Customer Reviews

The Great Sacrilege

5 star:		(6)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

My copy of this book was copyrighted in 1971, when the changes and impact of the New Mass were fresh in most minds.

Reading this book now does allow one to take a little step back to see what the thinking was just after the New Mass was released and in fact challenges the reader to take that "step back and let's take a look at things as the fruits of that New Mass today." To many it may seem like an "I told you so, you are so phony" but I didnt't see it that way.

The New Mass was thrown at all Catholics in the most brutal of of ways. But most bishops thought it was a no-brainer (though misguided) idea that most dissenters could easily be suppressed and that a New Mass, which was not called for by Vatican II, now would take on a take-this and live-with approach and most would go along with the changes because obedience was rated and accepted as more important than the first Commandment of God at the time. "Obey the New Mass or get out" was the basis of the late 60's message to priests. Hardly consistent with the "love everyone" Vatican II message but that's another book.

I'm sure most bishops would like to go back and do some damage control created by the New Mass, even though they cannot swallow their pride in denouncing the New Mass completely. So far Cardinal Ratzinger, the Pope's right hand man, has taken positive steps in the right direction on liturgy. I don't know though, whether he would completely agree with all the points made by Fr/Mr Wathen. But the book is definitely an interesting read, whether you agree or disagree. It certainly does not bore one to death with modernistic, rock-n'roll, and Love Boat philosophies, which you would expect to find at any cheap religious bookstore these days.

Father Wathen may be the greatest thinker of our times and it shows in this outstanding book. What seemed to be hidden from the eyes of the Church, and the world, in regards to the sacriligious nature of Bugnini's concoction 40 years ago is undeniable today! Fr. Wathen's book has stood the test of time and the conciliarists remain exposed as frauds. Every priest and lay person should read "The Great Sacrilege" to learn how their Catholic Faith has been stolen from them since the modernist anti-Catholic forces took away the real Mass.
However great this book, Fr. Wathen's follow-up may be his masterpiece - "Who Shall Ascend?" is a must read; a must own!

I can't state it better than a traditional Roman Catholic priest, who will remain anonymous, refuting Brother Alexis Bugnolo:

Fr. Wathen's seminal work has been proven time and again since its publication in 1971. There is no need to get into an endless point-counterpoint. You have to stop at some point and say "this is what I believe."

All anybody has to do is objectively look at the denial of the Catholic Faith that the Novus Ordo worship service has produced in thirty years, and no further proof is needed about the practical consequences, as they are plain to see. "Tolle Missam, tolle Ecclesiam," was Luther's cry. Now that the Mass is destroyed in the New Order Church, the Church, that is, the Catholic Faith, has been effectively destroyed there. It remains only with those Catholics who stand fast by the Catholic and Apostolic tradition.

People like Bugnolo love to nit-pick at unimportant points and miss the big picture: the Novus Ordo is not Catholic and never will be.

This book proves:

1. The "New Mass does not involve Papal Infallibility.

2. The Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum of Pope Paul VI is null and void.

3. The Apostolic Constitution Quo Primum of Pope St. Pius V is still in effect.

4. The "Tridentine Mass" is the only Mass of the Latin Rite.

5. The "New Mass" is new.

6. The "New Mass" is illegal.

7. The "New Mass" is not Catholic.

8. The "New Mass" -- if we can believet he Council of Trent and official documents of the Church -- is no Mass at all.

9. The "New Mass" is THE GREAT SACRILEGE.

Fr Wathen got it right and he did it just three years after the N.O. was promulgated. It's so sad that the faithful (if you can call them that considering how many abandoned the faith), and even more sad that the shepherds didn't pay attention. Guess they weren't shepherds but wolves in sheep's clothing. We were warned.

Fr Wathen calls it like it is. The N.O. is a sacrilege and Christ's faithful are to not only not to commit sacrilege themselves but also avoid the nine ways of being an accessory to another sin (in this case the sin of sacrilege). The faithful should not advise another to go to the N.O., they should not consent to going to the N.O., they should not praise the N.O., they should not take part in the N.O., they should not defend the N.O., etc.

Fr Wathen's presentation of the facts are clear. He does make it a point to straighten out anyone who thinks that a Pope is always infallible. Fr Wathen breaks down why Pope Paul VI's promulgation of the N.O. was not an infallible proclamation and therefore could very well be saturated with even the greatest of contaminants to the Faith ... heresy. I do wish that a publisher will pick this work back up and print it (without any edits) again until the N.O. is eradicated.

Other reviewer's have put forth an old argument against Fr Wathen written by Br Alexis Bugnolo. Br Bugnolo's work was titled "A Theological Critique of Rev. James F. Wathen, O.S.J's THE GREAT SACRILEGE, BASED ON THE TEACHINGS OF THE SACRED MAGISTERIUM, THE DOCTORS OF THE CHURCH, THE CANONIZED SAINTS, AND OTHER APPROVED PRE-VATICAN II THEOLOGIANS" by Br. Alexis Bugnolo, 2nd Edition: 2001 A. D.*

Note the asterisks ... Br Bugnolo apparently did further study on what actually constitutes a situation where papal infallibility is applicable to a proclamation. He found that he was wrong. Please see the March 23, 2006 update to what previous reviewers have quoted in support of their negative critique of Fr Wathen's work. The original Br Bugnolo work and the following update can be found at [...]

"* [Author's Note: March 23, 2006. I now consider this argument to be unsound for the following reasons: The general interpretative principle that a universal disciplinary decree is protected from error, on account of the Church's indefectibility, is based on its precise nature both as a universal decree and as an exercise of the infallible Ordinary or Extraordinary Magisterium. Because inasmuch as the decree, even if it virtually teaches in regard to some matter of faith or morals, does not fulfill the other conditions for infallibility established by Pastor Aeternus of Vatican I, it fails to represent that form of the exercise of the Magisterium of the Church which Christ willed to be protected from error. In addition, the Missale Romanum of Paul VI clearly was not a universal norm, because Paul VI never formally made it such, never formally derogated the Old Rite, granted a general exemption for England to use the liturgy of 1965, and did not require the non-Roman Rite Churches in communion with the Apostolic See to use it. Clearly then, it was not a universal decree, nor did it rise to the level of that form of liturgical norm, which expressly confirmed by Trent and the decree of St. Pius V, is expressly recognized as free from error and valid for all times. The constant changes made to the Missal and its translations, norms, rubrics, etc., clarifies that it was never intended to be a stable, liturgical form. For all these reasons, since the very nature of infallibility and indefectibility requires a stable adherence to the deposit of the faith, the Missale Romanum of Paul VI, cannot be considered a universal liturgical norm that is protected by the Church's infallibility or indefectibility. And if not, then it is capable of containing errors, which while not formally heretical, to the extent that it did not intended to contradict or abrogate formally any dogma of the faith, could contain materially grave errors, even those which could not otherwise be founded but upon heresy; and hence virtually could be as detrimental to the Faith and the Church as something formally heretical. As for the rest of the merits of the argument I present in this article, I leave them to be, as a historical testament to my own imperfect understanding of the issues. This article was originally written in 3 days during May of 1998.]"

This is a great book. The review by that person named Shawn is simply not correct. He is not qualified to issue such an opinion.

This is one of the best books I have read on the changes in the Catholic Church in the 1960's. As the years have passed, it only shows how on target that Father James Wathen was about the "new Church"; that it is not longer the Catholic church, but a new version of the protestant churches. He explains each step in the new mass, how it has been changed, and how it was changed the same way with Martin Luther, Cramer, etc. He also explains how each new step offends God and why. Pope Pius V in "Quo Primum" stated that the words of the Mass cannot be changed, and every Priest that took vows pledged that he would never say a different Mass from the Missale Romanum. None of these priest were ever exempted from this vow that they took when ordained. Quo Primum states "This Missal must be used in all the cathedrals, churches, chapels, oratories, etc., of the Roman Rite". Please, for the sake of your soul and those you love, find out how the Mass and Church has been changed from the one true Church Christ founded, and then hold true to the one true faith.

(Conclusion and final comments from Bro. Alexis Bugnolo's critique of "The Great Sacrilege" as contained in the file at http://home.ici.net/~panther/francis/ ).

CONCLUSION

Every substantial charge brought by Fr. Wathen against the Novus Ordo has been proved false. To summarize, Fr. Wather clamed (1) that a Pope can teach heresy or error when promulgating a new Missal for the universal Church, (2) that a Pope cannot abrogate the Missal promulgated by Pope St. Pius V, (3) that it is a sin of sacrilege for the Pope to promulgate a new Missal which changes the Mass, since he does not have the authority to do this, (4) that the new Missal is not the true Mass because it is essentially different, (5) that the form of consecration in the new Missal is defective, and hence its celebration is invalid, (6) that the priest who offers the Novus Ordo is not provided for having a sufficient intention to make the Consecration.

But as we have seen from the teaching of the Popes, Councils, the Doctors and Saints of the Church and from approved pre-Vatican I theologians, quoted by St. Alphonsus, (1) a Pope cannot teach heresy or error when acting as a universal teacher, such as he does in promulgating a New Missal, (3) that a Pope can abrogate a Missal published by his predecessor, (4) since the Pope has the authority to change the Mass, his doing so cannot be a sin of sacrilege, (5) that the form of consecration in the New Mass is valid, since it contains all the essential words, (6) that the new Missal cannot be asserted to be defective in regard to providing for this intention since it is expressly promulgated in continuity with the former Missal.

Therefore, one can reasonably conclude that the argument of Fr. Wathen's book The Great Sacrilege is substantially false. And in as much as it denies Papal authority to issue a new Missal it teaches heresy; and in as much as it charges all those who accept the New Missal with heresy or error or sacrilege, it is calumnious.

FINAL COMMENTS

Fr. Wathen's book proceeded, in the opinion of this author, in an heretical manner, in as much as to prove that a priest could in good conscience disagree with the promulgation of the New Missal by Pope Paul VI, he went so far as to deny Papal Authority and ignored Catholic Teaching regarding what is essential to make the Mass a True Mass. In this Fr. Wathen neglected to recognize that whereas a universal disciplinary enactment of the Roman Pontiff must necessarily be free from heresy and error-on account of Papal Infallibility and the Indefectibility of the Church-there is no guarantee that such a disciplinary measure would be the most perfect possible or would not be promulgated in such a way as to be a cause of scandal to the faithful or of abuses by the clergy. This is what occurred with the promulgation of the New Missal of Pope Paul VI. But there is, in the opinion of this author, no evidence in the external forum that Pope Paul VI intended to scandalize the faithful or to rob them of a spiritual treasure. Rather, from his writings and many talks it is clear that he hoped his enactment would bring great good to the Church.

Likewise, it must be said that with hindsight it is easier to see that the promulgation of a new Missal, which was not requested by the faithful, and which differed in liturgical symbolism, methodology, and legal praxis so much from the former Missal, would be the occasion of grave scandal to the entire Church, attached out of piety to the former Rite and pressed as it was by a world growing every more different and hostile to the Faith and Morals of Christ. The Mass was the anchor of the world, the sole anchor in the time in which Pope Paul VI changed it in so visibly a manner. To expect that the laity, who lived in the world and of necessity had to judge by appearances, would not be confused by this extensive visible transformation of the Mass, is unquestionably and undoubtedly imprudent.

Nevertheless it must be reaffirmed and remembered that none of this makes the new Missal heretical or erroneous in itself. There is a lasting belief and love of the entire Church for the former Missal, among the laity who grew up with it and the laity who never knew it; among the vocations who said it on the day of their first mass and the vocations that long some day to be permitted to do so. This undoubtedly is the work of the Holy Spirit who is a Spirit of peace and reconciliation, of unity and consolation, of truth and beauty, and most of all, of holiness.

May God grant that the Successor of St. Peter continue to foster the Traditional Roman Rite through the entire Church and in every Roman Catholic parish throughout the world. And may He similarly grant the Successors of St. Peter light, wisdom, and fortitude to improve the Missal of Pope Paul VI in such a manner as to stave off scandal among the faithful, and manifest, in accord with the wishes of the Second Vatican Council, more clearly the true nature of the Mass.

End of Bro. Bugnolo's comments.

Finally, Fr. James Wathen was once a Roman catholic priest. He is now no longer in communion with his bishop, nor with the pope in Rome. He has an agenda - the frequently critiqued OSJ. He is no spokesman for the Catholic Church.

It is difficult to improve upon the quoted comments of Bro. Alexis Bugnolo in the previous review. As one who has written on the Mass myself, I am not unfamiliar with Fr. Wathen's arguments . As the reviewer from Ecclesia Militans should know (if they were reasonably schooled on dogmatics which alas they are not), it is not possible for a universally promulgated rite of Mass to be dogmatically deficient. But then the reviewer from Ecclesia Militans has a track record of making serious errors on these issues.

The true sacrilege is people such as Fr. James Wathen, John Brindle and their fellow insolent rebellious so-called 'traditionalists'. In reality they have no idea what they are talking about on a whole truckload of these and other related issues. For those interested in refutations of the arguments of Fr. Wathen, I have dealt with at length with the errors of Fr. Wathen as well as those of Ecclesia Militans and Mr. John Brindle. Email me at the above address and I will direct you to both my online writings (which meticulously refute Wathen's ignorant babbling) as well as Bro. Bugnolo's refutation of Wathen's work. Wathen's book is about as theologically credible as Alexander Hislop's 'Two Babylons' is a historically accurate tome fairly detailing the practices of Catholicism. (For those of you in Palm Beach County, Florida that means it is a worthless source.) No one should waste a dime on this book for anything except to line a birdcage or wrap fish in (or similar usages).