Monday, March 29, 2021

On The Subject Of In Vitro Fertilization


To My Readers: I will be praying you all have a Happy and Blessed Holy Week and Easter in 2021. Thanks to my guest poster, A Simple Man, I  have the opportunity to attend all Holy Week services with greater ease and to spend more time with my family this Easter. As always, I will respond below to any comments, especially those addressed to me. I hope you all enjoy this week's post and find it as interesting and informative as I did!

God Bless you all---Introibo

On the Subject of In Vitro Fertilization

By A Simple Man


[ASM’s Note: This post will be discussing mature topics related to matters of human sexuality, the reproductive act, and certain sins of impurity. Although no vulgarity will be employed by yours truly, the terms employed by approved moral theologians may seem frank and quite candid to impressionable minds. Reader discretion is advised.]

While browsing headlines recently, an article from InsideHook (an online platform dedicated to news and luxury lifestyle articles for affluent men) published on January 8, 2021 caught my eye: “There’s a Pandemic Sperm Shortage, and “Sperm King” Megadonors Are in High Demand.” What an outlandish title, to say the least!

A brief summary follows: as the COVID-derived lockdowns continue on, demand for sperm banks has risen, while “supply” is at a shortage; to meet this demand, men are donating sperm (the “sperm kings” in question) more and more through online networks, sometimes free of charge; the sordid reasons for why these men donate sperm is given (some explicitly want to pass on their genes without the responsibility of parenthood); a linked follow-up article (Bowles, Nellie. “The Sperm Kings Have a Problem: Too Much DemandNew York Times, published Jan. 8, 2021) goes into further detail, but I think the following words from Ms. Bowles fully capture the moral absurdity on display:

And so in the capitalist crunch, Sperm World — the world of people buying and selling sperm — has gotten wild. Donors are going direct to customers. They meet with prospective mothers-to-be in Airbnbs for an afternoon handoff; Facebook groups with tens of thousands of members have sprung up. The reason I know this at all is simple enough: I am 32 years old, partnered to a woman, stuck at home and in the market for the finest sperm I can get.

Sperm is treated as a commodity (selling up to $1,100 a vial per the prior article!), much like the babies that result from them. All of this has been made possible by the process known as IVF: in vitro fertilization.

What is IVF? “In vitro” is Latin for “in the glass”; IVF describes the process where egg cells are extracted from a woman and combined with a man’s sperm in a laboratory dish or some other receptacle (hence the colloquial term “test tube baby”). After fertilization has occurred, the zygote is then returned to the woman’s uterus with the intention of establishing a successful pregnancy. This form of artificial insemination achieved public notoriety with the birth of Louise Joy Brown on July 26, 1978 (Source: Editors. “World’s first "test tube" baby born.HISTORY, published Mar. 12, 2010, last updated Jul. 23, 2020); since then, births accomplished via IVF account for up to 1 through 2 percent of all U.S. births as recently as 2012, as reported by Penn Medicine.

The specific outcomes of this procedure have resulted in chaotic “family” arrangements, as already seen from the above articles (particularly with regards to lesbian couples seeking to have children using their own ova without having a man involved). However, with regards to a husband and wife seeking to overcome issues of infertility, is IVF morally permissible? This is what we shall investigate.

What would IVF be morally classified as? Let us first consider that, as far as the man is concerned, sperm banks obtain their samples through acts of onanism, providing pornographic material to help “facilitate” their donation. (For the sake of propriety, I will not link to any articles with stories about this aspect of sperm donation; needless to say, this can be independently verified via articles through publishers like VICE, the UK Daily Mail, etc.) It goes without saying that we’re already on bad footing.

Secondly, before providing numerous excerpts from McHugh, O.P. and Callan, O.P.’s Moral Theology, let us recall some definitions: fornication is the copulation of an unmarried man with an unmarried woman who is not a virgin; adultery (a distinct species of lust) is sexual intercourse with the husband or wife of another, while a type of imperfect adultery occurs if unlawful familiarities occur without intercourse; coition is another term for natural sexual intercourse between a man and a woman.

Without further ado, I will let the Dominicans have their say. The following section is cited entirely from the 1958 edition of Moral Theology, as hosted online by Project Gutenberg:

2520. The Consummated Sins of Impurity.—There are in all seven species of completed acts of impurity. (a) Thus, some sins of impurity are against reason because they do not observe the ends of sexual intercourse…(b) Other sins of impurity are against reason because they violate a right of the person with whom intercourse is had (incest), or of a third party to whom that person belongs. If the third party is injured in conjugal rights, there is adultery; if in parental rights, there is defloration or rape, according as the injury is done without or with force; if in religious rights, there is sacrilege…

2521. Comparative Malice of the Sins of Consummated Lust.—(a) In the abuse of an act, the worst evil is the disregard of what nature itself determines as the fundamentals upon which all else depends, just as in speculative matters the worst error is that which goes astray about first principles. Now, the prime dictates of nature as to sexual intercourse are that it serve the race and the family. Hence, the sin of unnatural lust (which injures the race by defeating its propagation) and the sin of incest (which injures the family by offending piety) are the worst of carnal vices. (b) In the abuse of an act a lesser evil is that which observes the natural fundamentals, but disregards what right reason teaches about things secondary, in the manner of performing the act. But reason requires that in sexual intercourse the rights of the individual be respected. A most serious violation of individual right is adultery, which usurps the right of intercourse belonging to another; next in gravity is rape, which violently seizes for lust a person under the care of another or undefiled; next is defloration, which trespasses on the right of guardianship, or removes bodily virginity, but without violence; last among these sins is fornication, which is an injury done not to the living, but to the unborn.


2523. [On Fornication] […] (a) […] Onanism is an aggravating circumstance of fornication, or rather a new sin of unnatural intercourse…

2524. Sinfulness of Fornication.—It is of faith that fornication is a mortal sin. (a) Thus, it is gravely forbidden by the divine positive law… (b) Fornication is gravely forbidden by the natural law. For it is seriously against reason to cause an injury to the entire life of another human being; but fornication does this very thing by depriving the unborn child of its natural rights to legitimacy, to the protection of both parents, and to education in the home circle. True, in some cases there may be no prospect of a child, or there may be provision for its proper rearing; but these cases are the exception, since fornication from its nature tends to the neglect of the child, and the morality of acts must be judged, not by the exceptional and accidental, but by the usual and natural. Those who commit fornication are thinking of their own pleasure rather than of duty, and will generally shirk the difficult burdens of parenthood. Society also would be gravely wounded if unmarried intercourse were at any time lawful. Hence, St. Paul reproves the pagans, though ignorant of Scripture, for their sins of fornication (I Cor., vi. 9-11; Eph., v. 1-6), since reason itself should have taught them the unlawfulness of this practice…


2526. Circumstances of Fornication.—(a) Circumstances that aggravate the malice are the condition of the person with whom the sin is committed (e.g., that the female is a widow, or the employee of the man, or his ward, or a minor). (b) Circumstances that add a new malice to fornication are of various kinds. Thus, previous circumstances are the distinct desires of the sin entertained beforehand, the solicitation and scandal of the other party or parties with whom the sin was committed; concomitant circumstances are the quality of the persons (e.g., fornication is sacrilegious if one of the parties is consecrated to God, and also, according to some, if one party is a Christian and the other an infidel; it is unjust if one of the couple is betrothed to a third party), or the quality of the act itself (e.g., if it is performed onanistically, though pollution may be excused if it results accidentally from the good purpose to discontinue the sinful act); subsequent circumstances are injury done to the partner in sin (e.g., by refusal to pay the support or restitution due) or to the offspring (e.g., by exposure, abortion, neglect)…

2530. Adultery.—Adultery is also a distinct species of lust. […] (c) Degrees of Malice.—There are three degrees of malice in adultery. The first is that in which a married man sins with a single woman; the second that in which a married woman sins with a single man; the third that in which a married man sins with another man's wife. The second is worse than the first, on account of its consequences (e.g., sterility, uncertainty of paternity, rearing of an illegitimate child in the family); the third is worse than the second, because in addition to the consequences just mentioned, it contains a double injustice (viz., unfaithfulness to an innocent wife and unfaithfulness to an innocent husband), and it multiplies the sin. If an adulterer's husband or wife is also unfaithful, the injustice is lessened, but not removed; for not merely the two married persons are to be considered, but also the children, the family, society, and God; and the wrong done by one of the parties does not take away the right to fidelity pledged absolutely to all of these in marriage…


2534. Unnatural Lust.—Worst among the sins of impurity, as such, are crimes of unnatural lust, for they exercise the sexual act, not only illicitly, but also in a manner that defeats its purpose of reproduction…(a) For procreation nature requires copulation, and hence pollution is unnatural, for it exercises semination without copulation, either alone (self-abuse, solitary vice, masturbation) or with another (softness). (b) For procreation nature requires proper copulation, that is, one that will permit of a fertile union between the two life elements, the sperma and the ovum. Hence, unnatural coition does not comply with this necessity, for it does not employ the proper organ of sexual union, substituting rectal for vaginal intercourse, or else by some form of natural or artificial onanism it frustrates the act of its destined conclusion. This sin is worse than pollution, since pollution omits to use intercourse, whereas unnatural coition positively abuses it.


2535. Pollution.—Pollution is the voluntary emission of semen apart from coition. […] (c) It is apart from coition, and thus it differs from other consummated sins. But pollution may be committed either alone (solitary vice), or with another, and in the latter case it pertains reductively to adultery, fornication, sodomy, etc., as the case may be. (d) It is voluntary directly or indirectly: directly, when one intends it as an end (e.g., for the sake of the pleasure) or as a means (e.g., as a relief from temptation or bodily itching, to obtain a specimen of semen for medical diagnosis); indirectly, when one unjustifiably does something from which one foresees that pollution will result. In all these cases pollution is formal or sinful, and it is not to be confused with material or natural pollution, which is a discharge of semen or distillation that is involuntary or unimputable.


2538. Proximate and Remote Occasions of Pollution.—It is never lawful to expose oneself to the immediate danger of sin, for he who loves the danger loves the sin (see 258, 260); but if one uses means to make the danger remote, one may lawfully encounter it for a good reason (see 258, 260, 261). It is lawful to permit an evil effect when there is sufficient justification according to the principle of double effect (see 103 sqq.). (a) Hence, if there is proximate danger of formal pollution (that is, of consent to sin), no reason excuses an act even of a non-sexual kind, such as horseback riding. But if the act is necessary, the danger must be made remote by the use of special means, such as prayer, firm resolves, etc. (see 2497 sqq.)…

2539. The Theological Malice of Sinful Pollution.—(a) From its nature pollution is a mortal sin, because it is an act of impurity (1494) and a perversion of nature (2534). Moreover, its consequences are most injurious to society (it tends to self-indulgence and the avoidance of the burdens of marriage) and to the individual (when habitual, it weakens mental and will power and often brings on a breakdown of bodily vigor especially among young people), In Scripture it is represented as gravely illicit (I Cor., vi. 10; Gal., v. 19; Eph., v. 3). Hence, pollution is always a mortal sin when directly willed (e.g., when practised deliberately in order to be rid of a temptation or of bodily irritation or itch certainly due to superfluity of semen or to passion), and also when indirectly willed if there is proximate danger of consent to sin (e.g., when one who has always committed formal pollution in certain company goes into that company without necessity, or without use of means to prevent a fall) or grave danger of pollution and no sufficient reason for permitting it (e.g., undue familiarities from which nocturnal pollution is foreseen as most probable).


2541. The Moral Species of Sinful Pollution.—(a) The general species of pollution is distinct from other consummated sins of impurity, since it is unnatural, and this in a special way (see 2534, and Denzinger, n. 1124), But some authors regard equivalent pollution (see 2493, 2535) as not a consummated sin, since it is without true semination, and hence according to them it may be confessed simply as impure pleasure (see 2519 b). (b) The particular species of pollution is derived from circumstances that give it a new essential malice. If it is solitary, and committed by one who is under no bond of marriage or vow, and accompanied by no thought or desire except in reference to self or self-gratification (autoerotism, narcissism), there is the single sin of pollution. But there are other sins if it is committed by one under special obligation (i.e., adultery or sacrilege), or if committed with another person (e.g., seduction, coöperation, rape), or if committed with impure thoughts or desires about others (e.g., mental adultery, fornication, sodomy, bestiality). The manner in which pollution is performed (e.g., whether coöperative pollution is active or passive, by irrumation or concubitus or touch, with or without an instrument) is per se an accidental circumstance. According to some authors, coöperative pollution brought on by touch alone is not diversified in species, if there is no special affection for the other person, but only the desire of carnal gratification, and hence it may be declared simply as pollution from touch.

To summarize, regardless of the marital status of the individuals involved, IVF begins with an act of unnatural lust, proceeding to a form of unnatural intercourse at the point of fertilization (whether it be within a laboratory, or with a woman utilizing an artificial implement to inseminate herself). As such, even if a sacramentally married man and woman were struggling with infertility (being unable to naturally conceive a child of their own), it would not justify the use of IVF. Even appealing to the obligation of paying the marital debt will not suffice; for as McHugh and Callan say elsewhere in paragraph 2615.c, such a request would be “unreasonable” due to being "seductive (e.g., when it is an invitation to commit onanism) by its nature. This is also notwithstanding the deleterious effects on family life and society which inevitably come from such a process becoming more commonplace.

Finally, having covered some general principles behind why IVF is intrinsically sinful, we turn to authoritative magisterial teaching on artificial insemination. Courtesy of Pope Pius XII (whose words will be in red), as cited by McHugh and Callan (bolded words are emphasis mine):

2619. Nota.— 


(c) Artificial Insemination. The subject-matter of the latter part of the preceding paragraph is distinguished from several unlawful practices considered by moralists under the heading of artificial insemination. Pope Pius XII on several occasions has given a clear, accurate and complete statement of Catholic teaching on the subject. We append here his texts:

1) The practice of artificial insemination, when it refers to man, cannot be considered, either exclusively or principally, from the biological and medical point of view, ignoring the moral and legal one.

Artificial insemination, outside of marriage, must be condemned as essentially and strictly immoral. Natural law and divine positive law establish, in fact, that the procreation of a new life cannot but be the fruit of marriage. Only marriage safeguards the dignity of the spouses (principally of the wife in the present case) and their personal good. It alone provides for the well-being and education of the child.

It follows that no divergence of opinion among Catholics is admitted on the condemnation of artificial insemination outside of marriage. The child conceived in those conditions would be, by that very fact, illegitimate.

Artificial insemination produced in a marriage by the active element of a third party is equally immoral and consequently to be condemned without appeal.

Only the spouses have a reciprocal right upon each other's body to generate a new life: an exclusive, inalienable right, which cannot be ceded. And so it must be, even out of consideration for the child. On whoever gives life to a small being, nature imposes, by the very strength of that tie, the duty to keep and educate it. But no ties of origin, no moral or legal bonds of conjugal procreation, exist between the legitimate husband and the child who is the fruit of the active element of a third party (even if the husband has given his consent).

As far as the legitimacy of artificial insemination in marriage is concerned, it suffices, for the moment, to recall these principles of natural law: the simple fact that the result desired is obtained by this means does not justify the use of the means itself; nor does the desire of the husband and wife, in itself perfectly legitimate, to have a child, suffice to establish the legitimacy of resorting to the artificial insemination which would satisfy this desire.

It would be erroneous, therefore, to think that the possibility of resorting to this means might render valid a marriage between persons unable to contract it because of the impedimentum impotentiae.

On the other hand, it is superfluous to mention that the active element can never be obtained legitimately by means of acts against nature.

Although new methods cannot be ruled out a priori for the sole reason of their novelty, nonetheless, as far as artificial impregnation is concerned, extreme caution is not enough; it must be absolutely excluded. Saying this does not necessarily proscribe the use of certain artificial means destined only to facilitate the natural act, or to assure the accomplishment of the end of the natural act regularly performed.

Let it never be forgotten that only the procreation of a new life according to the will and the designs of the Creator brings with it, to a marvelous degree of perfection, the accomplishment of the proposed ends. It is at the same time in conformity with corporeal and spiritual nature and the dignity of the married couple, as well as with the healthy, normal development of the child (Address to Physicians, Sept. 29, 1949, Discorsi e Radiomessaggi, vol. xi, pp. 221 ff).

2) We also believe that it is of capital importance for you, gentlemen, not to neglect this perspective when you consider the methods of artificial fecundation. The means by which one tends toward the production of a new life take on an essential human significance inseparable from the desired end and susceptible of causing grave harm to this very end if these means are not conformable to reality and to the laws inscribed in the nature of beings.

We have been asked to give some directives on this point also. On the subject of the experiments in artificial human fecundation "in vitro," let it suffice for Us to observe that they must be rejected as immoral and absolutely illicit. With regard to the various moral problems which are posed by artificial fecundation, in the ordinary meaning of the expression, or "artificial insemination," We have already expressed Our thought in a discourse addressed to physicians on September 29, 1949 (Discorsi e Radiomessaggi, vol. xi. pp. 221 ff.). For the details We refer you to what We said then and We confine Ourself here to repeating the concluding judgment given there: "With regard to artificial fecundation, not only is there reason to be extremely reserved, but it must be absolutely rejected. In speaking thus, one is not necessarily forbidding the use of certain artificial means destined solely to facilitate the natural act or to achieve the attainment of the natural act normally performed." But since artificial fecundation is being more and more widely used, and in order to correct some erroneous opinions which are being spread concerning what We have taught, We have the following to add:

Artificial fecundation exceeds the limits of the right which spouses have acquired by the matrimonial contract, namely, that of fully exercising their natural sexual capacity in the natural accomplishment of the marital act. The contract in question does not confer on them a right to artificial fecundation, for such a right is not in any way expressed in the right to the natural conjugal act and cannot be deduced from it. Still less can one derive it from the right to the "child," the primary "end" of marriage. The matrimonial contract does not give this right, because it has for its object not the "child," but the "natural acts" which are capable of engendering a new life and are destined to this end. It must likewise be said that artificial fecundation violates the natural law and is contrary to justice and morality. [1] (Marriage and Parenthood, May 19, 1956). See The Pope Speaks, Vol, III, No. 2, Autumn of 1956, pp. 194 ff.

And there you have it. From the mouth of the Vicar of Christ, IVF is “immoral and absolutely illicit.” Can’t get more clear than that.

In conclusion, when even the Vatican II sect opposes IVF as intrinsically evil (though for how much longer, I can only guess), its inherent illicitness should be clear enough. This post merely covered the moral principles and authoritative teaching as to why IVF is immoral; it does not provide an in-depth overview of the heinous effects that such technology allows (though a mere taste can be seen in the articles originally linked at the beginning of this post), in league with abortion and contraception: the further commodification of children and human sexuality, the increased tolerance for unnatural and sinful family arrangements, and a growth in pride at being able to play God.

As Dr. Robert Edwards (the English physiologist who helped produce the world’s first test tube baby previously mentioned, having won the Nobel Prize in 2010 for the development of IVF) put it after the fact: “I wanted to find out exactly who was in charge, whether it was God Himself or whether it was scientists in the laboratory. It was us.

Having passed away in 2013, Edwards now knows precisely who’s in charge.

May God have mercy on us all.

Monday, March 22, 2021

Mass Destruction


My spiritual father, Fr. Gommar A. DePauw, lived an extraordinary life. The religious, political, and other personages he knew, combined with his myriad unusual experiences in a unique era of the world, would make for an unapparelled priest of intrigue. In his early years, Father was taken prisoner at the Battle of Dunkirk, and was wounded while escaping (successfully) from a Nazi concentration camp. After Belgium was liberated from Nazi tyranny on February 4, 1945, young Fr. DePauw, less than three years a priest, became good friends with many of the American soldiers stationed there. 

The Nazi command (including Hitler himself) knew the days of their "Thousand Year Reich" were numbered. Nazi Germany would unconditionally surrender to the Allies just over three months later, on May 8, 1945 (one week after Hitler committed suicide). During those months before Germany's surrender, several high-ranking members of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party, would try to escape to South America. More than a few of them had planned for this when the tide of the war turned against them. As was the case with certain spies meant to wreak havoc in the United States (Operation Pastorius), they knew they would need to pretend to be Americans to get past certain U.S. check-points.  

These Nazis had learned to speak perfect, fluent English without a trace of a German accent. They made sure to know American idioms, pop culture, important figures, and even minutiae about where they allegedly lived in the United States. They would present themselves as American soldiers with fake papers (identification), and once past the check-point, they could use various means to escape to South America. Father was friends with a certain American sergeant, whose job it was to check the papers of any soldier seeking to leave and verify they were legitimate. 

One day, a Catholic chaplain with the U.S. Army arrived at the sergeant's check-point. Something about this chaplain just "didn't seem right" as he later told Fr. DePauw. He couldn't put his finger on what was wrong, so he detained him for over two hours asking question after question. All his answers checked out. At this point, the sergeant's Commanding Officer intervened. Pulling Father's friend aside, he asked him if he was out of his mind. "You're detaining a Catholic chaplain and an officer [all Chaplains start off with the rank of second-class lieutenant]. And you're basing this on..what? Some strange hunch? We're not the Nazis; this priest has rights. You release him now, and ask his forgiveness. Hopefully, he won't file a complaint against you leading to your court martial." (Dialogue from my memory and notes---Introibo). 

He went back and apologized to the priest. "That's OK young man, you're just doing your job! No hard feelings; I'm a priest and I forgive you." The sergeant--a devout Catholic from childhood-- boldly asked, "Father, may I ask just one last question, and I promise you may leave immediately?" The priest sighed. "Well, I've been here over two hours now, but go ahead--ask me your final question." The young sergeant looked straight into his eyes and asked, "Please tell me Father: What's the correct response to Introibo ad altare Dei?"  The "priest's" mouth dropped open; he was speechless. He was arrested and detained. Two days later it was revealed that the sergeant had successfully captured a high-ranking Nazi trying to escape. Fr. DePauw then said to me, "This should serve as a reminder that the test of a true priest--indeed--any true Catholic, is how well they know and love the True Mass." 

Many times in the more than ten years since I started this blog, readers have commented asking, "How could so many priests, theologians, bishops, etc., have gone along with the Vatican II sect?" Fr. DePauw gave the answer that day. By the 1950s, "country club Catholicism" had taken hold. People no longer took the study of the Integral Catholic Faith seriously--and the Mass was the most beautifully clear and concise exposition of that same Faith. You had priests offering Mass in a hurried and slovenly manner, without devotion and never giving sermons on the truths of Faith. Their vocations became little more than jobs they performed begrudgingly. The laity attended Mass out of habit, and would choose the aforementioned priests who offered Mass quickly and slovenly just to "get it over with" and do more important things--like watching sports or going shopping. The theologians who weren't Modernists, had rationalized what was happening post-1958 because they didn't want to accept the truth about what was going on. As for most of the rest, they never even realized what they lost--the greatest gift in the universe; the One True Faith. 

The lack of knowledge of the Faith continues to be exemplified today, in those holding themselves out to be "teachers" and even "saviors" of the Church.  Two such examples will suffice to make my point:

  • $teve $kojec, of the site "One Peter Five," is the owner of a "theology-free" zone. His basic contention is that the Church can (and has) defected, and the "pope" can be a heretic. He makes six-figures from donations so people can listen to him explain why they should follow his teachings over that of the man he acknowledges as "pope." He offers very little more than his own ipse dixit for his assertions. What can this man possibly know of the True Faith? 
  • David L. Gray of, has a Masters degree in theology, and no discernable credentials in history, yet promotes himself as both a "theologian" and a "historian." His articles and videos are little more than his (badly informed) opinions on various topics such as sedevacantism and the Novus Bogus "mass." 
A few weeks ago, an acquaintance gave me a self-published book by one Adam S. Miller, and wanted my opinion on it. Miller is a "Vatican II sect Feeneyite"--- he accepts the Vatican II sect which teaches universal salvation, while simultaneously holding the Feeneyite heresy which denies Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood. Don't try to make sense of it, because you really can't. His book is entitled Is the New Mass (sic) of Pope (sic) Paul VI Invalid?, (second edition, 2010). At 114 pages, it is a short (and very painful) read. One of the stated purposes of his book is to be "A refutation of the arguments denying the validity of the N.O.M." ["Novus Ordo Missae" or "New Order of Mass (sic)"]. This post will show just how badly he fails in this endeavor, with a virtually citationless rambling devoid of even a basic understanding of Catholic theology. 

Miller: Wrong in Even His Basic Contentions

From the back cover: Whether traditional or progressive, conservative or liberal in orientation, all Catholics will benefit from this work, for the Eucharistic sacrifice of the Mass is the center piece (sic) of Catholic life.

While the Sacrifice of the Mass is indeed the "centerpiece of Catholic life," you are either Catholic or not. In the Vatican II sect, there are divisions just like in Anglicanism. You can be "High Church," "Low Church," or "Broad Church," although they are all pretty much Marxists these days. Is Miller implying there are four divisions in the Church? Is traditional the same as conservative and progressive the same as liberal? What is an "orientation"? What is the "conservative" orientation on transubstantiation versus the "liberal" orientation? This is an outgrowth of the heretical ecclesiology of Vatican II. You are either (a) Catholic and accept all Church teachings or (b) you are not Catholic by way of heresy, schism, or apostasy (assuming a valid baptism). 

Miller barely mentions the "elephant in the room." 

Most of his tome is dedicated to showing that the Novus Bogus "mass" is valid despite the corrupted Consecration Form over the Wine. He spends most of his pages "refuting" Fr. James Wathen (ordained 1958, d. 2006), Patrick Henry Omlor (d. 2013), and Dr./Fr. Rama Coomaraswamy (d.2006). Fr. Wathen was a "recognize and resist" (R&R) Feeneyite. Both Omlor and Coomaraswamy were sedevacantists from the early days (1960s). Only briefly does Miller address sedevacantism. This is analogous to writing a critique of Dwight David Eisenhower and Douglas MacArthur and only briefly mentioning they were army generals. Sedevacantism also explains much which his book doesn't even try to defend:

  • If Montini wasn't pope (Paul VI), then his service must be rejected outright since Canon 1257 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law states that "Only the Apostolic See has the right to regulate the liturgy [i.e., the ritual of public worship] and to approve liturgical books." (See canonists Abbo and Hannon, The Sacred Canons, [1952], 2:512).  
  • Miller devotes seven pages to an addendum "Was the New Mass Legally-Canonically Promulgated?" (pgs. 103-109). He correctly proves that Montini went through all the procedures necessary to promulgate the Novus Bogus. He also correctly states that the Church cannot give that which is evil, citing to Canon VII on the Mass from the Council of Trent. Finally, he gets it right that the only way to claim the so-called "New Mass" is evil is to be a sedevacantist because to hold Paul VI to Benedict XVI as real popes, and claim the new Rite evil, would involve a contradiction. 
  • Where Miller goes seriously wrong is when he states on page 104, One reason that we know that the sedevacantist position cannot be sustained is that Pope Paul VI did  properly and legally approve and promulgate the N.O.M., despite what some say about its legality. Huh? I don't know of any sedevacantist who holds that Montini wasn't pope because he didn't properly promulgate the Novus Bogus and thereby ceased to be pope. It is morally certain that Montini was not pope from at least November 21, 1964, when he signed the heretical document Lumen Gentium. If he were truly pope, the Holy Ghost would have prevented him from signing it. (I am of the opinion Montini never attained to the papacy). A pope falls from office by Divine Law if--as a private theologian--he professes heresy. That Miller could write such drivel in 2010, with so much information about sedevacantism on the Internet alone, is deplorable. 
It's All That Matters
For a Sacrament to be valid, five things are necessary: proper minister, correct matter, correct form, proper intention on the part of the minister, and no invalidating obex ("obstacle") on the part of the recipient. (See theologian Tanquerey, Dogmatic Theology, [1959], pgs. 183-213). In the Eucharist, which can only come about through the Mass, the proper minister would be a valid priest or bishop. Correct matter is unleavened bread (in the Latin Rite) and wine; correct form is the Words of Consecration over both bread and wine. Proper intention means the offering priest or bishop must intend to do what the Church does, and in the Eucharist there can be no invalidating obex on the part of the one who receives. (An example of an invalidating obex would be Holy Orders performed on a woman). 

In the form of a sacrament, the form will be held as invalid where there is a substantial change in meaning. Hence, if the priest said, "THIS IS A SYMBOL OF MY BODY" instead of "THIS IS MY BODY," the Mass is invalid. Likewise, were he to say "THIS IS A BODY," it would also be invalid. Matter and form must be certainly valid, and doubtful matter must never be used. A doubtful sacrament is treated as invalid in the practical order. (See theologian Jone, Moral Theology, [1961], pgs. 308-309).  The International Commission on English in the Liturgy (ICEL) charged with translating the Novus Bogus into English changed the Words of Consecration over the Wine from: FOR THIS IS THE CHALICE OF MY BLOOD OF THE NEW AND EVERLASTING TESTAMENT: THE MYSTERY OF FAITH: WHICH SHALL BE SHED FOR YOU AND FOR MANY UNTO THE REMISSION OF SINS--to---FOR THIS IS THE CUP OF MY BLOOD, THE BLOOD OF THE NEW AND ETERNAL COVENANT; IT SHALL BE SHED FOR YOU AND FOR ALL MEN UNTO THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS. 

Several changes were made: the chalice is now a "cup," the phrase "the mystery of faith" was removed, and "many" was rendered as "all men"--and later to be politically correct---as "all." The problem with this "translation" (even a first year Latin student knows pro multis means "for many"), is that it substantially changes the meaning of Our Lord's own words. (The "correct translation" was produced by Joachim Jeremias, a Protestant theologian--See The Eucharistic Words of Jesus, [1977], pgs. 178-182; 225-231; his translation was later definitively proven wrong by myriad Biblical scholars). 

The Catechism of the Council of Trent tells us Christ said many not all and explained why:
With reason, therefore, were the words for all not used, as in this place the fruits of the Passion are alone spoken of, and to the elect only did His Passion bring the fruit of salvation. And this is the purport of the Apostle when he says: ‘Christ was offered once to exhaust the sins of many’; and also of the words of our Lord in John: ‘I pray for them; I pray not for the world, but for them whom Thou hast given Me, because they are Thine. (Emphasis mine). Christ was speaking of the efficacy of His Sacrifice, the many who would cooperate with His grace and actually achieve salvation. It is true that Christ died for all--that His Sacrifice was sufficient for all to be saved--but all do not believe and live good lives so only many will be saved. Hence, by changing "many" to "all" the Vatican II sect introduced the heresy of Universalism (that all go to Heaven) into the very Words of Christ, falsely making Our Lord speak a lie. This alone made the service dubious, and hence to be avoided. (The Vatican II sect actually changed "all" back to "many" in 2008--after most valid priests had passed away). 

Miller attempts to tell us that either word (many or all) is valid. The reasons he gives are incredibly flawed. Before going through his attempted defense of the Consecration, there are two independent reasons the Novus Bogus is invalid, yet since he dismisses sedevacantism, Miller doesn't even address them. 

1. Invalid Minister of the Sacrament. Montini's new Rites of priestly ordination and episcopal consecration are invalid. Without a valid priesthood, it doesn't matter what the so-called priest says, it will be null and void. Therefore, after 40 years of invalid Holy Orders starting in 1968, the sect changed the words back. Secondly, the idea of Universalism had sufficiently permeated all aspects of the Vatican II sect, so they could throw a bone to "conservative" members to show they are "interested in preserving Catholic truth." 

2. Invalid Intention. The Words of Consecration are now called the Words of Institution, and recited within an "Institution Narrative" in the "Eucharistic Prayer." In the Canon of the Mass, the priest must stop, bend over the host or chalice to be Consecrated, and speaking in a secret (low) voice, he must say the words attentively and devoutly without interruption. This is to show that the priest is not simply repeating the Words of Our Lord spoken almost 2000 years ago in some narration of a historical event, but he intends to perform the action of Consecration effectuating transubstantiation here and now. In reciting the Words of Institution in an Institution Narrative, the "priest" does the exact opposite. He reads it as one big historical story, thereby vitiating his intention to consecrate, according to some theologians like rubrician O'Connell. It is analogous to baptizing a baby within the context of reading the Gospel of St. Matthew Chapter 28--is the intent to baptize here and now, or are you simply reciting what took place in the time of Our Lord's life on Earth? 

Many Defenses--All Fail
Miller offers the following arguments to prove that the Words of Consecration over the wine are valid with the word all replacing many:

1. The word "all" does not necessitate the heresy of Universalism, because it can be interpreted as meaning "many."

Scripture. Despite the clear teaching of the Council of Trent that the word "all" was specifically not used, Miller claims that "all" can be used in place of "many" without substantial change. He cites verses of Scripture to (allegedly) prove his point:

Romans 3:23 For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. (Emphasis mine). Yet Christ and His Mother never sinned, so all is not entirely inclusive. 

Philippians 2:21 For all seek the things that are their own; not the things that are Jesus Christ's. (Emphasis mine).  Obviously, some do seek the things of Christ, only many do not.

Two problems. (i) It is the Magisterium that decides the meaning of Scripture, not Adam Miller. The Catechism of the Council of Trent decided Christ said (and meant) "many," not "all" when He consecrated the wine--and explained why; case closed. (ii) There are times many means many in Scripture. How would Miller render these passages:

St. Matthew 7:13 Enter ye in at the narrow gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there are who go in thereat. (Emphasis mine). Many cannot mean all, unless everyone goes to Hell.

St. Matthew 24: 4-5  And Jesus answering, said to them: Take heed that no man seduce you: For many will come in My name saying, I am Christ: and they will seduce many. (Emphasis mine). Are we to read this as "For ALL will come in My name saying, I am the Christ; and they will seduce ALL"? 

2. Three Eastern Rite Liturgies Have Included the Word "All"

Miller describes the Anaphora of St. John the Evangelist (without citation) as saying:
This is the Chalice of My Blood of the New Testament: Take, drink ye of it: this is shed forth for the life of the world, for the expiation of transgressions, for the remission of sins to ALL that believe in Him forever and ever. (Emphasis in original; pg. 15). I have no idea where Miller got this as no citation is provided. Yet assuming, ad arguendo, it's legitimate, the phrase "That believe in Him [Christ] forever and ever" after the word ALL modifies the phrase so as to read, "ALL those who believe in Christ forever and ever" an expression signifying all the elect for which Christ's Blood was shed; the efficacy of Christ's Sacrifice about which the Council of Trent spoke. No such qualifying phrase exists in the Novus Bogus.

Miller then describes the Anaphora of St. Mark (again without citation) as saying:
This is the Blood of the New Testament: Take, drink ye all of it, for the remission of sins of you and of ALL the true faithful, and for eternal life. (Emphasis in original; pg. 15) Once more, assuming ad arguendo, that this is legitimate, the phrase "the true faithful" modifies all so as to read, "ALL the true faithful" i.e., the elect. 

Interestingly, I was unable to find these Anaphoras in my pre-Vatican II books on the Eastern Rite Liturgies. I did , however, find them online as part of Eastern Schismatic Liturgies. 
(See; See also 

Lastly, Miller claims the Maronite rite used to have the word "ALL" in the Consecration of the Wine. However, for his sources he lists an "Eparchial Liturgist" from Brooklyn (without citation to where he got this information) and even the "Liturgist" admits, "The original Syriac texts from our Liturgy [was] translated 'For Many.'" (See Miller's book pg. 16). He also cites an Eastern Rite priest of the Vatican II sect "from a private correspondence with an associate of the author." Basically, "a friend of a friend told me..." That's not exactly, "the sources of scholars." As this source is unverifiable, of dubious expertise, and not unbiased, I will simply dismiss it. 

3. The "Principle of Supplied Catholic Understanding." 
You've never heard of the Principle of Supplied Catholic Understanding (PSCU)? Don't feel bad; neither has anyone else. Adam Miller made it up. On pg. 19 of his book, Miller writes:
At Vatican Council I, the Church infallibly declared that what She puts forth is "to be believed and held by all the faithful according to the ancient and continual faith of the Universal Church" (Pastor Aeternus, Denz:1821 [DS:3052]; italics added).

He then tells his readers The Church, then, requires the faithful to understand the approved new form, as she does for all the others, according to Catholic teaching, according to what she means by the terms. No, Adam, She does not. The term in magic tricks "hocus pocus" is an anti-Catholic slur. The Words of Consecration over the bread (in the true Mass) are HOC EST ENIM CORPUS MEUM (FOR THIS IS MY BODY). Protestants said it was "pope-ish magic" changing bread into God by "Hoc-est Poc-est." That became corrupted to "hocus pocus" and was to be associated with magic. According to Miller's PSCU, if  "hocus pocus" replaced the traditional form, Catholics would be required to understand it as the valid Form. Maybe he should call his invented principle "The Principle of Orwellian Newspeak" where war is peace, freedom is slavery, and many is all. 

Miller's only citation for his made up PSCU is part of a sentence twisted out of context from the 1870 Vatican Council's infallible decree on the primacy and infallibility of the Roman Pontiff. Here's what Pastor Aeternus says in context:

We, for the preservation, safe-keeping, and increase of the Catholic flock, with the approval of the Sacred Council, judge it to be necessary to propose, to be believed and held by all the faithful according to the ancient and continual faith of the Universal Church, the doctrine of the institution, perpetuity, and nature of the sacred Apostolic Primacy, by which the strength and solidity of the entire Church is established, and at the same time to proscribe and condemn the contrary errors, which are so harmful to the flock of Christ. (Emphasis mine). The Vatican Council of 1870 was teaching that the doctrine of the Apostolic Primacy was "to be believed and held by all the faithful" because it was always held "according to the ancient and continual faith of the Universal Church." It has absolutely nothing to do with the interpretations concerning the forms of sacraments. That's why there isn't a single approved theologian or canonist who teaches the "PSCU." It doesn't exist.

Finally, why does Miller even care what words are used in the Consecration at Mass? In October of 2001, the Modernist Vatican published a document entitled Guidelines for Admission to the Eucharist between the Chaldean Church and the Assyrian Church of the East. It declared as valid a liturgy that contains no Words of Consecration at all. The Anaphora makes reference to the Body and Blood of Christ, and even says that we offer to God the Body and Blood of Christ, but there is nowhere to be found anything that even comes close to what the Modernists call an "Institution Narrative" and what Catholics call the Words of Consecration. Why does the Vatican II sect consider it valid? "...the words of Eucharistic Institution are indeed present in the Anaphora of Addai and Mari, not in a coherent narrative way and ad litteram, but rather in a dispersed euchological (!) way, that is, integrated in successive prayers of thanksgiving, praise, and intercession." This overthrows all Catholic teaching on the matter and form of the Sacrament since the founding of the Church. Miller should have used this made up "euchological way" to argue for validity, which sounds more impressive (but makes no more sense), than the PSCU.

4. The Words "This is My Body" and "This is the Chalice of My Blood" are sufficient for Consecrating the Eucharist.
The Church has never defined whether those words alone suffice. Some theologians agree, some teach more than those words are necessary. Since there can be no doubt in confecting the sacraments, the "Long Form" using all the words is necessary to ensure against invalidity.

What the Church Teaches
Theologian Halligan teaches:
The form of consecration of the bread is: “Hoc est enim corpus meum,” of the wine: “Hic est enim calix sanguinis mei, novi et aeterni testamenti, mysterium fidei, qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum.” The word “enim” does not pertain to validity and its omission is a venial sin. The words which precede these formulas, viz., “Qui pridie… Simili modo…” in no way pertain to the form. It is commonly taught today that the essential words of the form of the Eucharist—and their omission would invalidate the form—are: “Hoc est corpus meum,” “Hic est calix sanguinis mei” (or “Hic ast sanguis meus”). Some hold that the remaining words “novi et…” are essential. In practice it is gravely prescribed to pronounce the entire form; if any of the words from “novi et…” on are omitted, the whole form is to be repeated conditionally. (See The Administration of the Sacraments, [1962], pg. 103). 

The words must be repeated conditionally because since the Church has not settled the matter, the whole form (not just "This is the Chalice of My Blood") must be used to remove doubt because they may be necessary to validity. The old axiom, "A doubtful sacrament is no sacrament at all," holds true.

Why would those other words be necessary? According to theologian Wengier:

That is why His consecration or transubstantiation had to be and was sacrificial or propitiatory. And He clearly expressed that propitiatory character of His consecration by the words: “quod pro vobis tradetur” —“which shall be delivered for you” and “qui pro vobis, et pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum” —”which shall be shed for you and for many unto the remission of sins.” Consequently, we, too, must use the same words or their equivalent. We must clearly express the propitiatory or sacrificial character of our consecration, because our Mass is the same Sacrifice as that of Christ renewed by us, as the Council of Trent teaches and as it is clear from the institution itself. A simple formula demonstrating the presence of Christ’s Body and Blood under the species does not tell us whether that which Christ did or what we do is a sacrifice or not. Therefore, besides the demonstrative words, our consecration form needs other words determining the purpose of the Blood’s effusion, which is the destruction of sin. This doctrine of St. Thomas and his followers, Henricus Henriquez, Amicus, and others, is in perfect harmony with the nature of our Mass.

It is not necessary to express that teleology in both consecrations. Our Latin formula omits the ‘quod pro vobis tradetur’ in the consecration of the bread. It prefers to give to the teleology its formal place, namely, in the consecration of the wine, which being changed into Blood apparently separated (in the species only!) from the Body, formally signifies its death — death which subsequently our formula determines, adding the purpose of this death: ‘pro vobis… pro multis … in remissionem peccatorum.’

The transubstantiation, then, is not sufficient by itself for a Mass. It must be a sacrificial transubstantiation, expressing an oblation made to God for sins. This peculiar expression must be verbal (not only mental), because it is an integral part of the form of the Eucharistic Sacrifice, and every sacrifice (in the strict sense) is an external act of worship, signifying the internal dedication. (See The Eucharistic Sacrifice, [1955], pg. 157). 

When people don't understand the Mass and the Integral Catholic Faith, you get a 114 page tome that uses a made up principle, and a false understanding of Sacramental Theology, to convince you a Modernist bread and wine service performed around a table is a valid "mass." It's no wonder Adam Miller is in the Vatican II sect and a Feeneyite. Had people only understood and loved the Faith and Mass, the Great Apostasy may not have happened as it did back in 1964. 

To this day, I have yet to meet a priest who offered the Mass with more love and devotion than Father DePauw. In the sacristy, he had a plaque from a Church destroyed in Belgium during World War II. It read, "Priest of Christ: Offer this Mass as if it were your First Mass; as if it were your Last Mass; as if it were your Only Mass." Father read it every day, and lived by those words. For those of us lucky enough to still have access to a Traditionalist Church or Chapel, let's never take what we have for granted. Rather, as Lent winds down, let's resolve as follows--"Member of Christ's One True Church: Attend this Mass as if it were your First Mass, as if it were your Last Mass, as if it were your Only Mass." 

A member of the Vatican II sect has been commenting below in an attempt to prove the Novus Bogus to be valid. I'm adding this addendum since it is more appropriate and beneficial to my readership to see the objections he raises and my replies together as an addendum.---Introibo 

Preliminary remark: As a member of the Vatican II sect, my interlocutor accepts the Pauline Ordination and Consecration Rites of 1968 as valid, so he does not address the lack of proper minister. He has not touched upon defect of intention arising from an "Institution Narrative." He believes Montini (Paul VI) had the right to change the Mass as he was allegedly "pope." Hence, I will only defend my assertion of defect in form. I will paraphrase his objections which can be read in the original comments below. 

Objection #1:  The Novus Bogus signifies the passion in the consecratory prayer of the bread, "which is given for you." Likewise, it is indicated by the short phrase "which is shed for you." The sacrificial nature is also indicated in the phrase "shed for you." The fruits are being applied to those receiving the sacrament. The translation issue between "for many" and "for all" doesn't negate that.  If the bread can be transubstantiated without sacrificial terminology, then so can the blood.

Indeed the sacrificial character and the fruits of the mass are indicated by "shed for you" just as much as "given for you." Both of which are contained in the Novus Bogus. The "short form" is therefore sufficient for a valid Mass. 

Reply: From theologian  de la Taille, Mysterium Fidei (1931):
It is quite certain, as all admit, that the words: This is My Body, This is the chalice of My Blood (or other equivalent words), by which is demonstrated the presence of the Body and the Blood of Christ under the appearance of the bread and the wine, are essential to the form of consecration. But a further question arises: whether, in addition to this indication of the Body and the Blood of Christ, there is necessary, as a part of the form, and as an essential part of it, a determination of the propitiatory end in view, as, for example, by words which indicate that what is enacted in symbol is done for us, unto the remission of sins.

“St. Thomas, after Innocent III (whose words are quoted below), in 3 S. 78,3, and more positively still in I Cor., II, lect 6, together with all his early disciples, whom the Salmanticenses quote with approval, maintains that such words are essential (De Euchar. Sacram., disp. 9, dub. E, para. 2, n. 22). Modern theologians for the most part, following St. Bonaventure (4 D. 8,2,1,2), deny that such words are essential.

“Two main arguments are given for this denial: one resting on intrinsic principles; the other drawn from positive dogmatic sources.

“The first line of reasoning is as follows: the conversion of the bread into the Body and the wine into the Blood is quite sufficiently signified without any further determination of the kind mentioned: therefore it is effected without this further determination; because in the Sacraments the words effect what they signify.

“The second reason is this: neither the Scripture narratives nor the liturgies agree as to the precise tenor of these determinative words. Therefore they are outside the ambit of the form.

“However, neither of these reasons seems convincing.

“Taking the second argument first, we find a sufficient refutation of it in the following fact: in every one of the liturgies, with the exception of a few very corrupt Ethiopian ones (some of which are known aliunde to be invalid), as well as some very degraded productions of the Syrian schismatics, we find invariably conveyed, besides the separate demonstration of the Body and Blood, an indication of the propitiatory intention for which the symbolic separation of Body and Blood, or the blood-shedding designated by it is made. So we have, in every case, an equivalent sense in the formulae; and this, we maintain, is all that is necessary to secure the necessary uniformity of the form, as will be sufficiently proved by what we have to say immediately in refutation of the first objection proposed above, by the development of our own intrinsic argument, derived from the nature of things.

“Coming, then, to the first argument of our adversaries, we think that it is sufficiently refuted by the development of our own argument. But first we must presuppose that there is no question here of what Christ could have done, if He willed, but only of what He did will to do. And it is quite plain that He willed to offer sacrifice. Again the question is not, here, whether the indication of the Body and Blood of Christ under the appearance of bread and wine would of itself sufficiently signify (and accordingly would avail, if our Lord so instituted, to accomplish effectively) some real presence or not; but the question is: would such an indication signify a real presence in the condition of immolation whereby the sacrifice would be enacted? And this, it seems, we must deny. For the real presence of the Body and Blood of Christ could undoubtedly be realized by the actual effective words without any sacrifice whatever; just as Christ could, without sacrifice, change into His Body and Blood any other kind of material (corporeas) substances, such as stones, water and so on. Certainly just as Christ could have died without His death having the proper character of a sacrifice (as is the case with the martyrs); so, too, He could have left us some symbol of His death in His Body and Blood, even to be partaken of by us at a common banquet by way of food, for instance for the sole purpose of fostering charity amongst us, and all this without dedicating a victim to God, or without any propitiatory action. But Christ did in fact will that this conversion of the bread and wine into His Body and Blood should be a sacrifice; by transubstantiation He willed to offer sacrifice, He willed to offer the transubstantiation, but to make a transubstantiation whence He Himself would issue as God’s Victim or Theothyte.

“This being His will, the mere indication of His Body and Blood would not suffice for His purpose in the line of sacramental form: for it would not express this purpose, as we have said above; it was necessary that a further determination should be added to this demonstration of the Body and Blood, by which it would be plain that what was done was sacrificial, immolative. And for this it would be sufficient if the work done were plainly designated as propitiatory.

“That is to say, it would suffice if it were plainly indicated that for us the Blood was asked from the Body, and that the death so brought about availed for us before God unto the remission of sins, whether this be expressed as in the formula of our Missal (qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum), or by any other equivalent formula, as already explained by us in III (Vol. I)…

“Amicus, S.J., is even more clear and explicit (De Sacram., disp. 24, n. 46): You will urge: at least the words for you, for many are not necessary, seeing that the sacrificial character is sufficiently declared by the words shall be shed. But we deny the consequence. For unless the end to which the blood-shedding is directed be expressed, THE SACRIFICIAL CHARACTER IS NOT EXPRESSED, SINCE THE BLOOD COULD BE SHED, AND STILL NOT BE SHED BY WAY OF SACRIFICE: IF, FOR EXAMPLE, IT WERE SHED NOT AS AN ACT OF WORSHIP ON THE PART OF ANYONE NOR FOR THE BENEFIT OF ANY ONE” (Emphasis in the original).

As was pointed out by one of my readers, Aquinas believes "This is My Body" alone expresses a sacrificial character:

Summa Theologica, Third Part, Question 78, Article 3, Reply to Objection 2:

As was said above (ad 1; 76, 2, ad 1), the blood consecrated apart expressly represents Christ's Passion, and therefore mention is made of the fruits of the Passion in the consecration of the blood rather than in that of the body, since the body is the subject of the Passion. This is also pointed out in our Lord's saying, "which shall be delivered up for you," as if to say, "which shall undergo the Passion for you."

Hence, the sacrificial nature was expressed twice. Yet the Church demands that the ENTIRE form be recited, because the Church did not settle the question. Theologian de la Taille, approvingly quoting another eminent theologian (Amicus), does not agree that "shall be shed" suffices--as seen above. 

Objection #2: But if it is morally certain that the "short form" suffices, isn't that proof the "long form" is not needed, just "This is My Body" and "This is My Blood...which shall be shed"?

Reply: No. It was the teaching of many theologians that the short form would suffice, but IN PRACTICE the long form must be used BECAUSE THE CHURCH HERSELF HAS NOT DECLARED IT SUFFICIENT AND DEMANDS RECITATION OF THE ENTIRE FORM. When something is declared morally certain by the Church you may do so. The controversy over the handing over the instruments of Sacrifice for Holy Orders is a good example. Most theologians declared it morally certain that it was not necessary, citing to the Eastern Rites that did not do it, but had valid orders. Nevertheless, the Church had not decided, and if there was a defect in the traditio instrumentorum, it had to be conditionally repeated, and the priest could not function until it was corrected. 

It wasn't until 1947 when Pope Pius XII settled the issue in Sacramentum Ordinis. Although the pontiff agreed that the Eastern Rites were valid without the traditio instrumentorum, it may have been necessary to validity by ecclesiastical precept in the Latin Rite. "If it was at one time necessary even for validity by the will and command of the Church, every one knows that the Church has the power to change and abrogate what she herself has established...It follows as a consequence that We should declare, and in order to remove all controversy and to preclude doubts of conscience, We do by Our Apostolic Authority declare, and if there was ever a lawful disposition to the contrary We now decree that at least in the future the traditio instrumentorum is not necessary for the validity of the Sacred Orders of the Diaconate, the Priesthood, and the Episcopacy." (para. # 3 & 4). 

Until the Church authoritatively settles what exact words are necessary, we must keep Her command to repeat the ENTIRE FORM, for She has declared it so by Pope St Pius V and Pope Benedict XIV. 

Objection #3: If a sacrament needs to be repeated even one has moral certainty regarding its validity that would put sedevacantists in a precarious position regarding the sacrament of confession. Overlooking the fact that supplied jurisdiction only applies when common error prevails, and since the majority of sedevacantists explicitly deny there are bishops with ordinary jurisdiction (or have doubtful jurisdiction), then supplied jurisdiction doesn’t apply.

Reply: I addressed jurisdiction here: His objection fails because the Church has not decided the issue and the Church requires the long form. We have moral certainty for Penance. The analogy is therefore inapposite and fails.  The problem with this Vatican II sect apologist is that he wants to decide the issue with his (non-existent) Magisterial authority.

(I asked the V2 apologist if he accepted Wojtyla's Mass without the Words of Consecration. The following Objection summarizes what he claims). 

Objection #4:  "Do you not accept the decision ratified by John Paul the Great Apostate that NO WORDS OF CONSECRATION ARE NECESSARY?" Have you ever examined the anaphora of St. Sixtus II? What is required is that a substantial change occurs. This may be indicated in various ways. Likewise, the sacrificial nature of the mass may be indicated in various ways also.

Reply: Yes I have. The anaphora of "St. Xystus" is from the Schismatic EO and has never been declared  valid. Uniates (Eastern Rites in union with Rome) were required to ADD THE WORDS OF CONSECRATION to many of their anaphoras before Vatican II. Proof: On May 23, 1957, The Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office declared invalid the concelebration of the Mass by priests who, whatever their intention may be and even wearing all the Sacred Vestments fail to pronounce the Words of Consecration. (See Acta Apostolicae Sedis 49, [1957], pg. 370).

In this post I have demonstrated that the Church cannot change the substance of the Sacraments. Yet we have a service which they approved --an Eastern Schismatic/heretical  Nestorian service that contains NO WORDS OF CONSECRATION. 

Ad arguendo,  let's assume Wojtyla was a true pope (John Paul II). The fact that he has dispensed with the Words of Consecration, the Form of the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist, we would have to conclude one of two things:
  • Christ's words at the Last Supper pertain to the substance of the sacrament AND the Church can change the substance of the Sacraments--OR---
  • Christ's words at the Last Supper do NOT pertain to the substance of the sacrament
Either conclusion is: (a) against ALL Catholic teaching and practice on the subject, and (b) goes against the unanimous teaching of the approved theologians, canonists, and Doctors of the Church. 

Like so many other members of the Vatican II sect, my interlocutor makes bold statements that can't be backed up. He states: "What is required is that a substantial change occurs. This may be indicated in various ways. Likewise, the sacrificial nature of the mass may be indicated in various ways also."

Says who? By who, I mean what pope has declared that a service devoid of the words "This is My Body" and "This is My Blood" (let alone the Long Form!) can confect the Sacrament? Certainly no valid pope pre-Vatican II. Not the Holy Office or any other Roman Congregation. No Doctor of the Church, approved theologian or canonist HAD EVER TAUGHT THOSE WORDS COULD BE ABSENT AND NOT SPOKEN "IN THE PERSON OF CHRIST" (in persona Christi).

The fact my interlocutor does not want to face is that Vatican II started a new sect with a false pope.
Wojtyla was one of them. I pray to God he may wake up and convert to the One True Church of Christ.

Monday, March 15, 2021

A "Bugnini-Free" Holy Week


As of the publication of this post, we are less than two weeks away from Palm Sunday. Some Traditionalist priests and bishops will be telling you to have a "Bugnini-free" Holy Week. They proudly reject the Revised Order of Holy Week, promulgated in 1955 by Pope Pius XII and taking effect in 1956. The primary reason for the rejection of the changes lies in the fact that in 1948 there was a Commission for Liturgical Reform with Father Annibale Bugnini as Secretary; the man who would later become a primary composer of the Novus Bogus "mass" of 1969. 

Annibale Bugnini (1912-1982), was a priest and theologian. Ordained in 1936, he went on to get his Doctorate in Sacred Theology (STD) from the Angelicum University in 1938. He had a major role in drafting the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concillium, produced by the Robber Council Vatican II. In January 1964, Montini ("Pope" Paul VI) appointed Bugnini Secretary of the Council for the Implementation of the Constitution on the Liturgy. On February 13, 1972, Montini himself "consecrated" Bugnini as a  "bishop" according to the defective and invalid Rite the false pope approved in 1968. There is substantial evidence that Bugnini was a Freemason; a charge he denied. According to historian Yves Chiron, Bugnini is said to have replied, "I would never have taken that step." (See Annibale Bugnini: Reformer of the Liturgy, [2016], pg. 174). That reply is rather telling. Rather than a strong condemnation of a Satanic secret society, he makes it seem like he refrained from doing so for some "pragmatic reason." Even if , ad arguendo, Bugnini was not a Freemason, he was a rabid Modernist who hated the Catholic Faith, and had quite the reputation for being deceitful. 

The Society of St. Pius V (SSPV) along with Bishop Dolan, the late Fr. Cekada, and other Traditionalist clergy, make the claim that the Revised Order of Holy Week was the work of Modernist/Mason Bugnini. Bishop Dolan wrote an article entitled Pre-Vatican II Liturgical Changes: Road to the New Mass, with the first subheading stating "Was it Pius XII and John XXIII? Or was it really Bugnini?"(See Roncalli (John XXIII) is of no concern because he was a false pope, and any changes he made to the liturgy should be ignored as he had no authority to change anything. However, unless you are a "Vacancy Pusher," (i.e., one who pushes the time of the papal vacancy pre-1958) then the Reformed Rites of Holy Week, enacted by a true pope (Pope Pius XII), should be accepted, right? 

What at first blush seems to be a no-brainer, is made into a hot point of contention by these clerics. They make several claims that the pre-Pian Order of Holy Week is to be used, to wit:
  • Bugnini, the Modernist/Mason, was behind the Revised Order of Holy Week and crafted it
  • The Revised Rites of Holy Week "led to" the abomination of the Novus Bogus
  • The Revised Rites contain principles which "became harmful over time" and therefore "cease to bind"
  • We can't appeal to "the last true pope" for guidance since we cannot be sure Roncalli and (early) Montini were not true popes, so if we appeal to the standard of "the last true pope"we wind up with more changes through early 1964. Those changes were destructive. 
  • Epikeia tells us that if we had a true pope (Pius XII), or a true successor, they would abolish the Revised Rites in light of what we now know
  • The Revised Rites "lack stability" necessary for a law to be maintained
  • The Church has no authority to make changes to the liturgy, especially such noble Rites from antiquity
Not all of the above comes from Bishop Dolan or the SSPV, but it is a compendium of reasons I've heard and/or read from all those who reject the Pian Holy Week. The Congregation of Mary Immaculate Queen (CMRI), and other independent Traditionalist clergy accept the Pian Holy Week. If there is to be unity among Traditionalists so as to get back a true pope, I think agreeing on Holy Week is as good place to start. As Fr. DePauw told me, "We should accept everything in the Church as it was on October 9, 1958 [the day Pope Pius XII died] and reject all that came after." I think it is a good starting principle. In this post, I will demonstrate why the Revised Holy Week of Pope Pius XII should be accepted by Traditionalists. 

There is one consideration to be kept in mind; all the clergy who reject the Revised Rites of Holy Week accept Pope Pius XII as the last known true pope of the Roman Catholic Church who reigned from March 2, 1939 until his death on October 9, 1958. 

Can the Church Change the Mass and/or Other Liturgical Rites?
1. The Church cannot change the substance of the Sacraments.
It is well-known that to the Church there belongs no right whatsoever to innovate anything on the substance of the Sacraments-- (See Pope St. Pius X, Ex Quo Nono, 1910). 

For these Sacraments instituted by Christ Our Lord, the Church in the course of the centuries never substituted other Sacraments, nor could she do so, since, as the Council of Trent teaches (Conc. Trid., Sess. VII, can. 1, De Sacram, in genere), the seven Sacraments of the New Law were all instituted by Jesus Christ Our Lord, and the Church has no power over “the substance of the Sacraments,” that is, over those things which, as is proved from the sources of divine revelation, Christ the Lord Himself established to be kept as sacramental signs... If it [the handing over of the instruments of sacrifice] was at one time necessary even for validity by the will and command of the Church, every one knows that the Church has the power to change and abrogate what she herself has established.---(See Pope Pius XII, Sacramentum Ordinis, (1947), para. #1, and 3; Emphasis mine). 

2. What constitutes the "substance of the Sacraments"? 
According to theologian Leeming, "Whatever Christ Himself has common consent of the theologians, a more specific definition must include the signification of the Sacrament, i.e., what the Sacrament is meant to do, what grace it gives; which signification must be expressed in some external rite." (See Principles of Sacramental Theology, [1956], pg. 424). 

Therefore, the Church could not change bread and wine for the Eucharist, or alter the Words of Consecration. Nor could She substitute milk for water in Baptism or replace the Trinitarian formula as the form.  

3. The pope has the authority to change all Rites as long as the substance of the sacraments remains untouched.
Canon 1257 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law states that "Only the Apostolic See has the right to regulate the liturgy [i.e., the ritual of public worship] and to approve liturgical books. (See canonists Abbo and Hannon, The Sacred Canons, [1952], 2:512).  

 It follows from this that the Sovereign Pontiff alone enjoys the right to recognize and establish any practice touching the worship of God, to introduce and approve new rites, as also to modify those he judges to require modification.--(See Pope Pius XII, Mediator Dei, para. #58; Emphasis mine).

4. The Council of Trent did not rule out changes to to the Mass and liturgical ceremonies.
CANON VII.--If any one saith, that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs, which the Catholic Church makes use of in the celebration of masses, are incentives to impiety, rather than offices of piety; let him be anathema.

That canon in no way states or implies that by making changes, the Pontiff who makes such changes is thereby asserting that the former ceremonies, vestments, and signs were  deficient or incentives to impiety. 

5. Quo Primum of Pope St. Pius V did not preclude future changes to the Mass. 
Fr. DePauw used to cite Quo Primum (1570) as a means of getting people away from the Vatican II sect. When the local Vatican II sect clergy would tell people to stay away from "schismatic, evil, and disobedient" Fr. DePauw, he would cite the Bull of St. Pius V to say "Every priest can offer the True Mass--Pope St. Pius V said so!" For simple Catholics with little theological formation and wanting to remain true to the Church--it put their mind at ease and they by and large ignored the traitorous clergy of the Vatican II sect. Fr. DePauw himself (as an approved pre-Vatican II canonist) knew that it did not mean that no changes could be made; only that non-Catholic changes are excluded as the Church always taught. The language of Quo Primum sounds foreboding:

... whereas, by this present Constitution, which will be valid henceforth, now, and forever, We order and enjoin that nothing must be added to Our recently published Missal, nothing omitted from it, nor anything whatsoever be changed within it under the penalty of Our displeasure...

Therefore, no one whosoever is permitted to alter this notice of Our permission, statute, ordinance, command, precept, grant, indult, declaration, will, decree, and prohibition. Would anyone, however, presume to commit such an act, he should know that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.

"Valid henceforth, now and forever..."does not mean it can not be changed in the future, nor does "no one whosoever is permitted to alter this notice of Our permission, statute, ordinance, command, precept, grant, indult, declaration, will, decree, and prohibition" mean that a future pope cannot change it. It is what we call in civil law "boilerplate language." It means that no cleric, except for Pope St. Pius V or a future pope can change it. How do we know this to be the case?

(a) No canonist or theologian ever taught that Quo Primum meant the Mass could never change. No one even gave that document a second thought until Fr. DePauw used it for a specific purpose as the Great Apostasy began.

(b) Pope Pius XII and the Code of Canon Law would be in error for teaching that the Supreme Pontiff can "recognize and establish any practice touching the worship of God, to introduce and approve new rites, as also to modify those he judges to require modification." However, they are not wrong because the Church is infallible in Her universal disciplinary laws, such as the 1917 Code of Canon Law. (More on this aspect of infallibility later on). 

(c) In the very front of every pre-Vatican II Missale Romanum, after Quo Primum, is the decree Cum Sanctissimum of Pope  Clement VIII (1604). Only 34 years after Quo Primum, changes were made. Some assert these changes were merely "restorations" from accretions to the Missal and nothing was added. This is demonstrably false. To give but two examples of additions:

1570: The prayer of St. Ambrose, Summe Sacerdos, is not divided into parts.
1604: The Summe Sacerdos is divided into sections for various days of the week.

1570: The general rubrics are not numbered. Within the general rubrics there is no mention of ringing a bell, incense or torchbearers.
1604: The general rubrics are numbered. Ringing a bell, incense and torchbearers are included in the rubrics along with additions such as describing the preparation required for the altar.

(See Paul Cavendish, in an article for Altar No. 1, 1994 "The Tridentine Mass"). 

5. Doesn't this vindicate the Novus Bogus "mass"? Why oppose those changes?
It does nothing to legitimize the Novus Bogus for two reasons:
(a) It was not promulgated by a true pope and was based on the heretical decrees of a Robber Council with no authority, and;
(b)  there were changes to the substance of the sacraments and incentives to impiety. 

The Church is Infallible in Her Universal Disciplinary Laws

According to theologian Van Noort, "The Church's infallibility extends to the general discipline of the can never sanction a universal law which would be at odds with faith or morality or would by its very nature conducive to the injury of souls...The Church's infallibility extends to the general discipline of the Church...By the term "general discipline of the Church" are meant those ecclesiastical laws passed for the direction of Christian worship and Christian living." (See Dogmatic Theology, 2: 114-115; Emphasis mine).

According to theologian Hermann, "The Church is infallible in her general discipline. By the term general discipline is understood the laws and practices which belong to the external ordering of the whole Church. Such things would be those which concern either external worship, such as liturgy and rubrics, or the administration of the sacraments…" ( See Institutiones Theologiae Dogmaticae 1:258; Emphasis mine).

Therefore, to be infallible in this sense means that the Church cannot give that which is erroneous, evil, or an incentive to impiety. It does not mean that once a certain ceremony has been adopted by the Church it cannot change; rather, the new ceremony will also be infallibly guaranteed to be free from error, evil, and impiety.  Logical corollary: If the Pian Holy Week was approved by a true pope (Pope Pius XII), then it must be good, holy, and Catholic. 

Objection: Bugnini was behind those Rites, and Modernists/Masons are evil. 

Yes, Bugnini was one of the primary creators, but a true pope is protected by the Holy Ghost from all error in promulgating universal disciplinary laws for Christian worship. ("Universal" means not limited to a particular territory, it does not mean it is binding on all Catholics. Hence, since the Revised Rites of Holy Week are binding on all Latin Rite Catholics everywhere, it is a universal or general law of the Church--See canonist Bouscaren, Canon Law: A Text and Commentary, [1951], pg. 27). Not everything to come out from that Commission was approved. Bugnini was no doubt trying to put in some bad things with some good. Yet, the Holy Ghost would only allow that which was good to be promulgated.  If Pius XII was pope, the Holy Ghost protected all Pius did in the Liturgy. Bugnini can say 2+2=4 and he's not automatically wrong because he's a Freemason.

In his article The Pius XII Reforms: More on the Legal Issue, Fr. Cekada writes, "The 1950s liturgical legislation introduced these things here and there, and on a limited basis. Taken individually, none was evil in itself." 

Then how do they become harmful as a whole? This is never even attempted to be explained by those rejecting the Pian Rites. Ironically, this comes after what amounts to a litany of charges as to what is seriously wrong and/or deficient in various aspects of the Revised Maundy Thursday, Good Friday, and Holy Saturday. Fr. Ricossa, in his article Liturgical Revolution, has a bulleted list of twelve "other innovations" of the 1955 Holy Week, all of which were "used and taken advantage of [in] the 1955 Holy Week rites to test their [Modernists] revolutionary experiments before applying them to the whole liturgy." Yet, none of these innovations, (we are assured) was "evil in itself." However, taken as a whole (we are once more assured), they became "evil over time." 

In his just referenced article, Fr. Cekada lists certain "false principles and practices," such as: the vernacular may be an integral part of the liturgy, the priest’s role is reduced, lay participation must ideally be vocal, etc.--much like Fr. Ricossa. These were incorporated into the Novus Bogus of 1969. If a principle is wrong, it's always wrong, and does not become wrong. If the vernacular may never be an integral part of the liturgy, then it was wrong when Pope Pius XII introduced it, which is impossible, unless you want to say he wasn't pope. To give another example, if genuflecting on Good Friday for the Jews is false in principle, then how could it be "not evil in itself" in 1956, but the same exact practice somehow became evil in 1969? It could only be wrong when promulgated by Pope Pius XII in 1955 (impossible unless you are a Vacancy Pusher), or it was never wrong. 

The application of the principle may be wrong, but not the principle itself.  Therefore, there was nothing that could have "become harmful." To use an analogy, praying to saints is good and laudatory. Certain "High Church" Anglican heretics, offer their invalid and heretical liturgy in honor of St. Thomas More as a "Martyr of the Reformation (sic)." The dishonoring of St. Thomas More through a false service that equates him with others who were Protestants in no way derogates from the principle that praying to saints is good, or that honoring St. Thomas More is in some way "rendered harmful" because of what some heretics have done.

Therefore, the Pian Holy Week could not be evil if promulgated by a true pope. Its detractors have also failed miserably in their attempt to prove it became "harmful over time."

Objection: Well, then what about the later changes of John XXIII and Paul VI? Roncalli might have been pope, and maybe even Montini prior to signing Lumen Gentium in 1964. Why not follow those changes?

I don't believe for one second that Roncalli or Montini ever attained to the papacy. Conceding, ad arguendo, they did, we nevertheless have good reason to doubt the validity of Roncalli's and Montini's election on several counts. As theologian Szal explains, "Nor is there any schism if one merely transgresses a Papal law for the reason that one considers it too difficult, or if one refuses obedience inasmuch as one suspects the person of the Pope or the validity of his election, or if one resists him as the civil head of a state." (See The Communication of Catholics with Schismatics, CUA Press, [1948], pg. 2; Emphasis mine).  Since we can suspect the elections of Roncalli and Montini, we can safely disregard their "laws" at any stage. Not so Pope Pius XII. 

Objection: Pope Pius XII may not really have signed his approval. He was sick and perhaps not in his right mind or manipulated.

This is mere speculation without any evidence. Without evidence to the contrary, we should accept Pope Pius XII as in his right mind. Only a qualified psychiatrist  at that time could make such a determination. Moreover, there are two facts that weigh heavily against the idea that Pius was not in his right mind: (a) even the Revised Holy Week detractors admit the changes are not evil in themselves and (b) no Catholics were shocked or objected to them as was the case with the Novus Bogus in 1969. Had Pope Pius XII lost his use of reason, he couldn't function as pope and Bugnini would have put through changes that were evil per se. Finally, a true pope is protected by the Holy Ghost against manipulation in these matters. 

Did the Revised Holy Week "Lead To The Novus Bogus"?

Did the dogma of Purgatory lead to Protestantism? It's a ridiculous argument. Proper principles were misapplied. To help the people better understand the Sacred Mysteries of three days out of the year, the vernacular was used in some parts. This hardly translates to throwing out Latin and using only the vernacular all the time. Fr. Cekada produced a video in which he concedes that the changes made were not evil or heretical, but since Montini claimed they were the first step towards the Novus Bogus "mass," they should no longer be used because they give credibility to that notion. Pius agrees, and Fr. Cekada returns to 2018. The video can be seen here: Actually, the argument works the exact opposite to what Fr. Cekada states. Since the reforms of Pope Pius XII were not the first steps to the "new mass," Montini lied (no surprise there). By refusing to use those reforms, it makes their rejection seem to stem from the fact that they were the first steps to the Novus Bogus "mass"---why else would you reject them? Furthermore, please explain to me how a false mass of a false pope, created by a false sect came about from true reforms initiated by a true pope. It's nonsensical. 

Heretics routinely appeal to true teachings to justify their heresy. The wicked document Lumen Gentium of Vatican II contains the heretical ecclesiology that is the basis of the Vatican II sect. There are citations within that "document from Hell" to St. Thomas Aquinas, Pope Pius XII, and Pope Leo XIII (to name but three orthodox Catholic authorities). Did the teachings of Aquinas, Pope Pius XII and Pope Leo XIII somehow "lead to" the heretical ecclesiology of Vatican II? The very idea is absurd. 

Did the Pian Rites "Cease to Bind"?
There are two reason given for the argument that the Revised Rites cease to bind: (a) they became harmful over time (I have already shown this to be false), and (b)they lack "stability" and were not meant to be permanent. The Code of Canon Law deals with laws that cease to bind intrinsically in Canon 21. According to canonists Abbo and Hannon, "There should be in every law an element of permanence. But it is not necessary that a law should be perpetual...A law ceases to exist when it ceases to be reasonable...If not the whole purpose, but only the partial purpose of the law is defeated, the law survives..." (See The Sacred Canons, [1952]1:43-44).  Stability is something that a law should (not must) possess, and there is no express time set down. The Pian Holy Week was in effect for five years (1956-1960, inclusive) before Roncalli started doing real damage. Is five years enough to say it ceases to bind? There is no citation to any competent authority by the anti-Revised Holy Week clerics that sets up a definitive time. There is also no attempt to show the law is (a) unreasonable, or (b) lost its entire purpose.

Objection: What about epikeia as a basis of rejection?

According to canonist Bouscaren:
Epikeia is an interpretation exempting one from the law contrary to the clear words of the law and in accordance with the mind of the legislator. It is evidently a very exception thing. It may be used with prudent discretion, and is justified, only in a particular case where: (a) the strict interpretation of the law would work great hardship; and (b) in view of the usual interpretation it may be prudently conjectured that, in this particular case, the legislator would not wish the law to be strictly applied. (See Canon Law: A Text and Commentary, [1951], pgs. 33-34). 

One must be careful when invoking epikeia, for as theologians McHugh and Callan note:
There is the danger that one may be wrong in judging that the lawgiver did not wish to include a case under his law. If this is not certain, one should investigate to the best of one’s ability, and have recourse, if possible, to the legislator or his representative for a declaration or dispensation. It is never lawful to use epikeia without reasonable certainty that the legislator would not wish the law to apply here and now. (See Moral Theology [1924]1:141).

The burden of proof is clearly on those invoking epikeia to prove with reasonable certainty that Pope Pius XII wouldn't want his reforms to continue by virtue of great hardship or in view of the usual interpretation, he would want them to cease. I have seen no such evidence--only blind conjecture and speculation. 

An Examination of the Revised Holy Week: Truly Catholic 

1. Why Revise the Ancient Rites?
The Sacred Congregation of Rites put forth a document Maxima Redemptionis Nostrae Mysteria, which set forth the Revised Order of Holy Week. It was approved and promulgated by His Holiness Pope Pius XII on November 19, 1955 and would take effect starting with Holy Week in 1956. 
It states:

In the beginning these rites were celebrated on the same days of the week and at the same hours of the day at which the sacred mysteries took place. Thus the institution of the Most Holy Eucharist was recalled on Thursday, in the evening, at the solemn Mass of the Lord’s Supper. On Friday a special liturgical service of the Lord’s Passion and Death was celebrated in the afternoon hours. Finally, on the evening of Holy Saturday the solemn vigil was begun, to be concluded the following morning in the joy of the Resurrection.

But in the middle ages, for various concomitant reasons, the time for observing the liturgy of these days began to be anticipated to such a degree that – toward the end of the middle ages – all these liturgical solemnities were pushed back to the morning hours; certainly with detriment to the liturgy’s meaning and with confusion between the Gospel accounts and the liturgical representations referring to them. The solemn liturgy of the Easter Vigil especially, having been torn from its own place in the night hours, lost its innate clarity and the sense of its words and symbols. Furthermore, the day of Holy Saturday, invaded by a premature Easter joy, lost its proper sorrowful character as the commemoration of the Lord’s burial.

While the Church must never conform to the world, She sometimes has to make it easier to reach those most in need of Her doctrines and sacraments. There were very few people in the increasingly pagan, modern world who could get the time off work to attend these grace-laden rights. People also need to get up for work on Friday, and even on Saturday, so some shortened prayers and ceremonies still are holy and convey the truth while meeting the needs of the people. It is also more solemn to celebrate Good Friday during the actual time Christ died for our sins. People could now attend Maundy Thursday and Holy Saturday--maybe even taking just a half-day off work and make Good Friday services as well.

There is a tendency among Traditionalists to eschew any change as evil in reaction to the Great Apostasy and the Vatican II sect. It reminds me of the time in Church history during the 1940s, when exposure to different religions in America, combined with crypto-Modernists in the hierarchy, led to spreading the heretical idea that the Church wasn't really necessary to salvation and everyone was saved by some ersatz "Baptism of Desire." Going into heresy on the opposite side, Leonard Feeney and his evil followers denied the true teaching of Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood in an overblown reaction. We must remember the axiom, In medio stat veritas---"In the middle lies the truth."

Pope Pius XII reduced the number of lessons recited from twelve to four, reverting to the practice of St. Gregory the Great. The holy pontiff extended the duration of Lent (and thereby the Lenten fast) until midnight when Holy Saturday becomes Easter Sunday. In so doing, there was a full 40 day fast, not 39 and one-half day fast. Abstinence for Holy Saturday was all day to midnight as well. It also ensured Holy Saturday retained its mournful character, as opposed to dressing in white and singing alleluias while Our Lord's Body lies in the Holy Sepulcher. 

In 1954, Pope Pius XII revised the Divine Office, omitting several prayers before the hours (Pater Noster, Ave Maria, and Credo), the preces at Lauds and Vespers (with some exceptions), etc. The purpose of these modifications, according to the Sacred Congregation of Rites, was "to reduce the complexity of the rubrics to a simpler form." Many of these changes had already been introduced into the Monastic Breviary by Pope St. Pius X (not exactly a "Modernist"). Through the influence of the Benedictines, Pope Pius XII extended those changes to all clergy, who welcomed them to more faithfully and devoutly fulfil their recitational duty. 

Pope Pius XII allowed the faithful to receive Holy Communion on Good Friday at the Mass of the Presanctified. Fr. Ricossa dares to (erroneously) assert that this change was condemned by Pope St. Pius X. In Father's article Liturgical Revolution, he writes:

 On Good Friday, communion was now distributed, contrary to the tradition of the Church, and condemned by St. Pius X when people had wanted to initiate this practice

The decree  Sacra Tridentina: On Frequent and Daily Reception of Holy Communion, promulgated on December 20, 1905, in no way says what Fr. Ricossa claims when read in context. Jansenism, a heretical movement beginning in France during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, discouraged frequent Communion. Pope St. Pius X referred to this problem in his decree:

Piety, however, grew cold, and especially afterward because of the widespread plague of Jansenism, disputes began to arise concerning the dispositions with which one ought to receive frequent and daily Communion; and writers vied with one another in demanding more and more stringent conditions as necessary to be fulfilled. The result of such disputes was that very few were considered worthy to receive the Holy Eucharist daily, and to derive from this most health-giving Sacrament its more abundant fruits; the others were content to partake of it once a year, or once a month, or at most once a week. To such a degree, indeed, was rigorism carried that whole classes of persons were excluded from a frequent approach to the Holy Table, for instance, merchants or those who were married. 

Jansenism required such rigorous standards of preparation because of its overall belief “that there are some commands of God which just men cannot keep, no matter how hard they wish and strive” as stated in one of the five propositions of Jansenism condemned by Pope Innocent X in 1653.

Pope St. Pius X wrote that several of his predecessors in the papacy had made statements against these rigorist views:

The poison of Jansenism, however, which, under the pretext of showing due honor and reverence to the Eucharist, had infected the minds even of good men, was by no means a thing of the past. The question as to the dispositions for the proper and licit reception of Holy Communion survived the declarations of the Holy See, and it was a fact that certain theologians of good repute were of the opinion that daily Communion could be permitted to the faithful only rarely and subject to many conditions. (Emphasis mine).

The saintly pope condemned those who (like Feeneyites would do) went to the opposite extreme:

They held that daily Communion was prescribed by divine law and that no day should pass without communicating, and besides other practices not in accord with the approved usage of the Church, they determined that the Eucharist must be received even on Good Friday and in fact so administered it.(Emphasis mine). 

What Pope St. Pius X condemned was the idea by some that daily Communion was demanded by Divine precept and for that reason, demanded (and gave) Holy Communion on Good Friday against the current discipline in the Church. The pope condemned "people [who]  had wanted to initiate this practice" because they held to the heretical notion of daily Communion mandated by Divine Law. Pope St. Pius X never condemned the idea of receiving Holy Communion on Good Friday per se. 

2. Other Wise Reforms

Evening Mass and Modified Eucharistic Fast
Pope Pius modified the Eucharistic fast because (a) he had every right to do so as Supreme Legislator, and (b) there was good reason for it. With the increasing secularization of the world, people had to work on Holy Days of Obligation, and sometimes on Sundays (police officers, doctors in hospitals, etc.) with it being harder and harder to take off and make ends meet for their families. They had to miss Mass and say an extra Rosary that night and/or read devoutly from the missal. Pope Pius therefore allowed evening Masses. The ancient fast began at midnight. If I'm working and the Traditionalist Chapel near me has an 8pm Mass, I would need to go over twenty (20) hours without food. Many people due to infirmity, old age, or the need to keep their strength for work (especially in manual labor) would not be able to do it. They would have to go to Mass and abstain from Communion, or risk their health and job performance. With his decree Sacra Tridentina Synodus (referenced above), Pope St. Pius X encouraged frequent Holy Communion, not as a reward for the just but as the antidote to sin. The Saint said, "Holy Communion is the shortest and safest way to Heaven." By mitigating the fast to three hours before Communion (water and medicine don't break the fast and may be taken at any time), Pope Pius XII was ensuring the will of His Predecessor was continued. I agree with some of my readers who say that, if you can do so without harm to your health or occupation, the midnight fast should be voluntarily kept as penance. Those who cannot do so (such as my now deceased mother who was sickly most of her life), should not be the least afraid to avail themselves of the modified fast. 

Pope Pius XII changed some feast days and made some changes in the Mass rubrics.
As I stated above, yes, he did, and he had every right to do so as Supreme Legislator. He instituted the Feast of the Immaculate Heart of Mary (August 22) and The Queenship of Mary (May 31). On May 1st, the day used by Communists as "May Day" to show the might of Marxism, Pope Pius made it the feast of St. Joseph the Workman. Here he clearly shows the proper understanding of labor exemplified by St. Joseph as opposed to the evil system of Karl Marx. With Cum hac nostra aetate (March 23, 1955), he slightly changed the rankings of feasts, eliminated some octaves and suppressed the Proper Last Gospels for the usual Last Gospel of St. John. None of the above makes him a promoter of heresy or evil. 

Please remember also that the Commission did not consist of Bugnini sitting by himself in a room and trying to get Pope Pius XII to sign things promoting evil or that could become evil. Many good, holy, orthodox clergy were on that Commission for Liturgical Reform and approved of the changes that were given to Pope Pius XII for his consideration to be promulgated. 

Traditionalists should rally around the Revised Rites of Holy Week, and keep all that was in place when the last known true pope of the Roman Catholic Church, Pope Pius XII, died on October 9, 1958. Does that mean it is wrong or sinful to attend the pre-1955 Holy Week of the SSPV, et al? Unlike some Traditionalist clerics, I realize I have no Magisterial authority and refuse to "make up sins." The pre-1955 Rites of Holy Week are just as beautiful, holy, and Catholic as the Pian Rites. Although I believe the Pian Rites should be followed (and this after much study), I am just a layman who runs a blog. Period. I possess no authority to make my opinions binding on anyone. 

If Pope Pius XII had been given a vision of the Great Apostasy by God, is it possible he wouldn't have made those changes? Is it possible he would not want them to bind us under today's circumstances? Not probable, but yes, possible. Therefore, as long as such is possible (and many clergy were now taught in the seminary the Pian Rites no longer apply), we should not call any clergy or laity "schismatic" for attending at SSPV or elsewhere where the pre-1955 Rites are used. Nevertheless, it is my hope that Traditionalists can all start to agree on 10/9/58 as our point of where we accept all Church practices. 

So during the week of March 28, 2021, whether you attend the Pian Holy Week, or the pre-Pian Holy Week, remember that a true pope promulgated those Rites. As such you can rest assured they are both Mason-free, Modernist-free, and, of course, "Bugnini-free."