and The Examiner have reported that you have been appointed by Francis I auxiliaries of the Archdiocese of Bombay. As baptized and confirmed Catholics, who had embraced an orthodoxy and orthopraxis  which our forebears had embraced with pride for over 400 years, and  who had done much for the Catholic Church in Mumbai, we are committed to offer our frank comments as under:

  1. I.        New Church, New Religion

On November 21, 1964, Paul VI signed the Second Vatican Council’s “Dogmatic Constitution of the Church,” or Lumen Gentium, which, through the surreptitious use of the word “subsist” in chapter one, section 8, paragraph 2, has clandestinely instituted a New Universalist Church as a co-habitation for other sects/religions (?) as well and, to meet the tenets of this new Church, the following slew of reforms and revisions have been enforced  in the Roman Catholic Church which has taken the latter far beyond the sixteenth century Protestant Reformation, to break with the past, namely:

  1. Revision of all the sacramental rites in order that they should shed their Catholicism, started with the rites of ordination which arrived unannounced on June 18, 1968 and of which the majority of Catholics are quite unaware till today;
  2. Revision of priestly and religious formation in seminaries and religious communities round the world to eliminate Thomistic theology and the scholastic studies of the Doctors of the church in order to implant contextual theology and other pernicious modernist doctrines and philosophies which have already been condemned by the earlier pontiffs.
  3. The making of all Catholic churches, chapels and shrines multi-religious through the promulgation of the 1993 Vatican Ecumenical Directory;
  4. Replacement of the ‘ecumenism of return’ with the so called ‘ecumenism of reconciled diversity.’
  5. Re-writing of the constitutions of all religious orders and religious societies;
  6. Re-writing of the 1917 Code of Canon Law into the 1983 Code of Canon Law;
  7. The Catechism of the Catholic Church to replace the Catechism of the Council of Trent;
  8. Elimination of the standard dress code in church, one on which every Ordinary had to report compliance at the time of his five-yearly Ad Limina personal visit to the Holy Father before these personal visits were altered into zonal visits;
  9. Annihilation of the Church’s musical repertoire, annihilation of all sense of the sacred;
  10. Separation of Church and State in Catholic countries thereby imperiling the Catholic family;
  11. Re-writing of the catechisms of school children, etc., etc.

Attached herewith is a study, “A Question of Orders,” by William Morgan of Paul VI’s revised rites of priestly ordination, and of episcopal ordination as it is now called, which concludes with the  observation:

“In the Conciliar rite of priestly ordination, however, the formula which accompanies the tradition of the instruments defines the Conciliar “priest” in terms of offering “the gifts from the people” to God. That is a manifest anticipation of the new doctrinal significance, excluding the traditional one, which is found in the New Mass of Paul VI. That definition of the priesthood, by reference to the new theology of sacrifice expressed in the New Mass, would appear to exclude the traditional Catholic meaning, and so invalidates the Conciliar priestly and Episcopal ordination rites.”

What has been termed above by William Morgan as the “new theology of sacrifice” has been shown by Rev. Fr. Anthony Cekada in his book “Work of Human Hands,” with due reference to the focus of the General  Instruction to the New Mass of Paul VI,  as the “theology of assembly,”[1]  a definition which fits in every respect with (1) the setting of the New Mass and the presiding presbyters; (2) the unbridled use of concelebration (indispensible to every “pontifical” celebration by every Vatican II “bishop”) although concelebration had long back been repudiated by Pope Pius XII in sections 82 thro’ 84 of his Encyclical, “Mediator Dei” (20/11/1947), as contrary to the belief that,  in the Holy Mass, the priest acts in the Person of Christ; this encyclical,  incidentally, had anticipated and condemned many features which have since shown up in Paul VI’s New Mass; and (3) the destruction of the confessional and the universal acceptance of the dummy host by each and every person taking part in this “mass.” Indeed,  the Newsletter of the American Bishops’ Committee on the Liturgy, vol. XII, September 1976,  explains that when the celebrant of the mass administers  communion with the words “Body of Christ” and the recipients  respond “Amen,”  ‘it seeks to highlight the important concept of the community as the body of       Christ.’[2]


In his book, The Order of Melchisedech, late  Michael Davies, convert from the Anglican to the Catholic Church, has written on the revised 1968 rite of priestly ordination:  [3]

Every prayer in the traditional rite which stated specifically the essential role of a priest as a man ordained to offer propitiatory sacrifice for the living and the dead has been removed. In most cases these were the precise prayers removed by the Protestant Reformers or, if not precisely the same, there are clear parallels.

Does not the following binding dogmatic decree of Pope Leo XIII apply to  Novus Ordo ordinations?

In the whole ordinal there is no clear mention of the sacrifice, of consecration, of the priesthood (sacerdotium), and of the power of consecrating and  of offering sacrifice but, as We have just stated, every trace of these things which had been in such prayers of the Catholic rite as they had not entirely rejected, was deliberately removed and struck out.” [4]

     (Pope Leo XIII: Apostolicae Curae, September 18, 1896, which declared Anglican rites null and void for the same reasons)

  1. II.      Mass Deception: No Offertory, No Consecration:

As in the post-Conciliar sacramental rites  actions severely plagiarize the pre-Conciliar rites in order to deceive, the vast majority of faithful Catholics believe that the New Mass is a Catholic Mass and are quite unaware that there is neither an Offertory nor a Consecration (nor, by now, a validly ordained priest).

Journalist Jean Guitton, a close friend and confidant of Pope Paul VI, confirmed that ‘it was the aim of the Pope to protestantize the liturgy.’ In a radio interview in the 1990s, Guitton said: “The intention of 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 – but what is curious is that Paul VI did that to get as close as possible to the Protestant Lord’s supper… there was with 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, and, I repeat, to get the Catholic Mass closer to the Calvinist Mass.’ ” [5]

No true pope can touch even a hair in his inheritance of the Deposit of Faith. If the ordinary and the proper of the New Mass are carefully compared with those of the Traditional Mass, it can be seen that the former have been effectively de-Catholicized, de-sacralized and trivialized. Much more can be written and said on the same subject. [6]

Many articles have been written about the objectionable changes to the Mass which culminated in the Novus Ordo Mass of Paul VI, and scarcely anything of substance can be added to the incisive “Ottaviani Intervention” (reachable online) by a Group of Roman Theologians, “Pope Paul’s New Mass”  by  Michael Davies, “Is the New Mass Valid?” by Dr. C.B. Andrade, “The Great Sacrilege” (reachable online)  by Fr. James F. Wathen OSJ, “The Problems with the Prayers of the Modern Mass” and “Work of Human Hands”  (introductions to the chapters reachable on Utube) by Fr. Anthony Cekada, and “Problems with the New Mass” by Dr. Rama Coomaraswamy MD. Even Cardinal Ratzinger is on record as having admitted the practical disaster of the liturgical reform.  Yet one of the most subtle and blasphemous changes in the prayer of the Mass has been overlooked. We have been told that the Offertory was replaced by a “Jewish table blessing” —–a change objectionable enough for a host of reasons. But the reality is far worse: for the Offertory has been replaced  by a formula from the Talmud, a classic of hate-literature directed against Jesus with an intensity and perversity perhaps never equaled. 

“The Talmudic Touch,” [7] setting out this monstrosity in detail and establishing that the “Preparation of the Gifts,” as it is now termed, is not a Catholic Offertory at all, is attached herewith.

As for the absence of the Consecration, not only does the General Instruction to the New Mass point to the same but the very website of the Blessed Sacrament Chapel in Colaba, Lower Mumbai, at shows:

TOP TEN EUCHARISTIC ACTIONS Koinonia consciousness (Gathering)

  1. Revealing the merciful love of the Father (Penitential Rite)
  2. Studying Pauline letters (Liturgy of the Word)
  3. Eco-care and Eco-friendly ( Presentation of the Gifts)
  4. Self giving love – Agape attitude (Institution Narrative)
  5. Affirming Christ’s presence in people (Epiclesis over the people)
  6. Solidarity with vulnerable people (Our Father)
  7. Working for peace and reconciliation (Peace Rite)
  8. Sharing food with the hungry (Breaking of the Bread)
  9. Working for Eucharistic vocation (Dismissal Rite)

“Gathering” is the “theology of assembly.” Number 4 projects only an “Institution Narrative” and no Consecration at all.

  1. III.    Conclusion:

The churches of the Archdiocese of Mumbai are not being used for the purpose for which  they were built with public money, namely, for the offering of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, for the other immemorial sacramental rites, sacramentals, meditation and worship, and – for example – for the classic sermons in a weekly series usually of four, once or twice a year –  on doctrine, morality, ethics, family values, need for Catholic education etc. of the late Valerian Cardinal Gracias from the Holy Name Cathedral pulpit, sermons which used to draw crowds of faithful from places as far as Bandra and Santa Cruz, for their doctrinal richness and value in shoring up the Catholic religion. These churches have been vandalized by what we may call the RobberChurch. In the Vatican II non-Catholic settings of your proposed “bishopric,” do you sincerely believe that you will be inheriting Apostolic Succession from the founder archbishops of Bombay, namely, Archbishops Porter, Dalhoff, Jurgens, Goodier, Lima and Roberts and – for that matter – from the Prince of the Apostles, St. Peter himself? Or through the drastically revised rites  of Paul VI and Vatican II, and as ministers of the NewChurch,  will you be perpetuating empty tabernacles, barren altars,  and invalid sacraments, such as the revised rite of Confirmation? May be, you and we may be destined to  share one thing in common, i.e., a parting kick on our deathbeds from the Robber Church  of Vatican II as there is no longer a Sacrament of Extreme Unction which prepared the soul for the next world; it has been abolished by Paul VI.

On the eve of the Second Vatican Council the late Valerian Cardinal Gracias had told a confidant, the late Edmund J. Fernandes, [8] that a NewChurch would emerge after the Council. The NewMontinianChurch is very much in place today, a church where the cult of man now supercedes the cult of God. It is  from this NewChurch that you receive your appointment but is it from its mortal creators that you derive your succession? The above issues may never have struck you and you may like to meditate on the same in your pre-ordination retreat.

A Catholic is entitled to receive Catholicism from his parish church and not some other religion in disguise.

Yours sincerely,

A.G. D’Mello                                                                                     John Menezes

Chairman                                                                                          Member


  1. A Question of Orders by William Morgan [9]
  2. The Talmudic Touch
  3. Critique of the Montinian rite of Confirmation
  4. Critique of the Montinian rite of Annointing of the Sick


[1] Fr. Anthony Cekada, Work of Human Hands,2010,  Philothea Press, Westchester, Ohio, pp. 106-108.

[2] Michael Davies, Pope Paul’s New Mass,1980, The Angelus Press, p. 341.

[3] Michael Davies, The Order of Melchisedech, 1993,  Roman Catholic Books, Harrison, NY10528, p. 83.

[4] Ibid, p. 164.


[6] On page 93 of Work of Human hands, Fr. Anthony Cekada writes: Likewise, Christopher Monckton, former editor of the English Catholic newspaper The Universe and a Latin scholar, discovered 400 errors in the official English translation (of the Latin version) of the New Order of the Mass alone. In a lecture reprinted in the November 1979 issue of Faith magazine, he noted: “The errors reveal a common theme which displays the intentions of the translators. The theme is the dilution or removal of allusions and references to those doctrines of the Mass which are specifically and peculiarly Catholic………”

[7] Craig Heimbichner, Catholic Family News, March 2004, MPO Box 743, Niagara Falls, NY14302, Tel: (905) 871 6292.

[8] Edmund, known popularly as Eddie, was close to the second signatory and revealed this disclosure of Valerian Cardinal Gracias to him already in September 1962, before the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965) opened.

[9] Late William Morgan, lay theologian, was the father of Fr. Paul Morgan, District Superior in the United Kingdom, Society of St. Pius X (SSPX). Several scholarly studies pointing to the invalidity of the 1968 ordination rites by Dr. Rama Coomaraswamy MD, the Dimond Brothers of Most Holy Family Monastery, Eugene A.W. Howson, Fr. Anthony Cekada (on the rite for bishops), and Maureen Day (on the rite for priests), are accessible online.


A Question of Orders

William Morgan


The Conciliar abolition of Minor Orders and the Subdiaconate

In the charge given by the ordaining bishop to those he is about to ordain to the second order of the priesthood (the Presbyterate), in the rite contained in the traditional Roman Pontifical, he makes this concise statement:

It is by an admirable diversity of function that the Holy Church is clad, adorned and governed, some of her sons being consecrated bishops, and others of lower rank ordained priests, deacons and subdeacons, yet out of these many members of differing degree, one Body of Christ is formed.”

In his putative Motu Proprio of 15th August 1972, “by which the discipline of first tonsure, minor orders and subdiaconate in the Latin Church is reformed”, Paul VI states: “ … so that the offices of porter, [lector], exorcist, and acolyte were called minor orders in the Latin Church in relation to the subdiaconate, diaconate, and presbyterate, which were called major orders”.  In fact, he then goes on to rule that: “It is fitting to preserve and adapt these in such a way, that from this time on there will be two offices: that of reader and acolyte, which will include the functions of the subdiaconate”. In addition he rules: “ … the above-mentioned ministries should no longer be called minor orders; their conferring will not be called ‘ordination’, but ‘institution’. And in case there should be any doubt on the matter, Paul VI states: “Ministries may be committed to lay Christians…”

By that revoluti6nary document of 1972, the ConciliarChurch abolished, in its Latin rite, all the ancient minor orders along with the subdeaconate, thereby bringing its practice into line with that of the sixteenth-century Anglican Reformation.

Four years earlier, in the putative Apostolic Constitution of 18th June 1968, Paul VI had already given his approval to “a new rite for the ordination of deacons, priests and bishops”, some of whose changes —— compared with the traditional rites —— have given rise to the question, among some Catholics, as to whether he did not thereby, like the sixteenth-century Anglicans, introduce intrinsically invalid Episcopal and priestly ordination rites.

The words “priest” and “bishop” in the Anglican Ordinal

In the Bull Apostolicae Curae (1896), Pope Leo XIII “pronounced and declared that ordinations performed according to the Anglican rite have been and are completely null and void.”  He did so for a complex of reasons, corresponding to the history of the Anglican ordination rites. However, one of his supporting rulings is of special relevance to the question of the validity of the Conciliar ordination rites. It is this:

“… even though some words in the Anglican Ordinal as it now stands may be ambiguous, it is impossible for them to be given the same sense as they have in the Catholic rite. For, as we have seen, when once a new rite is introduced, denying or corrupting the Sacrament of Order and repudiating any notion of consecration and sacrifice, then the formula ‘Receive the Holy Ghost’ (that is, the Spirit who is infused into the soul with the grace of the Sacrament) is deprived of its force; nor have the words ‘for the office and work of a priest or bishop, etc, any longer their validity, being now mere names, voided of the reality which Christ instituted.”

The importance of that teaching can hardly be overstated. Pope Leo XIII rules that the words “priest” and “bishop” lose their Catholic meanings in the context of rites from which their essential meanings are systematically excluded.

It should be noted that Pope Leo’s judgment applies specifically to the formula “for the office and work of a priest” or “bishop”, which occurs in the Restoration Ordinal (1662) among the very words which “have been generally held by Anglicans to be the proper form”.

To that intrinsic defect of form, Pope Leo judged, there was combined a defect of intention. The Pontiff reminded his readers that:

“…a Sacrament is truly a Sacrament even if it is conferred through the ministry of a heretic or unbaptised person [in the case of Baptism], provided the Catholic rite is used.  But if, on the contrary, the rite is changed with the manifest purpose of introducing another rite which is not accepted by the Church, and of repudiating that which the Church does and that which by Christ’s institution belongs to the nature of the Sacrament, then it is obvious, not only that the intention necessary for the Sacrament is absent, but also that an intention is present which is contrary and opposed to it.”

Pope Leo’s judgment that, in the Anglican ordinals, the words “priest” and “bishop” no longer have their validity, “being now mere names, voided of the reality which Christ instituted”, is based on the facts that those rites have denied and corrupted the Sacrament of Order, and repudiated “any notion of consecration and sacrifice.”  That they have done so is demonstrated by their systematic elimination or change of such prayers in the traditional rites as express the “grace and power” of the priesthood, “which is pre-eminently the power ‘to consecrate and offer the true Body and Blood of the Lord’ in that sacrifice which is no ‘mere commemoration’ of the sacrifice performed on the cross.’’

The meaning of the word “bishop,” is dependent upon that of “priest”

“The case is the same,” Pope Leo judged, “with Episcopal consecration. ” The words “… for the office and work of a bishop,” used in the 1662 rite, “must be understood otherwise than in the Catholic rite”.

Pope Leo stated: “It is quite certain that the episcopate by Christ’s institution belongs most truly to the Sacrament of Order and is the priesthood in the highest degree; it is what the holy Fathers and our own liturgical usage call “the high priesthood, the summit of the sacred ministry.” Therefore, since the Sacrament of Order and the true priesthood of Christ has been totally expunged from the Anglican rite, and since accordingly the priesthood is in no way conferred in the Episcopal consecration of the same rite, it is equally impossible for the episcopate itself to be truly and properly conferred thereby; the more so because one of the chief functions of the episcopate is that of ordaining ministers for the Holy Eucharist and the sacrifice.”

The question concerning the validity of the Conciliar priestly and Episcopal ordination rites, accordingly, is as to whether the words “priest” (“presbyter”) and “bishop” in those rites retain their Catholic meanings, or have they rather, by systematic eliminations and changes in the rites, become “mere names, voided of the reality which Christ instituted.”


A putative sacramental form can be made void by its ritual context

Some may object, against the very posing of the question in that way, that since Pope Pius XII’s Apostolic Constitution Sacramentum Ordinis (30 Nov 1947), “the sole form is the words which determine the application of this matter, which univocally signify the sacramental effect —— namely the power of Order and the grace of the Holy Spirit —— and which are accepted by the Church as such.”

The theological concepts of sacramental form and matter concern those words and gestures whose inadvertent omission would invalidate the sacramental rite; and which are regarded as the operative words and gestures, so that —— in the context of the Catholic rite —— once they have been uttered and performed the grace of the Sacrament has been conferred.

However, from that it does not follow that the systematic omission or change of all the other prayers and gestures in the developed sacramental rite, which further explicate and define the meanings of the key words and references in the putative form, could not change those meanings so as to void them “of the reality which Christ instituted.”

Pope Pius XII’s 1947 ruling, of course, concerned the future use of the traditional rites. However, for the sake of argument, we could imagine that his choice of form and matter de facto corresponded to what had been the case at the time of the Reformation. Now, supposing that the Anglicans had preserved that form and matter, but had still systematically purged their rites of all references to consecration and sacrifice; surely it would not be claimed that those new ordinals retained the Catholic meanings and were valid rites.

As a matter of fact, of course, the priestly and Episcopal ordination rites of Paul VI do not in any event retain the sacramental forms specified by Pope Pius XII.

The Conciliar rite of Episcopal ordination

In the traditional rite of Episcopal consecration, the essential words of the form of consecration,  occurring in the Consecration Preface are: “Fulfill in this priest of thine the perfection of the ministry, and sanctify him —— adorned with the insignia of glorious office —— with the anointing from on high.”

For that traditional sacramental form for the consecration of bishops in the Latin rite, Paul VI substituted the consecratory prayer which is found in the document called the “Apostolic Tradition of Hypolytus of Rome” (cf. the putative Apostolic Constitution of 18 June 1968). He did so, he stated, so that “ … several clear doctrinal statements [of Vatican II] concerning the apostolic succession of bishops and their duties and functions… should be better and more accurately expressed.”

The words substituted for the traditional form for the consecration of bishops are:

“Now pour upon this chosen one that power which flows from you, the perfect Spirit whom you gave to your beloved Son, Jesus Christ, the Spirit which he gave to the apostles, who established the Church in every place as the sanctuary where your name would always be praised and glorified.”

If one considers those words only, it is not immediately apparent why they should be considered as definitely designating the episcopate, rather than, perhaps, the grace of confirmation.

It is true that the new Prayer of Consecration continues with a petition that the one made a bishop may “exercise the high priesthood without blame”, and there follows the statement that: “God has made you a sharer in Christ’s priesthood.”

Whether or not such expressions — along with the injunction in the optional instruction to: “Make it your business to pray and offer sacrifice for the people…” — have any intrinsic reference to “the power to consecrate and offer the true Body and Blood of the Lord” in that sacrifice which is no mere commemoration of the sacrifice performed on the Cross, needs to be established by a consideration of the meaning of the Conciliar rite for the ordination of a priest.

The Conciliar rite of priestly ordination

At a casual glance, the putative form for priestly ordination in the Paul VI rite is the same as that specified by Pope Pius XII in the traditional rite. A careful reading, however — as has by now been frequently noted — shows there is a change: a change of one word. The Latin word “ut” [“that”] has been omitted.

The traditional form may be translated:

“Grant, we beseech thee, Almighty Father, to these thy servants the dignity of the priesthood [presbyterate]; renew in their hearts the Spirit of holiness, that they may exercise the office of the second rank received from thee, O God, and may, by the example of their lives, inculcate the pattern of holy living.”

The modified putative form in the Conciliar rite (with the “ut” [that”] omitted), has been rendered:

 “We ask you, all-powerful Father, give these servants of yours the dignity of the presbyterate. Renew the Spirit of holiness within them. By your divine gift may they attain the second order in the hierarchy and exemplify right conduct in their lives.”

Why that change of a single word was made, or with what, if any, doctrinal significance in itself, is not our immediate concern. What we must note, however, is that the extrinsic authority of Pope Pius XII may not be invoked for this putative form.  In the vernacular version, at least, it is significant that the words we have quoted as the putative form are in no way distinguished —— as they are by being put in capitals in the traditional form —— from the rest of the Prayer of Consecration. It should also be noted that that consecration prayer no longer takes the form of a liturgical Preface.

The omissions and changes made in the Anglican rite

To assess the doctrinal significance of omissions and changes made in the Conciliar rite of priestly ordination, as compared with the traditional rite, it is helpful to compare them with the changes and omissions made in the Anglican Ordinal(s) as compared with the (Pre-Reformation) Sarum Pontifical.

It is of special importance to note a Catholic-sounding prayer which occurs near the beginning of the Anglican rite.  It reads:

“Almighty God, giver of all good things, which by Thy Holy Spirit hast appointed diverse orders of ministers in Thy Church, mercifully behold these Thy servants, now called to the office of Priesthood, and replenish them so with the truth of Thy doctrine, and innocence of life, that both by word and good example they may faithfully serve Thee in this office, to the glory of Thy name, and profit of the congregation, through the merits of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who liveth and reignest…”

So Catholic-sounding is that Anglican prayer, that a number of pre-Apostolicae Curae Catholic writers felt obliged to concede that it would have been a valid sacramental form if it had not been located right at the start of the rite, before the introductory formalities, and morally cut off from the putative sacramental matter — the laying on of hands.

However, in Apostolicae Curae, Pope Leo rules that the argument establishing that “the words ‘for the office and work of a priest’ or ‘bishop’, etc, [no longer possess] validity, being  now mere names, voided of the reality which Christ instituted, “is fatal also to the suggestion that the prayer,  ‘Almighty God, giver of all good things’… can do service as the legitimate form of Order; although conceivably it might be able to suffice in a Catholic rite…”

Paradoxically, the Anglican Reformers managed to omit from their Ordinal the most ancient prayers and gestures found in the Sarum Pontifical, while retaining — in modified form — some of the more recent additions. It was thus that they omitted the first (silent? ) laying on of hands; the one which Pope Pius XII was to designate the sacramental matter in the traditional Roman Pontifical. They also omitted the ancient prayers which preceded the liturgical Preface, and the Preface itself, including the words corresponding to those specified for the future as the sacramental form by the Pope.

The Anglican Reformers also omitted the second part of the Sarum consecratory prayer, with its petition: “May they preserve pure and unspotted the gift of this ministry, and for the service of Thy people change by their immaculate blessing, the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Thy Son.”

For those ancient prayers the Reformers substituted a new composition, giving thanks for the sending out into the world of the “Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, Doctors, and Pastors;” and for calling “these thy servants here present to the same office and ministry of salvation of mankind.” Then came the retained laying on of hands (the last in the traditional rite), with the modified formula: “Receive the Holy Ghost: whose sins thou dost forgive, they are forgiven: and whose sins thou dost retain, they are retained: and be thou a faithful dispenser of the word of God, and of his holy Sacraments. In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.”

Those were the words “generally held by Anglicans to be the proper form of priestly ordination.” But, as Pope Leo XIII states, those words “certainly do not signify definitely the order of the priesthood or its grace and power, which is pre-eminently the power ‘to consecrate and offer the true body and blood of the Lord’ in that sacrifice which is no ‘mere commemoration of the sacrifice performed on the Cross’.”

The Anglican rite also discarded the blessing and anointing of the priest’s hands, with the accompanying prayers. The first of those prayers says: “Bless, O Lord, and sanctify these, the hands of Thy priests to consecrate the sacrifices which are offered for the sins and negligences of the people, and to bless all other things necessary for its service.”

The 1550 Anglican “tradition of the instruments

The tradition of the instruments — the handing to the new priest of the chalice containing wine and water, with a paten and host upon it — along with the formula conveying explicitly the power to offer sacrifice by celebrating Mass, are relatively late additions to the rite. However, their very explicitness had made many Catholic theologians consider them at least part of the sacramental matter and form. The Anglican Reformers at first retained the ceremony, though in a modified form (in the 1550 Ordinal), by simultaneously handing the ordinand a Bible.

Of course, the Catholic significance of the tradition of the instruments was removed by the replacement of the formula: “Receive the power to offer sacrifice to God and to celebrate Masses for the living and the dead, in the name of Our Lord Jesus Christ”; by: “Take thou authority to preach the word of God, and to minister the holy Sacraments in this congregation.”

The ecumenical context of the Conciliar reforms

The Conciliar reforms have taken place at a time of vastly greater knowledge of the history of the sacramental rites than was available in the sixteenth century. However, ecumenical considerations have also led to a convergence in liturgical practice, accompanying great efforts to achieve a doctrinal consensus, by treating as non-substantial those dogmatic matters on which Reformers and Catholics have historically and manifestly disagreed. (cf. “The Eucharist as Sacrifice:” a Lutheran-Roman Catholic Statement,1967; the preparatory Anglican-Roman Catholic “Malta Report”, 1968; the Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission’s “Agreed Statement on Eucharistic Doctrine,” 1971;  ARCIC’s “Agreed Statement on Ministry and Ordination,” 1973; and ARCIC’s two “Elucidations”, on Eucharistic Doctrine and Ministry and Ordination respectively,1979.)

The omission and changes made in the Conciliar rite

In the traditional rite, the bishop’s Charge to the ordinands gives a succinct statement of the duties of a priest: “For it is the priest’s duty to offer sacrifice, to bless, to lead, to preach and to baptize.” It is in the optional Instruction provided in the Conciliar rite for the ordination of priests that statements fully compatible with the Catholic doctrine of the priesthood will be found. However, while not discounting that fact, the contemporary ecumenical initiatives to present Catholic and Protestant expressions as equivalent cannot simply be ignored either. It is only by an examination of the mandatory prayers and gestures of the rite itself, as compared with those of the traditional rite, that its doctrinal significance can be objectively assessed.

In the traditional rite, the sacramental form occurs in the course of a liturgical Preface. In the Conciliar rite, the equivalent Prayer of Consecration no longer takes the form of a Preface. As we have already mentioned, in the vernacular version at least, the modified sacramental form is not distinguished from the rest of the prayer by being printed in  capital letters (as was the form specified by Pope Pius XII). And the continuation of the prayer has been changed.

After the investiture with stole and chasuble, the traditional rite continued with another ancient consecratory prayer. That was the one containing the words: “Theirs be the task to change, with blessing undefiled, for the service of thy people, bread and wine into the body and blood of thy Son.” That explicit prayer is omitted in the Conciliar rite.

Also omitted — at the end of the Mass — is the final imposition of hands, with the injunction: “Receive the Holy Ghost…”  We should also note the omission of the blessing: “…that you may be blessed in the Priestly order, and may offer propitiatory sacrifices for the sins and offences of the people…”

Unlike the Anglican Ordinal(s), the Conciliar rite has retained the traditional anointing of the new priest’s hands, though in a simplified form. While performing the act, the bishop traditionally says two prayers. “Be pleased, Lord, to consecrate and sanctify these hands by this anointing and our blessing. … That whatsoever they bless may be blessed, and whatsoever they consecrate may be consecrated and sanctified in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.”  In the Conciliar rite the prayer for the anointing has been rendered: “The Father anointed Jesus Christ as Lord through the power of the Holy Spirit. May Jesus keep you worthy of offering sacrifice to God and sanctifying the Christian assembly.”

Obviously, the meaning of “priest” in the Conciliar rite of ordination depends upon the meaning given to “offering sacrifice”. If “offering sacrifice” has the same meaning here as in the traditional rite, then so has the word “priest,” and there could be no question of it being a mere name, “voided of the reality which Christ instituted.”

The new “tradition of the instruments” anticipates the New Mass

Is there any other change as between the rites which casts further light on that essential matter? There is. It is the change in the formula for the tradition of the instruments which proves to be the most doctrinally significant.

In the traditional rite, the tradition of the instruments — the handing to the new priest of the chalice containing wine and water, and the paten with a host — is accompanied by the unambiguous words: ‘‘Receive the power to offer sacrifice to God, and to celebrate Mass, both for the living and the dead, in the name of the Lord.”

In the new rite, the tradition of the instruments is significantly styled “Presentation of the Gifts”. The action is now accompanied by the words: “Accept the gifts from the people to be offered to God. Be conscious of what you are doing, be as holy as the actions you perform, and model your life after the mystery of the Lord’s cross.”

Anyone who has studied the doctrinal significance of the change of the Catholic offertory into the un-Catholic presentation of the gifts in the anti-Tridentine New Mass, will be struck by the fact that the new formula precisely anticipates that change of doctrinal significance.

The Anglican Reformers did not introduce their first Ordinal until a year after they had introduced the Supper of the Lord and Holy Communion, commonly called the Mass. Conciliarists, by contrast, introduced the new rite for the ordination of priests a year before the promulgation of the New Mass. However, the change of the formula to accompany the handing of the chalice and paten in the Conciliar rite is as doctrinally significant, in the context of the imminent promulgation of the New Mass, as was that made in the Anglican Ordinal of 1550.

In the traditional rites of Mass, including the (Tridentine) Roman rite, the oblations offered at the Offertory, and in the pre-consecration Canon, are the Body and Blood of Christ as symbolised by the bread and wine —  the spotless host and the chalice of salvation of the Tridentine Offertory. However, in the New Mass of Paul VI what are offered at the “preparation of the gifts” — and so in the pre-consecration portion of the Canons (certainly in the three new Canons, and arguably in Canon 1, the ex-Roman Canon) — are simply bread and wine.

Catholic and non-Catholic doctrines of Eucharistic sacrifice

It is not that the New Mass does not express a doctrine of Eucharistic sacrifice, but that that doctrine is not the same doctrine as that expressed in the Tridentine (and other developed rites of) Mass.

In their “Responsio” to the Bull, Apostolicae Curae, the Anglican Archbishops of Canterbury and York affirm:

“We truly teach the doctrine of the Eucharistic sacrifice, and do not believe in a ‘nude commemoration of the Sacrifice of the Cross,’ an opinion which seems to be attributed to us by the quotation from the Council [of Trent]. But we think it sufficient in the Liturgy which we use in celebrating the Holy Eucharist, while lifting up our hearts to the Lord, and when consecrating the gifts already offered, that they may be to us the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, to signify the sacrifice which is offered at that point of the service in such terms as these. We continue a perpetual memory of the precious death of Christ, who is our Advocate with the Father and the propitiation for our sins, according to His precept, until his coming again. For first we offer the sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving; then next we plead and represent before the Father the Sacrifice of the Cross, and by it we confidently entreat remission of sins and all other benefits of the Lord’s Passion for the whole Church; and, lastly, we offer the sacrifice of ourselves to the Creator of all things which we have already signified by the oblations of his creatures. This whole action, in which the people have necessarily to take part with the priest, we are accustomed to call the Eucharistic sacrifice.”

What could seem a more Catholic statement of the doctrine of the Eucharistic sacrifice, even including an explicit reference to “the sacrifice which is offered at that point of the service”? Those who are familiar with the various editions of the Anglican Communion Service must allow the Anglican archbishops that they are but summarising what that service does and says.

Yet the Cardinal Archbishop and Bishops of the Province of Westminster respond, in their “Vindication” of the Bull, Apostolicae Curae  (1898):

“… we have understood you to be expressing the same views as your standard writers; rejecting by implication the objective Real Presence, the Sacrifice in which the true Body and Blood of Christ is the victim, and the Priesthood which claims to have received a specific spiritual power to offer such a sacrifice; but at the same time affirming and ascribing to your Church a sacrifice in which the thing offered is the congregation with its praise, its service, and its gifts, and claiming for each individual, the laymen as well as the clergyman, a metaphorical priesthood to correspond with this metaphorical sacrifice.”

By 1967, however — the year before the introduction of the Conciliar rite of priestly ordination (itself anticipating the change of doctrinal significance manifested in the “Offertory” of the New Mass) — an American Lutheran-Roman Catholic Statement, “The Eucharist as Sacrifice”, was advancing another, apparently stronger, doctrine of Eucharistic sacrifice, but one which still did not conform to the Catholic sacramental renewal of the Sacrifice of the Cross.

The Lutherans were happy to affirm with their R.C. counterparts that:

“The members of the body of Christ are united through Christ with God and with one another in such a way that they become participants in his worship, his self-offering, his sacrifice to the Father. Through this union between Christ and Christians, the Eucharistic assembly ‘offers Christ’ by consenting in the power of the Holy Spirit to be offered by him to the Father. Apart from Christ, we have no gifts, no worship, no sacrifice of our own to offer to God. All we can plead is Christ, the sacrificial lamb and victim whom the Father has given us.”

Even the post-consecration sacrificial wording of Canons 3 and 4 of the New Mass appear fully compatible with that Lutheran understanding of how the “Eucharistic assembly ‘offers Christ’…”

Summary: validity turns upon the meaning of “priest” and “Eucharistic sacrifice”

Let us now draw together the various strands of this discussion. We have seen how Pope Leo XIII definitively declared that “ordinations performed according to the Anglican rite have been and are completely null and void.” That judgment was based upon a complex of considerations, corresponding to the history of the Anglican Ordinal(s), which showed that that rite suffered from a defect of form, and consequently — for those who adopted it — a defect of intention in its use.

That fundamental defect of form turned crucially on the change of meaning given to the words “priest” and “bishop,” by the systematic omissions and changes of wording in those prayers in the traditional rite which definitely signified the priesthood’s “grace and power, which is pre-eminently the power ‘to consecrate and offer the body and blood of the Lord’ in that sacrifice which is no ‘mere commemoration of the sacrifice performed on the Cross’.”

Our examination of the Conciliar rite for the ordination of bishops has shown, on the one hand, that the sacramental form substituted for that in the traditional rite is vaguer and less definite than the one it replaces. On the other hand, it is accompanied by other prayers which contain such expressions as “high priesthood” which one would expect to find in a Catholic rite. We conclude from that that the meaning of such expressions can only be established in relation to the meaning given to the crucial word “priest” in the rite of priestly ordination.

While the Conciliar rite of priestly ordination has been found to have some omissions and changes of wording approximating to the Anglican reforms, it still has a number of references to “offering sacrifice”.

However, in an ecumenical context, we have seen how, even a hundred years ago, the Anglican archbishops professed to “truly teach the doctrine of the Eucharistic sacrifice,” on the basis of what they did in their Communion Services, even speaking of “the sacrifice which is offered at this point of the service…” Against that contention by the Anglican archbishops, the Cardinal Archbishop and Bishops of the Province of Westminster countered that their statement rejected “by implication the Sacrifice in which the true Body and Blood of Christ is the victim…”

Similarly, it is our contention – explained in detail elsewhere (of our “The Anti-Tridentine New Mass”) —— that the New Mass of Paul VI lacks doctrinal rectitude. This is most manifestly so because of the change of doctrinal significance of the “offertory,” from the anticipatory offering of the Body and Blood of Christ symbolised by bread and wine, to the offering simply of gifts of bread and wine. That change of doctrinal significance of the “offertory” also changes the theology of sacrifice expressed in the Canons of the New Mass. That new theology of sacrifice, we submit, is entirely compatible with the Lutheran one.

Conclusion: exclusion of the Catholic meaning of “priest” entails invalidity

The relevance of the New Mass’s change of Eucharistic theology to the meanings of the words “sacrifice,”  “priest” and “bishop” in the Conciliar ordination rites, is established by the change of doctrinal significance of the formula accompanying the tradition of the instruments. In the traditional rite, that formula explicates the pre-eminent priestly power “to consecrate and offer the true body and blood of the Lord,”  “Receive the power to offer sacrifice to God, and to celebrate Mass, both for the living and the dead, in the name of the Lord.”

In the Conciliar rite of priestly ordination, however, the formula which accompanies the tradition of the instruments defines the Conciliar “priest” in terms of offering “the gifts from the people” to God. That is a manifest anticipation of the new doctrinal significance, excluding the traditional one, which is found in the New Mass of Paul VI. That definition of the priesthood, by reference to the new theology of sacrifice expressed in the New Mass, would appear to exclude the traditional Catholic meaning, and so invalidates the Conciliar priestly and Episcopal ordination rites.

Feast of SS Peter and Paul 1999


From the traditional Roman Pontifical, the rites for the consecration of bishops and the ordination of priests: various editions (including Catholic Truth Society of London) with Latin originals and English translations.

The CTS of London was unable to provide the Latin texts for the Conciliar rites for Episcopal or priestly ordination (nor the English for Episcopal ordination). Accordingly, all relevant quotations, both from the documents of Paul VI and from the Conciliar ordination rites, are taken from the 1973 American Bishops’ Committee on the Liturgy versions.

Apostolicae Curae (1896), Pope Leo XIII: English translation “Anglican Orders Final Decision” (CTS).

The texts of the 1550 and 1552 editions of the Anglican Ordinal: “The Two Liturgies”, Parker Society (1844).

The Restoration (1662) Anglican Ordinal: “The Book of Common Prayer” [1662 version].

Translation of relevant prayers from the Sarum Pontifical: “The Reformation, the Mass and the Priesthood” (Volume 1), E. C. Messenger (1936).

“The Eucharist as Sacrifice: A Lutheran-Roman Catholic Statement” (1967): in “Modern Eucharistic Agreement” (1973).

All the ARCIC documents in one volume: “The Final Report” (1982)

“A Vindication of the Bull Apostolicae Curae”  (1898), the Cardinal, Archbishop and Bishops of the Province of Westminster.


The Talmudic Touch:


“In the New Mass the Offertory was replaced by a formula from the Talmud, a classic of hate-literature directed against Jesus with an intensity and perversity perhaps never equaled.”

by Craig Heimbichner

This article originally appeared in the March, 2004 issue of Catholic Family News, and is back on line by request.

Many articles have been written about the objectionable changes to the Mass which culminated in the Novus Ordo Mass of Paul VI, and scarcely anything of substance can be added to the incisive Ottaviani Intervention or the exhaustive study of Michael Davies in his third volume of Liturgical Revolution. Even Cardinal Ratzinger is on record admitting the practical disaster of the liturgical reform. It is obvious to devout Catholics that the faithful have been submerged during the period of the New Mass in a swamp marked by non-attendance, widespread unbelief, immorality, irreverence, indifferentism, and compromise. Catholics have seen even their formerly orthodox leaders flailing in a quicksand of ambiguity. While the causes of this broad crisis cannot be solely attributed to the changes in the Mass, an important connection exists, since the rule lex credendi, lex orandi (we believe as we pray) remains vitally true. Yet one of the most subtle and blasphemous changes in the prayer of the Mass has been overlooked. We have been told that the Offertory was replaced by a “Jewish table blessing” —–a change objectionable enough for a host of reasons. But the reality is far worse: for the Offertory has been replaced by a prayer with no connection to the practices of the Old Testament Israelites, but rather which stems from Christ-rejecting Rabbis who agreed with the Sanhedrin that demanded His death. The astonishing truth is that in the New Mass, the Offertory  was replaced by a formula from the Talmud, a classic of hate-literature directed against Jesus with an intensity and perversity perhaps never equaled. 1 This sacrilege was slipped past the faithful without notice, and deserves exposure as yet one more reason to loudly demand the restoration of a liturgy which honors rather than blasphemes the One Who first said and instituted the Mass itself.

The Offertory had long been a target of the enemies of Christ and His Church, since it clearly expresses the propitiatory content of the Sacrifice of Christ which is repeated in an unbloody manner in the Mass. This was the subject of a stern warning by Pope Pius XII in Mediator Dei, that some of the pretended resurrection of early traditions was patently fraudulent. Nowhere is this more clearly evident than in the supposed revival of a “Jewish table blessing” from the days of the first Jewish converts to Christianity as a replacement for the Offertory. We are supposed to believe that this scrapping of the Offertory marks a return to the type of faith and liturgy of the earliest Church, and furthermore supposedly reminds us of our Jewish roots.

All of these alleged reasons and explanations are simply lies, and their subversive nature is underscored by the fact that they succeeded where Luther failed in eliminating the Offertory which he hated. The lies behind this substitution are truly multiform. First, the Offertory was not replaced by a Jewish table blessing, but by a rabbinical blessing from the Talmud, as we will see below. Second, the Talmud was not written during the life of Christ or His Apostles, and could not have been reflective of anything in the early Church except the traditions of its first enemies. In fact, the Talmud was written in Babylon after the Rabbis had rejected the Messiah —–written in fact by Rabbis in full and venomous agreement with that rejection. Third, the Talmudic blessing is part of a list of “blessings” in the Talmud which also contains curses of Christians. Fourth, what we now know as Judaism—–the rabbinical swamp of blasphemy and paganism codified in the Talmud—–has no connection to the faith of the Old Testament, for it nullifies it (Matthew 15:1-9). Fifth, borrowing any prayer from the Talmud is arguably treason to Christ, for the Talmud—–burned by several astute Popes—–contains the most horrid blasphemies against both Jesus and Mary known to man, only a few of which we will quote for purposes of documentation.

Before supporting these contentions, it is worth noting that the Second Vatican Council Fathers were all warned that covert forces of Judaism and Freemasonry were about to stage a “coup” at the Council, under the guise of a “brotherly reconciliation” and under the pretext of “bridge-building”. This warning came in the form of a large and thoroughly documented tome entitled, The Plot Against the Church, penned by several authors under the pseudonym Maurice Pinay. One of the actual authors was Fr. Saenz y Arriaga, later the subject of a questionable excommunication following his exposure of the public wearing of the Jewish Ephod of Caiaphas by Paul VI—–an emblem replete with Masonic as well as rabbinical symbolism.

It should also be emphasized that the architect of the New Mass, Archbishop Annibale Bugnini, has been well exposed as a secret Freemason. A raid of an Italian Lodge in 1976 revealed a roster of high-ranking Vatican prelates, their dates of initiation into Freemasonry, and even their code-names. Bugnini entered the Brotherhood on April 23, 1963. His code-name was Buan. 2

Several Popes had condemned Freemasonry, beginning with Clement XII in 1738, and for good reason. The conspiratorial intent of Freemasonry was not only indicated by its grisly oaths of blind obedience to superiors under pain of assassination—–carried out in the famous William Morgan case 3—–but also in the upper degrees such as the Judaic Kadosh 4 degree, wherein a mock crown and mock papal tiara are stabbed in an unmistakable symbolic attack against Church and State (this degree is the 30th in the worldwide Scottish Rite today). 5 In addition, the common Royal Arch Degree, considered a completion of the Third or Master Mason Degree, contains an invocation “for the good of Masonry, generally, but the Jewish nation in particular”. 6 Hence Freemasonry as an institution is clearly pledged to fight against the Church and the well-ordered State, and to serve the interests of Judaism as embodied in the Talmud. For these grave reasons several Popes recognized the threat posed by this subversive secret society and censured it in the strongest possible terms. 7

Nevertheless, Masons bored from within, in accordance with their own plans which had been exposed by Monsignor Dillon in 1884 and published by Pope Leo XIII one year later at his own expense—–after the Pope had himself written Humanum Genus, the most expansive papal condemnation of Freemasonry ever penned. 8 One of the ensuing Masonic triumphs against the Church was clearly the wreckage of the liturgy, led by one of their own members, as we have seen. The hallmarks of treachery are apparent to those with eyes to see and a sensus Catholicus and need no recapitulation here. But this background of anti-Christian subversion and intrigue needs to be stressed to understand the truly blasphemous substitution of the Offertory with a nearly verbatim passage from the masters to whom the Masonic institution is pledged in service as evidenced in the Royal Arch Degree referenced above.

A modern myth is that this “Jewish table blessing” has its roots in worship from the time of Ezra. Searching the Bible should reveal that this story is absent from the pages of Holy Writ. Where, then, does it originate? The Jewish Encyclopedia 9 (published 1901-1906, consisting of twelve volumes) tells us, in its article on Benedictions, that this story of the origin of “blessings” in Judaism is a “rabbinical tradition” in the Talmud itself—–in Berakoth 33a, as indeed it is. As a source of history, however, the Talmud should as a rule be rejected—–just as one should reject the Talmudic stories that the Blessed Virgin Mary was a “harlot” (Sanhedrin l06a), that Adam had sexual intercourse with all the animals in the Garden of Eden (Yebamoth 63a), that Jesus “learned witchcraft in Egypt” —–(Shabbos l04b), or that Jesus is in Hell being boiled in “hot excrement” (Gittin 57a). One must emphasize that these passages and many others, long denied by Rabbis, have been included in the most recent and authoritative translation of the Talmud—–several volumes of which are still in production—–rendered by the noted Talmudic scholar Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz. Rabbi Steinsaltz comments on prior truncated and censored versions of the Talmud: “Wherever the Talmud makes derogatory reference to Jesus or to Christianity in general, the comment was completely erased, and the name of Christ was systematically removed . . . ” 10

In The Essential Talmud, Rabbi Steinsaltz writes of the supreme importance of the Babylonian Talmud: “Babylonian scholars were soon attracted to the new center and thousands of disciples flocked to study there.” 11 What Christ condemned as “the traditions of the elders” (Mark 7:1-13), Rabbi Steinsaltz calls the “oral law,” stating that “the work of preserving and codifying the vast body of oral law went on for several generations . . . ” 12 This oral law was eventually written down as the Talmud, the most important and authoritative version being the lengthy Babylonian Talmud. Rabbi Steinsaltz traces the gradual development and redaction of the Babylonian Talmud, commenting that “the natural authorities best equipped to clarify problems were the heads of the great Babylonian academies of Sura and Pumbedita”. Their authority was unquestioned, and consequently the Talmud assumed the greatest possible importance, eclipsing the Old Testament as the central text of Judaism: “Historically speaking,” writes Rabbi Steinsaltz, “the Talmud is the central pillar of Jewish culture” 13—–note: the Talmud, not the Old Testament. From the redacted Talmudic oral traditions, which Christ denounced as a special mark of the Pharisees and Scribes, came what we know today to be Judaism. And it is from this false religion, premised on the rejection of Jesus, that the replacement of the Offertory in the Mass was culled.
Some might respond that Judaism is not a different religion, but merely an earlier “phase” of the covenant now called Christianity, 14 with prayers which after all are directed to the same God. In response to this completely false characterization—–confusing as it does the faith of the Israelites with the corruptions of the Pharisees, already well-entrenched in the time of Christ—–I will quote a Doctor of the Church universally neglected today. St. John Chrysostom responds incisively: “But at any rate the Jews say that they, too, adore God. God forbid that I say that. No Jew adores God! Who says so? The Son of God says so. For He said, ‘If you were to know My Father, you would also know Me. But you neither know Me nor do you know My Father.’ Could I produce a witness more trustworthy than the Son of God?” 15

The true origin of the so-called “Jewish table blessing” is by all evidence the Talmud itself, since absent any other testimony one cannot attribute an authentic Old Testament origin to the practices of those who freely invented so many objectionable traditions that Christ Himself condemned them on several occasions (Mark 7:1-13; Matthew 15:1-9; Matthew 23:25-26). Hence in the Jewish Encyclopedia explanation of “Benedictions,” we find that “in the course of time all these benedictions assumed a stereotyped form; and the rule is given by Rab that, to be regarded as a regular benediction (Ber. 40b), every benediction must contain the name of God, and by R. Johanan that it must contain the attribute of God’s kingship.” In other words, the Talmud and its rabbinical authors dictated the form of the blessing in Judaism which we later find brazenly imported into the New Mass by Bugnini’s committee.

By the time of Vatican II, of course, the voices crying out for “peace with Judaism” were strong. A new “appreciation” of Judaism was underway in the Church, culminating in the decree of Nostra Aetate that the Jews did not kill Jesus. 16  Flogged by the whip of the Holocaust, the Church was on the run and trying to prove its sympathy for synagogues. If only Paul VI, in reviewing this audacious “swap” in the Mass, had heeded the strong exhortation of St. John Chrysostom: “Since there are some who think of the synagogue as a holy place, I must say a few words to them. Why do you reverence that place? Must you not despise it, hold it in abomination, run away from it? They answer that the Law and the books of the prophets are kept there. What is this? Will any place where these books are be a holy place? By no means! This is the reason above all others why I hate the synagogue and abhor it. They have the prophets but do not believe them; they read the sacred writings but reject their witness—–and this is a mark of men guilty of the greatest outrage.” 17   But the advice of this Doctor of the Church was not only ignored, one could say it has been the target of a papal apology actually given within the Synagogue of Rome on April 13, 1986. 18

The source of the replacement for the Offertory is clarified in the Jewish Encyclopedia, which introduces a list of “benedictions prescribed in the Talmud and adopted in the liturgy; each of them beginning with the formula ‘Blessed art Thou, O Lord, Our God, King of the Universe’!” Although the liturgy of Judaism is intended in the above reference, ironically this Talmudic benediction became repeated almost verbatim in the New Mass, But of even greater irony is the fact that in this instance the Latin is closer in form to the Talmud than the English translation done by the ICEL: for the Latin reads, Benedictus es, Domine, Deus universi, which translated literally becomes Blessed are You, Lord, God of the universe, whereas the common translation one encounters is Blessed are You, Lord God of all creation. The difference is small, but the Latin more explicitly parallels the Talmud, Tragically, those who hope for a “purification” of the New Mass by rendering it in Latin would only render the blasphemous parallel between the Offertory’s replacement and the Talmud more exact.

As One reads the Talmud and the Jewish Encyclopedia, it becomes apparent that this formula extends to all benedictions, not merely to table blessings. By the 2nd Century, states the Jewish Encyclopedia, “they were already fixed as to form and number, since R. Meïr declares it to be the duty of everyone to say one hundred benedictions daily . . . ” These “benedictions” include reciting a “blessing” after vacating one’s bowels (“who has formed man in wisdom and created many orifices . . . “), thanking God for not making one a Gentile, and thanking God “who hast not made me a woman.”

The basic structure of benedictions was eventually crystallized into eighteen. Rabbi Steinsaltz comments, “The Great Assembly . . . decided to compose a standard prayer reflecting the wishes and aspirations of the entire people. It was composed of eighteen benedictions, each dealing in brief with one subject. This prayer, most of which has survived to the present-day and still constitutes the basis of the synagogue service, consists of three opening benedictions, three closing benedictions, and twelve intermediate ones containing various requests and supplications.” 19  Of particular note, however, is the fact that the daily “blessings” of Judaism contain a curse against Christians. As Professor Israel Shahak of  Hebrew University tells us, “in the most important section of the weekday prayer—–the ‘eighteen blessings’—–there is a special curse, originally directed against Christians, Jewish converts to Christianity and other Jewish heretics: ‘And may the apostates have no hope, and all the Christians perish instantly.’ 20” Rabbi Steinsaltz comments, “One of the alterations introduced into the service shortly after the destruction [of the Second Temple] was not, however, connected to the Temple itself but to the problem of the heretic, Gnostic and Christian sects . . . Matters reached such a pass that the Sanhedrin sages at Yavneh decided to add to the Shemoneh Esreh an additional benediction (which is in fact a curse) on heretics 21 . . .” One can see that the prayer-form in the New Mass was used not only for table and even bathroom “blessings” but also to introduce curses of Christians, as even hesitantly admitted by Rabbi Steinsaltz.

Such is the chill-inducing context of the source of the prayer which replaced the Offertory in the New Mass. Let us be frank: the context is nothing short of blasphemy and sacrilege, for the Talmud and its authors were filled with hatred and curses—–verifiable today in the Steinsaltz Talmud—–against Christ and Christians.22  The fact that the version of the prayer present in the New Mass is not overtly blasphemous is no more defense of its inclusion than would be the liturgical importing of an innocent-sounding passage from Satanist Meister Crowley’s Book of the Law 23  in the name of reaching out to the “misguided” or “connecting with those who have a Seed of the Word however obscure.” Let us sweep aside such transparent hogwash and call a spade a spade, a blasphemy a blasphemy, and loudly and persistently demand of Rome the full restoration of what is ours by right: a Mass not born in treason and marked by sacrilege.

For the Council Fathers were duly warned—–as was Paul VI. To quote from the book handed to each bishop at the Second Vatican Council, “The most infamous conspiracy is in progress against the Church. Her enemies are working to destroy the most holy traditions and thus to introduce dangerous and evil-intended reforms . . . They manifest a hypocritical zeal to modernize the Church and to adapt it to the present-day situation; but in reality they conceal the secret intention of opening the gates . . . to prepare the further destruction of Christianity. All this it is intended to put into effect at the coming Vatican Council. We have proofs of how everything is being planned in secret agreement . . .24  But today we do not need proof of treasonous planning, for we can see the results in the implementation of the  post-conciliar reforms—–including the reform of the liturgy. And nowhere is the hand of an enemy more clearly apparent than in the replacement of the Offertory with words which are a hallmark of a different religion, reproduced from the premier anti-Christian text in the broad history of human resistance to grace.

Craig Heimbichner is a convert and recognized expert on Freemasonry and the occult. A speaker and writer, he is available to discuss the dangers of the occult and its influence are today. He may be reached in care of Catholic Family News. 
1. For this reason the Talmud was ordered burned by Innocent IV in Bulle Impia Judeorum Perfidia, and later again by several Popes.
2. The facts were related in a September 12, 1978 article in Osservatore Politico in Rome, Italy entitled La gran loggia vaticana. The author reportedly died after printing the list of prelates.
3. Captain William Morgan, a Royal Arch Freemason, published the Masonic rituals and secret oaths in 1827. He was kidnapped and murdered by fellow Masons, an event which led to the original third political party in the United States: the Anti-Mason Party.
4. Hebrew for “holy” or “consecrated.”
5. See Secret Societies Illustrated, published by Masonic publisher Ezra A. Cook Publications, Inc., p. 123.
6. Duncan‘s Masonic Ritual and Monitor, Malcolm C. Duncan, p. 249.
7. The excommunication of Freemasons was removed from the 1983 Code of Canon Law, although Cardinal Ratzinger subsequently clarified on November 26, 1983 that membership is a “grave sin” which excludes one from lawful reception of Holy Communion. One wonders, however, why the explicit canonical ban was removed. It is certainly true that many Catholics heard of this change and joined Masonic Lodges.
8. The reader is referred to the excellent summary of these documents by John Vennari, The Permanent Instruction of the Alta Vendita: A Masonic Blueprint for the Subversion of the Catholic Church, (TAN Books and Publishers, Inc.) Available from Catholic Family News, $4.00US postpaid.
9. Available online at www. 
10. Adin Steinsaltz, The Essential Talmud, p. 84.
11. Adin Steinsaltz, Ibid., p. 43.
12. Steinsaltz, Ibid., p. 41.
13. Ibid., p. 266.
14. The unbiblical and unCatholic premise of Cardinal Ratzinger’s work, Many Religions—–One Covenant: Israel, the Church and the World, Ignatius Press, 1999. 
15. St. John Chrysostom, Discourse on Judaizing Christians, III (2).
16. The day this was decreed, St. Simon of Trent was removed from the Roman Calendar—–the child Martyr who had been killed by Jews on Good Friday out of hatred of Christ.
17. St. John Chrysostom, Ibid., V (2).
18. John Paul II was directly confronted on this occasion with the burning of the Talmud by his predecessors. His response was to apologize for “the acts of discrimination, unjustified limitation of religious freedom . . . in regard to the Jews . . . by anyone,” and he added,”I repeat, by anyone.” See Luigi Accattoli, Man of the Millennium: John Paul II, pp. 139-40. If John Paul II included prior Popes in his apology, by clear implication he included St. John Chrysostom, who was famous for his fiery denunciation of Talmudic poison.
19. Adin Steinsaltz, Ibid., pp. 101-102.
20. Israel Shahak, Jewish History, Jewish Religion, p. 63.
21. Adin Steinsaltz, Ibid., p. 105.
22. An excellent summary of these passages can be obtained in the concise reference work Judaism’s Strange Gods by Michael A. Hoffman II.
23. For example, would a neo-Catholic object to the phrase, “There is no bond that can unite the divided but love”? Innocent enough in itself, it is a quotation from the odious Masonic Book of the Law of Crowley, which, liketheTalmud, contains blasphemy against Jesus and Mary. If one finds a quote from Crowley objectionable—–as one should—–the objection holds a fortiori against the Rabbis who lived closer to the time of Christ, and yet denigrated Him with even worse blasphemy in the Talmud.
24. Maurice Pinay, The Plot Against the Church, p. 15.

Montinian Rite of Confirmation

[to be read with:]

“Confirmation is the Sacrament by which the Holy Ghost comes to us in a special way and enables us to profess our faith as strong and perfect Christians and soldiers of Jesus Christ.” [1]

The nature of this Sacrament has been changed into a Christian initiation ceremony as a result of the Vatican II Constitution of the Sacred Liturgy and the Apostolic Constitution of Paul VI. The revised rites were issued on August 15, 1971 and became mandatory in the United States of America on January 1, 1973. Paul VI declared,

“It has been our wish also to include in this revision what concerns the very essence of the rite of confirmation.”[2]

The Matter of Confirmation

The essential matter for the Sacrament of Confirmation, according to the opinion of most theologians, is the imposition of hands and the anointing with Holy Chrism. In the new rite established by Paul VI’s Apostolic Constitution  Divinae Consortium Naturae, and based on his personal reply to a query,

“…only the initial blessing over all the confirmands has been retained.”

The individual laying of the hands at the time of the actual anointing has been suppressed. He stated that anointing with chrism,

“…sufficiently expressed the laying on of hands.”

“This decision is interesting in view of the statement of Father Pourrat that ‘in the Apostolic Age, the matter of Confirmation was the imposition of hands; and after the second century, it was, besides, the anointing with Holy Chrism.’ [3]

This constitutes a clear cut departure from both Scriptural and Patristic custom.”[4]

The remote matter for the Sacrament of Confirmation is holy chrism which is a mixture of olive oil and balsam consecrated by the bishop on Holy Thursday.

“The Congregation for Divine Worship issued a directive in 1971 permitting the use of other oils – from plants, seeds or coconuts – instead of the traditional olive oil in administering some of the Sacraments.” [5]

The Change from olive oil to ant vegetable oil and the suppression of the laying on of hands raises a serious doubt regarding the validity of the matter in the new rite of Confirmation.

The Form of Confirmation

The form of the Sacrament of Confirmation has been the same for centuries.

“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.”[6]

The formula was specified by both the Council of Florence (1438-45) and the Council of Trent (1545-63). Earlier forms have all been substantially the same.

Deception was employed by Paul VI is establishing a new form for Confirmation. He claimed that in changing the essential words of the Sacrament he was merely reverting to the ancient Byzantine form, signaculum doni Spiritus Sancti. The addition of the word accipi (receive) substantially changed the sense of the words. The new form is,

“Be sealed with the Gift of the Holy Ghost.”[7]

The situation was acceptable to protestants since it implies a vague reception of the gifts of the Holy Ghost and not the simultaneous reception of an indelible mark on the soul. The old form signified that the bishop imposed the Sacrament. The new form signifies a blessing received by the candidate. The old ceremony included a special ceremony in which,

“The bishop delivers a slight blow to the cheek, an adaptation of the symbolic sword stroke of medieval knighting ceremonies that meant the recipient was now a ‘soldier of Christ’ ready to die for his faith.  The soldier days are over.”[8]

This ceremony has been replaced in the United States since Vatican II with a handshake. The new ceremony has the newly confirmed bring up the offertory gifts and includes communion under both species.

“There is yet a further problem with Paul VI’s Divinae Consortium Naturae. In it he states that the rite of Confirmation ‘recalls’ what took place on Pentecost. This is a faulty notion of a Sacrament. The gifts of the Holy Ghost are bestowed once again through the rites of the Church, and not simply ‘recalled.’ “ [9]

The Sacrament of Confirmation has been substantially changed. This raises serious doubts as to its validity

Fr. Francisco Radecki, CMRI

Fr. Dominic Radecki, CMRI

Mary Immaculate Queen Press, Spokane, Washington99217.


[1] Rev. Francis J. Connell, C.SS.R., S.T.D., New Baltimore Catechism, Q. 330, 1949.

[2] Divinum Consortium Naturae, p. 3.

[3] Rev. P. Pourrat, Theology of the Sacraments, p. 85

[4] Rama Coomaraswamy, M.D., Problems with the New Sacraments, pp. 70-71.

[5] Felician Foy, OFM, 1990 Catholic Almanac, p. 220.

[6] Rev. Paul Griffith, Priest’s New Ritual, pp. 244e-f.

[7] Christopher Farrell, C.SS.R. and Thomas Artz, C.SS.R. The Sacraments Today, p.49.

[8] Time, September 27, 1971.

[9] Rama Coomaraswamy, M.D., The Problem with the new post-Conciliar Sacraments, pp. 72-73.

Montinian Rite of Anointing of the Sick

Posted on August 6, 2012 by The Voice Of Bombay’s Catholic Laity

[To be read with:]

 Catholics who are in danger of death from sickness, accident, or old age should receive the Sacrament of Extreme Unction for the strengthening of their souls and the remission of their sins.

      “The term is called Extreme Unction because it is the last of the holy annointings to be administered in life.”[1]  The Council of Trent enumerates its salutary effects upon the soul:

For the thing signified is the grace of the Holy Spirit Whose anointing blots out sins if any remain to be expiated, and also the remains of sin, and raises up and strengthens the soul of the sick person by exciting in him a great confidence in the Divine Mercy, sustained by which he bears more lightly the troubles and pains of his illness, and resists more easily the temptation of the devil who lies in wait for his heel; and sometimes when expedient for the welfare of his soul restores bodily health.[2]

Therefore, Extreme Unction produces three principal effects:

·       It confers grace and remits sins.

·       It comforts the sick.

·       It restores health to the body if it is for the good of the soul.

In his epistle, St. James describes the administration of Extreme Unction in the early Church: “Is any man sick among you?  Let him bring in the priests of the Church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord.  And the prayer of faith shall save the sick man: and the Lord shall raise him up: and if he be in sins, they shall be forgiven him.”[3]  The Council of Trent explains the great consolation afforded by the reception of this sacrament:

He [Christ] prepared the greatest aids, whereby during life Christians may preserve themselves whole from every more grievous spiritual evil, so did He guard the close of life, by the Sacrament of Extreme Unction, as with a firm defense.  For though our adversary [the devil] seeks and seizes opportunities all our life long to be able in any way to devour our souls; yet is there no time wherein he strains more vehemently all the powers of his craft to ruin us utterly and, if he can possibly, to make us fall even from trust in the mercy of God, than when he perceives the end of our life to be at hand.[4]

The Matter of Extreme Unction

      The Catholic Church teaches that “the valid matter of Extreme Unction is olive oil duly blessed for this purpose by a bishop or a priest who has obtained the faculty to do so from the Apostolic See.”[5]  TheCatechism of the Council of Trent says: “Its element, then, or matter, as defined by Councils, particularly by the Council of Trent, consists of oil consecrated by the Bishop.  Not any kind of oil extracted from fatty or greasy substances, but olive oil alone.”[6]

“St. James in saying, ‘Anointing with oil,’ employs the Greek word elaion,  which literally means oil of olives.  Consequently oil of olives is the remote matter of the Sacrament of Extreme Unction.  This deduction is expressly confirmed by the Decretum pro Armenis [D 700].  All other oils, such as that derived from nuts, sesame, etc., are not valid matter for Extreme Unction.”[7]

Anointing of the Sick

      Perhaps the most tragic and treacherous alteration in the sacraments occurred in Extreme Unction, for it simply does not exist in the NewChurch.  The Vatican II Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy decreed that the “prayers accompanying the rite of anointing are to be revised.”[8]  Extreme Unction has been replaced with an Anointing of the Sick, thus depriving hundreds of millions of the numerous graces of this sacrament.  Paul VI changed the matter and form in 1972.  The new rite became mandatory on January 1, 1974.

The Matter of the Anointing of the Sick

      In order to validly confer Extreme Unction, a priest must use olive oil that is validly consecrated.  Paul VI authorized the use of various types of vegetable oil for the anointing of the sick, although this is in direct opposition to the teachings of the Catholic Church which specifically require olive oil for the validity of this sacrament.  Doubtful matter could invalidate the rite.[9]  Msgr. Joseph Pohle affirms that the oil of the sick must be blessed by a bishop:

Tradition since Pope Innocent I [401-417 AD] insists on the oil being blessed by a bishop, which indicates that this blessing is the condition for validity.  …In 1842, the Congregation of the Holy Office, reaffirming a previous decree, replied negatively to the query whether a parish priest, in case of necessity, could validly use oil blessed by himself.[10]

The PostconciliarChurch in defiance of previous declarations, “empowers” priests to bless the oil of the sick.  “In case of necessity, a priest himself may bless the oil.  (A draft of the rite, which appeared in 1970, would have allowed the priest to do the blessing whenever it seemed pastorally appropriate.)”[11]  This action assures the invalidity of the rite.

The Form is Changed

      Extreme Unction has specific prayers for the anointing of each sense: “Through this holy unction and His own most tender mercy, may the Lord pardon you whatever sins you have committed by (sight, hearing, smell, taste, speech, touch and walking).”[12]

The form used in the (Vatican II) Anointing of the Sick is: “Through this holy anointing may the Lord in his love and mercy help you with the grace of the Holy Spirit.  Amen.  May the Lord who frees you from sins save you and raise you up.  Amen.”[13]

At first sight, the wording for the Anointing of the Sick may seem to be very similar to Extreme Unction.  Nevertheless, upon further examination it is found to be very ambiguous.  The new form also omits the important words “May the Lord pardon thee whatever sins you have committed.”  These words express the primary effects of the sacrament: the healing and strengthening of the soul, the remission of venial sins and the cleansing of the soul from the remains of sin.  According to St. Thomas Aquinas, Extreme Unction was instituted for “…the health of the soul which is effected by strengthening of the soul through grace and by the remission of sins.”[14]

In his encyclical Apostolicae Curae, Pope Leo XIII taught that the sacraments “…ought both to signify the grace which they effect and effect the grace which they signify.” He also declared, “That form consequently cannot be considered apt or sufficient for the sacrament which omits what it ought essentially to signify.”  Accordingly, the change in wording has resulted in an essential change in meaning, more than likely rendering this sacrament invalid.

The Recipient of Extreme Unction

      Concerning the recipients of Extreme Unction, the Baltimore Catechism teaches: “All Catholics who have reached the use of reason and are in danger of death from sickness, accident, or old age should receive Extreme Unction.”  According to the new rite, “People no longer need to be dying or even look sick, to receive the [new] Sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick.”[15]  The American bishops even issued guidelines expressing that the illness need not be physical, but could be an emotional or spiritual crisis.  “It can be performed for an individual, a group or at a special Mass of anointing in a parish, hospital or home for the aged.”[16]

During their last moments on earth, whether caused by sickness or sudden accident, Catholics customarily call upon a priest to administer the Last Sacraments of Penance, Extreme Unction and Holy Eucharist.[17]  As their eternity hangs in the balance and they prepare to meet their Judge, devout souls seek the sacrament of pardon and reassurance.  At this critical moment, Postconciliar Catholics are denied Extreme Unction and receive merely the spiritual equivalent of a get well card due to essential changes in the sacrament.

Doubtful Validity of the New Sacraments

      The new sacraments of the PostconciliarChurch are substantially different from those instituted by Christ.  At this point one must pose the question, if a particular item (matter, form or intention) was not important, why has the Church used specific ceremonies for the sacraments for nearly 2,000 years?  Why has it been so careful to preserve them in their exact form?  Who gave the Modernists of Vatican II the authority to declare that the sacraments are now subject to arbitrary change?  Did Christ make a mistake when He first instituted the sacraments?  Has He suddenly changed His mind?  Were the previous popes and 20 General Councils of the Church wrong?  If a priest can simply change the sacraments by his own authority, willy-nilly, how can we be sure of their efficacy?

The new rites of Confirmation, Holy Eucharist, Holy Orders (especially the Ordination of Bishops) and the Anointing of the Sick have been altered to such an extent that at best, their validity is extremely doubtful.

Conditional Sacraments

      The Catholic Church specifically teaches us what to do in case of doubt regarding the reception of the sacraments: “When the invalidity of a sacrament is certain, the sacrament must be repeated absolutely; when the invalidity is doubtful, it must be repeated conditionally.”[18]

Fr. Henry Davis, S.J. further clarifies this point:

The repetition of the sacrament ought to be done where its validity is doubted—or rather, so long as its validity is not morally certain—in cases when the sacrament is necessary, whether absolutely and of its nature, as Baptism, or relatively and in respect of the good of others, as Ordination, absolution, Extreme Unction.  Consequently, in doubt as to validity, Baptism, Ordination, absolution of the dying, Extreme Unction of the unconscious, and consecration of doubtfully consecrated hosts, must be repeated.[19]

Fr. Francisco Radecki, CMRI

[1] Nicholas Halligan, O.P., The Administration of the Sacraments, p. 617.

[2] Conc. Trid. 1, 14, ch. 2.

[3] James 5: 14-15.

[4] Session XIV, Chapter IX, November 25, 1551.

[5] Code of Canon Law (1918), Canon 945, Council of Trent, D 908.

This is confirmed by the Council of Florence—D 700.

[6] Part II, p. 309.

[7] Msgr. Joseph Pohle, The Sacraments, Vol. IV, pp. 16-17.

[8] Chapter 3, no. 75.

[9] See footnote 606.

[10] Msgr. Joseph Pohle, The Sacraments, Vol. IV, p. 18.

[11] Michael Glazier and Monika Hellwig, Modern Catholic Encyclopedia, pp. 761-762.

[12] Fr. Paul Griffith, Priest’s New Ritual, pp. 77-79.

[13] ICEL, The Rites of the Catholic Church as Revised by the Second Vatican Ecumenical

      Council, Vol. I, p. 825.

[14] St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theol. Suppl. 29, 1.

[15] John Dietzen, New Question Box, p. 429.

[16] Joseph Martos, The Church’s Sacraments: Anointing of the Sick, p. 14.

[17] Holy Viaticum—food for the journey.

[18] Fr. Henry Davis, S.J., Moral and Pastoral Theology, Vol. III, p. 25.

[19] Moral and Pastoral Theology, Vol. III, p. 25.

About The Voice Of Bombay's Catholic Laity

Bombay Laity Ezekiel’s Chapter 3 Task as Watchman 17 “Son of man, I have made you a watchman for the people of Israel; so hear the word I speak and give them warning from me. 18 When I say to a wicked person, ‘You will surely die,’ and you do not warn them or speak out to dissuade them from their evil ways in order to save their life, that wicked person will die for[b] their sin, and I will hold you accountable for their blood. 19 But if you do warn the wicked person and they do not turn from their wickedness or from their evil ways, they will die for their sin; but you will have saved yourself.
This entry was posted in Catholics For Preservation of Faith. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to An Open Letter to the new Bishops- Arthur D’Mello and John Menezes

  1. My goodness, all this grandiose writing and quotes from various sources; my rough guess is that almost all who read this will not be able to fathom what it is all about; here I ask for pardon for my ignorance.
    Are we not losing the basic fact that what is really needed to make our Church what JESUS intended — virtue, honesty and that all these pontificators transform their lives to become TRUE SHEPHERDS as JESUS had intended

  2. Pingback: An Open Letter to the new Bishops- Arthur D’Mello and John Menezes |

  3. Extract from The Examiner.
    A Great Challenge awaits!
    Fr Pravin Fernandes

    From the time Matthias was chosen by lots to replace Judas Iscariot as one of the twelve apostles, the process by which bishops, the successors of the Apostles, are selected has been an important and often controversial issue in the church.

    The consecration of two auxiliary bishops for the Archdiocese of Bombay gives us an opportunity to reflect on the seriousness of this office and the qualities required of its candidates.

    The Vatican norms for the selection of candidates for the Episcopate in the Latin Church are very explicit about the qualities required for this awesome responsibility. A bishop must be a good pastor of souls and a teacher of the Faith. Ecclesiastical authorities must examine whether the candidates enjoy a good reputation; whether they are of irreproachable morality; whether they are
    endowed with right judgement and prudence; whether they are even-tempered and of stable character; whether they firmly hold the orthodox Faith; whether they are devoted to the Apostolic See and are faithful to the magisterium of the church; whether they have a thorough knowledge of dogmatic and moral theology and canon law; whether they are outstanding in their piety, their spirit of sacrifice and pastoral zeal and whether they have an aptitude for governing.Consideration must also be given to intellectual qualities, studies completed, social sense, a spirit of dialogue and co-operation,openness to the signs of the times,praiseworthy impartiality, good family background and sound health.

    This is a daunting list indeed that would challenge the best of us. The complexity of the modern world calls for a great deal of competence and heroism. The spiritual aspirations of people of varied religious persuasions beckon.

    Long-held moral principles that informed our decisions are being discarded for beliefs that are expedient and profitable.

    Unimaginable poverty has reached proportions that can no longer be ignored.

    We hope and pray that our freshly minted bishops will ‘step up to the plate’ (to use a term from baseball) and not ‘strike out’ but deliver two resounding home runs and so measure up to the bated expectations of so many.

  4. how come the spokesperson of The A B House maintains total silence.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

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

Google photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s