[Question:]{.underline} How is it possible to refuse a law coming from the Church, such as the change of “for many” into “for all” in the consecration of the Precious Blood at Mass?
[Answer:]{.underline} This particular change in the words of consecration, the most serious in the New Mass, was not a part of the New Mass as “promulgated” (Note that properly speaking it was not really promulgated, both from the point of view of the formalities involved and from that of content) by Paul VI on April 3, 1969 in his letter Missale Romanum. In the Latin text the words “for many” are retained. This change is consequently one of translation However, it was manifestly not be accident that in all the modern European languages except Portuguese and Polish this same “error” of translation was committed. It is a manifest effort to undermine the clear teaching found in all three synoptic gospels that the efficacity of Christ’s shedding His blood is limited to a many souls, and not to all souls. The reason behind this change is consequently the modernist teaching on universal salvation, according to which Christ saved all human nature by his death on the Cross, whether people know it or not.
Since this is a change that manifestly undermines Catholic doctrine, it is equally clear that the traditional Catholic cannot accept it. The objection is then made as to how a Catholic can refuse such a disciplinary law, that purports to come from the Church? As Pope Gregory XVI pointed out, since “the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth” how could it “order, yield to, or permit those things which tend toward the destruction of souls and the disgrace and detriment of the sacraments instituted by Christ” (Quo graviora)? It is manifestly impious to think that the Church herself, the immaculate spouse of Christ, can order or command something contrary to the Faith or to the salvation of souls. It is in effect a condemned proposition of the heretical Council of Pistoia that the Church “could impose a disciplinary law that would be not only useless and more burdensome for the faithful than Christian liberty allows, but also dangerous and harmful” (Pius VI, Auctorem fidei).
The true Catholic cannot, of course, deny the essential role of the Holy Ghost in governing the Church and its disciplinary laws, that is its ecclesiastical tradition. However, it is manifestly obvious that this change of “for many” to “for all” is not a disciplinary law of the Church. Although tolerated practically everywhere, it was never “promulgated” by the Pope, and was simply allowed to happen. Manifestly also, it could not be a law of the Church for it is opposed to the constant doctrinal teaching and liturgical practice, that is to constant unanimous ecclesiastical and apostolic Tradition. It is consequently not of the Church at all, but of certainly churchmen, who have infiltrated it into the vernacular versions of the New Missal. It is an abuse, and it is modernist, and consequently could not possible at a disciplinary law of the Church.
The same can be said of the other, but less obvious aspects of the New Mass that express modernism. They cannot be a true law, as St. Thomas Aquinas says (Ia IIae 96, 4), quoting St. Augustine, because unjust laws are not laws at all. Laws are manifestly unjust that are opposed to the divine Good, that is to the Truth, holiness and sanctity of God, His Church and the sacraments. Yet this is precisely what the Novus Ordo Mass is. It undermines the Catholic teaching on the Mass as a true, propitiatory sacrifice, not to mention the sacredness of and devotion to the Blessed Sacrament (Communion in the hand is only one small part of this attack on the Real Presence), and the whole mystery of the Church, the Communion of the saints, and reparation for our sins. Consequently, even if it were correctly promulgated by a Pope, in such a way as to make it appear obligatory (which is not, in fact, the case), it would still be an unjust and invalid law. There is absolutely no contradiction between accepting that the Pope truly is Pope, and rejecting these laws that are manifestly not a work of the Church, nor does it demean the Church’s disciplinary and liturgical laws. In fact, it is because of our understanding of these laws, and of the reasons behind them, and of how perfectly they express Catholic doctrine, life and piety, that we are bound to refuse these pretend laws that are not really Catholic laws at all.
The sedevacantists make much ado about the infallibility of disciplinary laws. It is true that they can participate in the infallibility of the Ordinary Magisterium, inasmuch as they imply a teaching that has always and everywhere been taught by the Church. Such is the case of the Bull Quo Primum, which most solemnly gives priests the right to celebrate the traditional Mass in perpetuity, precisely because St. Pius V guaranteed the fact that it perfectly expresses the Catholic Faith and spirituality concerning the Mass. However, a defective law, or a law that is unjust and unholy because it does not adequately express the teaching of the Church manifestly does not participate in the infallibility of the Ordinary Magisterium, which has to be universal in time and place to be infallible. Consequently, the sedevacantists’ affirmation that we cannot accept that the Pope is the Pope without accepting that all his laws are infallible, is manifestly preposterous. To the contrary, it is our duty to pray that the Pope use his authority in line with unchanging Tradition, in which case his laws will be infallible. This has happened extremely rarely under John Paul II, but is certainly the case of his refusal to accept the ordination of women to the priesthood.
Answered by Father Peter Scott, SSPX.