Mrs. S:

In the interests of brevity I will pass over several pages of dialogue during which, to her horror, Mrs. Smith eventually realizes that Elmer is absolutely serious and that his science teacher, the said Mr. Jones, has indeed built a rocket in his yard, and plans, the next day, to take off for the moon. And now, back to Arkansas.

Well, not Surprisingly, Mrs. Smith won the argument. Not only did she prevent Elmer taking off to the moon, but she contacted the principal of the high school, and Mr. Jones was prevented from taking the fateful step. He was instructed to confine himself to the work for which he was qualified, teaching science from a textbook. He was naturally bitter at first, and felt that there had been a conspiracy to prevent Arkansas from taking its rightful place in the conquest of space, but, when he grew older and wiser, he was thankful that events had turned out the way they had. He sat on his porch in the evening, watching the sunsets for which I am sure Arkansas is justly famous, and blessing the name of Mrs. Smith without whose intervention he might have incinerated himself in the days of his youthful folly.

I am sure that every reader of The Angelus will agree that Mrs. Smith acted with exemplary prudence. Thousands, probably tens of thousands, of science graduates emerge from American universities each year, but not one in a hundred thousand will ever make a discovery which will advance the frontiers of science to a significant degree. Most, I am sure, will perform the routine occupations which they undertake with commendable efficiency, and become respected members of their local golf clubs. Those who had youthful delusions of grandeur will swiftly lose them, and do so with little regret.

But strangely, there are some Catholics who would not dream of trusting their bodies to a homemade moon rocket, even though it had been constructed by a science graduate, but are willing to risk the loss of their immortal souls by the uncritical acceptance of the speculative theories of a priest, simply because he happens to be a priest. They appear unaware of the fact that the number of priests who are competent to engage in speculative theology is as limited as that of scientists who invent moon rockets. A priest of average intelligence who has received a good traditional seminary education is able to preach sound doctrine to his congregation and explain the catechism to the children. He will be able to instruct converts on what the Church teaches, give good sound advice to those who seek his help in the confessional, and explain the Scriptures in the sense approved by the Church and set out in approved commentaries. As the years pass he should become more and more a true father of his people, a man with compassion for their failings, encouragement for their efforts, sympathy for them in the sorrows of life, and ready to help them in material necessity as far as his means allow. What more noble vocation can there be, and what greater privilege than offering the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass in the person of Christ each day? The Cure of Ars is indeed the most appropriate patron for priests. His only desire was to be a father to his people and save their souls. It is also worth noting that heresies are almost invariably started by priests or bishops who begin to delve into speculative theology, and reach conclusions which lead them and their followers outside the Church. Pride brought about the fall of Satan, and he uses this sin to bring about the fall of so many of the sons of Adam. Once a man has committed himself in public to a particular theory he cannot retract it without loss of face, and it is no easy task to overcome one's pride and admit error. We all know only too many cases of friends who are following their local pastor or curate down the broad Liberal path which leads out of the Church. But it is my opinion that Satan feels that he has worked so effectively within the Conciliar Church that he can now concentrate his efforts upon the traditionalist movement. It would be incredible if he were not doing so. And what tactics would he use?

Clearly, to use the sin of pride to initiate dissension and division among traditionalists—to set them at each other's throats rather than allowing them to form an effective opposition to the episcopal hirelings who are leading their flocks to destruction, or standing by complacently while Modernist theologians destroy their faith. In some parts of Europe he has succeeded in this aim. Once flourishing traditionalist groups have dissolved into quarreling factions, abusing each other with such invective and hatred that it is hard to discern the smallest trace of vestigial Christian spirit. Some allegedly traditionalist journals now consist of nothing but attacks upon other traditionalists, and the most frequent target is Archbishop Lefebvre himself. I have just been reading of some priests who have had themselves consecrated as bishops by an elderly Vietnamese prelate, and have set up their own churches. I have been particularly saddened at the defection of a young priest of the Society of St. Pius X who I knew as a seminarian, and had visited me in my home. He has been deluded by those claiming that we no longer have a pope and that the new Mass is intrinsically invalid, and he now denounces the Archbishop as a traitor because he rejects these crazy, diabolically crazy, theories. Indeed, the very idea of recently ordained priests considering themselves competent to make a credible contribution to speculative theology is absurd to the point of being grotesque.

There was once an American lady, whose name I have forgotten, who rather fancied herself as an operatic soprano. The casting directors of the great operatic companies did not share this optimistic estimate of her talent, so she would hire orchestras and concert halls to display her talent to a public that was either indifferent or amused. She is reputed to have said: "They may say that I couldn't sing, but they can't say that I didn't." There are a good number of traditionalist priests in America today, particularly in the younger age group, who could make the same remark apropos writing theology.

I hope most sincerely that I will cause no offense in the remark I am about to make. This is certainly not my intention. As far as I know, there is not a single priest within the traditionalist movement in the English-speaking world who is qualified to engage in speculative theology. In no way do I intend any disrespect. I am privileged to have some of the finest traditionalist priests in a number of English-speaking countries as my very good friends, and I could not find adequate words to express the admiration I feel for the devotion to the Faith, to the people they serve, to their knowledge of the Faith, and the clarity with which they expound it. The assessment I have made of their theological competence is no more disrespectful than my estimate that there is unlikely to be anyone teaching science in a school in Arkansas today who will build a moon rocket. They can still be admirable teachers, doing a fine job, without achieving such distinction. All I am claiming, and I stand open to correction, is that we do not have the good fortune to possess a theologian of repute among our ranks. Now, what do I mean by a theologian of repute? He would normally be a priest of mature years who had earned one or more higher degrees in theology, taught theology in pontifical universities or at least seminaries, contributed to learned periodicals, and, perhaps, written books on theology. Above all, his orthodoxy would be above suspicion. If there are such priests within the traditionalist movement, I would certainly like to learn of them.

Even more incredible than the spectacle of priests, without any theological competence, pontificating upon topics which would have taxed the erudition of St. Thomas Aquinas, is that of laymen without formal theological training making ex cathedra pronouncements in this field. I am not impugning the zeal or the sincerity of these amateur theologians, laymen or clerics; but Hans Küng may be zealous and sincere. Some of the material which is reaching me from the U.S.A. is truly mind-bending—some of it duplicated, some xeroxed, some in glossy covers, and sometimes handwritten in several colors with much underlining and capitalization. The authors of these diatribes cheerfully excommunicate 99% of the Catholics of the world, or provide their authoritative interpretations of Canon Law or the Council of Trent without even the hint of a suggestion that they might possibly be mistaken. Exactly the same mentality is manifested by the self-appointed lay-theologians of CUF.

I had better digress for a moment to answer an objection which will certainly be raised. Does not what I have just written apply equally to my own writing? Do I consider myself to be a theologian of repute? Why should I be right and those with whom I disagree wrong? Might I not be a victim of pride? My answer is that I do not consider myself to be a theologian, let alone a theologian of repute. I do happen to have spent three years in a Catholic college and received a degree entitling me to teach Catholic doctrine and philosophy, and this is what I confine myself to doing. I make a practice of never indulging in speculative theology if I can avoid it, and where I do, I obtain the advice of theologians of repute. Thus, not too long ago, I attempted to "dialogue" with some young priests in the most courteous and charitable tone possible on the subject of the new ordination rite. Before submitting my conclusions I obtained the advice of a Canon lawyer, four theologians of the highest repute, and one of the world's greatest authorities on Christian Latin. Their opinions, each submitted individually, without consulting the others, were unanimous: that God would not allow a pope to promulgate an invalid sacramental rite and that although an invalid vernacular version is theoretically possible, the various English translations of the new rite have all been adequate for validity. I have since consulted two more theologians who have expressed exactly the same opinion. Sadly, my efforts proved fruitless. The young priests in question appear certain that an opinion is true simply because they have expressed it. One of the more learned members of the Society of St. Pius X, writing to express his regret at some rather discourteous treatment which I received (not that this has caused me any loss of sleep), remarked: "Their ideas on sacramental theology are, of course, ludicrous. I await the news that all who disagree with them were excommunicated at birth—or perhaps conceived excommunicate." I hope to write some articles on the subject of the new ordination rite for The Angelus later this year.

I hope, therefore, that I am not guilty of arrogance in preferring my own opinion to that of certain priests. The reason is that it is not my own opinion, but that of learned theologians. If there is a theologian of repute who takes a contrary view I would like to be put in touch with him. However, a view is not necessarily correct because a number of theologians supports it. There is no heresy which could not find the support of hundreds of theologians today. In America, the majority of theologians appear to be opposed to Humane Vitae. But I would equally submit that a theological thesis which does not have the support of some theologians of repute cannot be taken seriously. The two most pernicious errors prevailing within the traditionalist movement today, undermining it, destroying it, and making it ridiculous to those outside with a modicum of theological competence, are that one or more of the new sacramental rites is intrinsically invalid and that one or all of the last four popes (including the present Pontiff) were either not popes at all or lost their office through heresy. I would be very interested to learn of a single theologian of repute anywhere in the English-speaking world who would uphold either of these propositions.

AND NOW, at last, to the book by R. P. Coomaraswamy who is, I understand, a medical doctor, and, no doubt highly competent at his profession. Alas, he displays no such competence in the field of theology. I do not enjoy saying this; in fact, I feel rather embarrassed as he has reviewed some of my own books in a not unsympathetic manner. I wish very much that I could offer a quid pro quo. I note, too, that he makes frequent reference to my writing in his book. It contains a great deal that is sound and very interesting, which increases my sorrow that it contains serious errors which will certainly be utilized by conservative and liberal critics of the traditionalist movement.

I will deal first with some errors of fact. Any writer who wishes to be taken seriously must make an effort to verify his facts and check his quotations. Mistakes are bound to occur from time to time and I would be the last person to claim that I have not slipped up on occasions. But wherever possible I attempt to verify my quotations from the original sources. It would appear that Dr. Coomaraswamy does not take this precaution. Let me give some examples. On page 198 he writes:

Has the Church the right to change the matter or form of her Sacraments? The answer is given by Pope Leo XIII's Apostolicae Curae from which we take the following quotes:

"The Church is forbidden to change or even touch, the matter or form of any sacrament. She may indeed change or abolish or introduce something in the non-essential rites or 'ceremonial' parts used in the administration of the sacraments, such as processions, prayers or hymns before or after the actual words of the form are recited . . . All know that the sacraments of the New Law, as sensible and efficient signs of invisible grace, ought both to signify the grace which they effect, and effect the grace which they signify.''

This is certainly a quotation which has truly devastating implications where the new sacramental rites which have followed Vatican II are concerned, and Dr. Coomaraswamy doesn't stint himself in making use of it. There is, however, one drawback—only the italicized part appears in Apostolicae Curae. The first part is pure fiction. It does not appear in Apostolicae Curae and could not possibly have appeared in any encyclical by any pope as it is historically and theologically nonsensical.

On page 240, Dr. Coomaraswamy writes:

The priest is no longer the performer of the Sacrifice, the intercessor between man and God; rather he is the minister "presiding" over the "gifts," and the leader of the community. As it says in the General Instruction on the Roman Missal:

"The Mass is not an act of the priest with whom the people unite themselves, as it used to be explained. The Eucharist is, rather, an act of the people, who the ministers serve by making the Saviour present sacramentally . . . This (former) formulation, which corresponded to the classical theology of recent centuries, was rejected because it placed what was relative and ministerial (the hierarchy) above the ontological and absolute (the people of God)."

Every true Catholic will be scandalized by these words, particularly on learning that they appeared in the General Instruction approved by Pope Paul VI which is printed in the new Missal. But, in fact, these words do not appear anywhere in the General Instruction, in either of its versions.

On page 86, in an outline of the new rite of Mass, he comments:

Communion follows. Kneeling is no longer permitted (the Anglicans also forbade it).

It is quite untrue that the rubrics of the new rite forbids kneeling, and a good number of priests who use the new rite still uphold the traditional practice. Nor did the Anglicans forbid kneeling. It was retained in the rubrics of their prayer-book, but the notorious "Black Rubric" was added to make it clear that the act of kneeling implied no adoration of the sacrament.

On pages 163-4, Dr. Coomaraswamy informs us:

The Episcopal Synod appointed by Paul VI to review the Novus Ordo Missae substantially rejected it. They gave their reasons in a brief but accurate summary. The Church has never published this report. One is to this day unsure how it was "smuggled" out of the Vatican. However, we have this report and have quoted from it. It is added as an appendix to this book.

This is stirring stuff, a truly sensational revelation—and a great coup for the good doctor in obtaining it for publication. The one drawback is that the Synod of Bishops produced no such critique, hence it could not have been "smuggled" out of the Vatican to be published by Dr. Coomaraswamy. What he is referring to is the Critical Study of the New Mass written by a group of Roman theologians totally unconnected with the Synod of Bishops in 1967. It was forwarded to the Pope with a covering letter from Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci, and the letter and critique have since been known in America as "The Ottaviani Intervention." It is the Ottaviani Intervention which has been published as an appendix to the book of Dr. Coomaraswamy. It is also exaggerating to claim that the Synod substantially rejected the Novus Ordo. Those who want the necessary facts can find them by following up the entries "Synod of Bishops (1967)" and ''Breve Esame" in the index to my book Pope Paul's New Mass.

This type of factual error, and I could cite others, makes it impossible to accept the book as a serious work of scholarship, and will provide useful ammunition for those wishing to discredit the traditionalist movement. Another criticism that I must make in this respect is that Dr. Coomaraswamy includes numerous quotations for which no exact reference is made. He should also have provided an index.

BUT FAR MORE SERIOUS than the factual errors which mar this work are the serious theological errors found in it. Dr. Coomaraswamy appears to believe that the Catholic Church has ceased to exist outside the traditionalist movement; that we do not have a pope (and have not had one since Pope Pius XII); and that the New Mass and some (or all) of the new sacramental rites are probably (certainly) invalid. It should be borne in mind that Archbishop Lefebvre has repeatedly condemned those who maintain that we do not have a pope or that the New Mass is intrinsically invalid, and so the book must be considered as an attack upon the position the Archbishop has taken. Dr. Coomaraswamy would probably argue that Archbishop Lefebvre is not infallible, and of course he would be correct. But in this respect, the judgment of the Archbishop would be endorsed almost unanimously by orthodox theologians of repute.

The Catholic Church is, and will remain, a visible hierarchically governed society until the Second Coming, a society united by the same faith, the same sacraments, and the same government. I must make a distinction between sacraments and sacramental rites. Catholics are united in possessing the same seven sacraments, but these sacraments are made present by a variety of sacramental rites. A body utilizing invalid sacramental rites could not possibly be the Catholic Church as possession of the sacraments is an essential sign of her unity. Thus, to claim that the new sacramental rites are intrinsically invalid means that the Church no longer exists within the Roman Rite, apart from traditionalist groups, and that it is perpetuated only in the Catholic Eastern rites. There would thus be no Catholic Church in a country such as Poland! Perhaps Dr. Coomaraswamy would like to defend such a proposition. I certainly wouldn't!

Possession of valid sacraments alone does not constitute full Catholicism. There is also unity of government, which is what lies at the heart of our breach with the Orthodox Churches. No one can consider himself to be fully Catholic who refuses communion with the Roman Pontiff. This is a fundamental axiom of our faith. I could fill the entire Angelus for the rest of this year with quotations from the Magisterium testifying to this point. I will content myself with citing the Encyclical Satis cognitum of Pope Leo XIII:

No true and perfect human society can be conceived which is not governed by some supreme authority. Christ therefore must have given to His Church a supreme authority to which all Christians must render obedience. For this reason, as the unity of the faith is of necessity required for the unity of the Church, inasmuch as it is the body of the faithful, so also for this same unity, inasmuch as the Church is a divinely constituted society, unity of government, which effects and involves unity of communion, is necessary jure divino. The unity of the Church is manifested in the mutual connection or communication of its members, and likewise in the relation of all the members of the Church to one head. From this it is easy to see that men can fall away from the unity of the Church by schism, as well as by heresy.

Pope Leo then reiterates the traditional teaching that Peter is the rock upon which the Church is built, and that the authority vested in him has been inherited by his successors:

Jesus Christ, therefore, appointed Peter to be the head of the Church; and he also determined that the authority instituted in perpetuity for the salvation of all should be inherited by his successors, in whom the same permanent authority of Peter himself should continue ... by the will and command of God the Church rests upon St. Peter just as a building rests on its foundation. Now the proper nature of a foundation is to be a principle of cohesion for the various parts of the building. Remove it and the whole building falls.

When Our Lord promised that "the gates of hell shall not prevail" against His Church He guaranteed that the Church would exist as a visible, hierarchically governed, divinely constituted society until He comes again in glory, and that, as a whole, it would not fail in its divinely constituted mission. This mission includes the sanctification of mankind through the sacraments as well as preaching the Gospel. The idea of a divinely founded Church administering invalid sacraments to almost all its members is an absurdity. It is equally absurd to imagine that such a Church could consist of a minute traditionalist faction in one particular country, or even of such a faction which had support in several countries. I have already heard it argued that the two priests who have just had themselves consecrated as bishops in France can now consecrate other bishops, that these bishops can elect a pope, and that we shall then have a visible, hierarchically governed Church. Shall we indeed? If we accept, for the sake of argument, that the Church had no cardinals to elect a pope, then the bishops would have to undertake the task. Obviously, if we accept that there have been no popes since Pope Pius XII, then the cardinals appointed by his successors are not really cardinals, and the only cardinals left are the few who were appointed by Pope Pius XII, who all accept John Paul II as the lawfully elected Pope. But the bishops who elected the Pope would have to be Catholic bishops, and we must make a distinction between Catholic bishops and validly consecrated bishops. The same elderly Vietnamese bishop who has just consecrated the two priests I have mentioned, one French, one Mexican, also consecrated Clemente, the "seer" of Palmar de Troya in Spain, who has since appointed himself as pope! It is probable that the number of bishops subsequently consecrated by Clemente, or by bishops consecrated by him, now runs into the hundreds. But not one of the bishops consecrated in this way is a Catholic bishop. They are in the same position as the hundreds of bishops found in the proliferation of "Old Catholic" and "Old Roman Catholic" sects throughout the world—in other words, they are outside the Church. It is not simply possible, but virtually certain, that within a few years we shall have other claimants to the papal throne as well as Clemente. Suppose we had an American "pope," a French "pope," a Mexican "pope," and a German "pope"—how would the faithful be supposed to choose between them, and what basis would any one of them have for claiming our allegiance? Clearly, such a situation could exist within the nightmare of a madman, but it could bear no relationship whatsoever to the one, true Church founded by Jesus Christ. Archbishop Lefebvre has stressed that the problems raised by the thesis that we have no pope are such as to make the idea totally untenable.

It is true, as Pope Leo XIII also teaches in Satis Cognitum, that the divine promise must be understood of the Church as a whole, and not any certain parts of it. These can indeed be overcome by the assaults of the powers of hell, as in point of fact has befallen some of them. A good case can be made for claiming that the Church in Holland is now in schism, and to all intents and purposes, some American dioceses have now fallen away from unity with the Holy See. But the Church as a whole cannot fail; it will always preach the authentic Gospel and sanctify its members with valid sacraments. If individual theologians, bishops, or even popes make statements which cannot be reconciled with orthodoxy, this does not mean that the Church is committed to unorthodoxy. Up to this point, no pope has attempted to use his authority to impose unorthodoxy upon the entire Church as definitive Catholic teaching. Although it would be theoretically possible for a vernacular translation of a sacramental rite to be invalid, a situation in which the majority of Catholics were deprived of valid sacraments would mean that the Church had failed in her mission, which it cannot do. The Church is indefectible.

Pope Leo XIII explained the indefectibility of the Church in the following terms, referring to the divine promise that the gates of hell should not prevail against the Church:

The meaning of this divine utterance is, that, notwithstanding the wiles and intrigues which they bring to bear against the Church, it can never be that the Church committed to the care of Peter shall succumb or in any wise fail. For the Church, as the edifice of Christ who has wisely built His house upon a rock, cannot be conquered by the gates of hell. They may prevail over any man who shall be off the rock and outside the Church, but they shall be powerless against the Church. (Satis Cognitum).

If what Dr. Coomaraswamy claims, or at least implies, in his book is true, then the Church is not indefectible; Pope Leo and many other popes were wrong in teaching that the Church of Christ could not succumb or fail, and, indeed, Christ Himself erred in making the promise of indefectibility. The reader might reasonably ask me to prove that Dr. Coomaraswamy really made the outrageous suggestions which I have attributed to him. I shall now do so.

From what I can gather, he would answer my criticism that he is rejecting communion with the Roman Pontiff by claiming that we do not have a pope at present because the Holy See is vacant—although he does not say this quite so specifically. But he repeatedly puts the title "pope" in inverted commas when referring to any pope subsequent to Pope Pius XII, e.g., pp. 99, 108, 238, 250. On p. 88 he refers to Pope John XXIII as "allegedly Christ's representative on earth." On p. 108 he claims: "We may not be faithful to Wojtyla's post-conciliar church, but this Church is no longer "The Church of All Times," the Church that Christ established." Dr. Coomaraswamy claims (page 108) that he is really defending the papacy by making a distinction between the seat and the one who is sitting in it. Such a distinction can be legitimate. He states on p. 80: "The Church has always taught that it was possible for a pope to become a bad pope, and that, should such be the case, we are not to give him our total obedience."

This would be more accurate if rather than saying that the Church has taught this, he had stated that it had been "a legitimate theological opinion within the Church." I have discussed this point at length in Appendix II to Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebvre, from which Dr. Coomaraswamy appears to have extracted a good number of the quotations he uses to support his case. But there is all the difference in this world and the next between stating that we have the right to resist a pope who is commanding us to do something we honestly believe to be harmful to the faith, and saying that we do not have a pope at all. The difference is, bluntly, that between being a Catholic and not being a Catholic. Archbishop Lefebvre has repeatedly rejected the theory that we do not have a pope, and I do not think it necessary to repeat his arguments here. All I will add is that if Dr. Coomaraswamy is really claiming that we have no pope, and if he is correct, then it would not be the case that the Catholic Church had come to an end, there would never have been a Catholic Church.

I will refer briefly to the question of St. Athanasius and Pope Liberius, which he raises on p. 249, citing my own writing upon this topic. The important point to bear in mind here is that although St. Athanasius upheld the faith in spite of the Pope, although Pope Liberius "fell," at no time did St. Athanasius ever suggest that he was not the true pope. A weak pope, yes, but also the true pope. Similarly, Archbishop Lefebvre has affirmed that a man can be a Liberal and the Pope at the same time.

Dr. Coomaraswamy argues that a pope can lose his office through heresy. This is correct, but if it happened it would have to be so manifest as to be beyond any possibility of doubt, and would need to be made known to the Church through the "declaratory" sentence of a General Council. A General Council cannot depose a pope, but it can declare that he has deposed himself. An explanation of this distinction can be found in Appendix II to Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebvre.

I do not propose to go into great detail to show that he considers the new sacramental rites doubtfully valid or certainly invalid. He claims, on p. 107, that it is necessary to re-ordain, not even conditionally re-ordain, all the clergy "raised to the table" since 1968. Archbishop Lefebvre is quite happy to accept the services of priests ordained under the new rite, and I would be surprised if theologians of repute could be found to endorse the thesis that the new ordination rite was probably or even possibly invalid. As regards the New Mass, Archbishop Lefebvre insists that it is not intrinsically invalid, yet on p. 188, Dr. Coomaraswamy writes:

Enough has been said of the Novus Ordo Missae to show that it indeed is a PARODY created as a substitution intended to replace our traditional Mass. But it is only an imitation or a mimickry. It is in fact a burlesque, created by those who have usurped the magisterial function; it is a "sop" and a "Christmas Game" to befuddle the faithful.

There are places where he appears to accept the possibility of at least some valid consecrations, but these are unlikely and would be sacrilegious:

Unfortunately, despite the fact that in all likelihood no consecration occurs in the Novus Ordo, objective sacrilege is still committed (p. 166).

Dr. Coomaraswamy writes page after page attempting to prove his bizarre theses, but does no more than display his total confusion and terrifying ignorance upon the subject of sacramental theology. Unfortunately, there will be many who will take what he has written at face value because they are equally ignorant. It is a case of the blind leading the blind in the direction of a most uncomfortable pit. Many of the quotations he gives are authentic, it is the interpretation that he puts on them which cannot be sustained. This was also the case with a book produced by Catholics United for the Faith which I reviewed recently. The authors cited quotation after quotation to prove their theses. The quotations are correct but the authors lacked the necessary theological background to interpret them correctly.

Needless to say, if I have misinterpreted Dr. Coomaraswamy, and he wishes to correct me, I would be happy to have his correction printed. If he is willing to state unequivocally that he accepts Pope John Paul II as the lawful successor of St. Peter, and that he also accepts the intrinsic validity of the New Mass, I would be delighted to make this public. It has given me no pleasure at all to write this review, but his book is going to do considerable damage to the traditionalist movement and it is necessary for those of us concerned with resisting Modernism within the Church to repudiate it emphatically.