This letter was written in 1978 by the faithful priest, Father Denis O’Brien Buckley to Cardinal Freeman, expressing his concerns over the new Mass and other reforms of the post-conciliar period.
It is prefaced by an introduction from Silvester Donald McLean, who was founder and editor of the traditionalist newspaper, “Catholic”, which ran from 1982 to 2000.
This is the followup to ‘Letter from a priest to his Bishop’. That and what appears below were written by Fr Denis O’Brien Buckley, one of the few priests who remained faithful to the Old Mass.
“From a priest to the Cardinal” is the last and perhaps most important paper from Fr Buckley. It was circulated to Cardinal Freeman, then Archbishop of Sydney, all Australian Bishops and most priests throughout Australia and New Zealand, as well as many laity.
It could be described as a last ditch effort on the part of Fr Buckley. The reaction from the Cardinal and most others was silence. Fr Buckley continued with his Catholic Research Centre until ill health forced him into a painful retirement.
We have tried as far as possible to maintain the emphasis and layout of the original letter which was written on March 12, 1978. Fr Buckley died on the Feast of the Sacred Heart, 1988.
Your Eminence,
As an association of Catholics who have made ourselves very well aware of what is behind today’s Church troubles, we wish to bring to your attention certain serious facts and Catholic principles which every Catholic will have to face sooner or later.
In fact, we consider the matter so urgent that we are sending this letter today to every Bishop and Parish priest in Australia and New Zealand, and to religious and laity too, for their immediate consideration.
The more Catholics there are who know the true situation, the better support the Bishops can expect in remedying it.
We are concerned here with what has happened to the Mass. It is simply incredible that Bishops and Priests continue to take no notice of the well- publicised fact: In 1969, the New Mass that was given to the Church that year was shown by Catholic Theologians of the highest authority to be quite un-Catholic, and therefore to be unacceptable as Catholic Mass.
“It has no intention of presenting the Faith as taught by the Council of Trent, to which, nontheless, the Catholic conscience is bound forever.”
“It teems with insinuations of manifest errors against the integrity of the Catholic religion.”
“Not a word do we now find about the Priest’s power to sacrifice, or about his act of Consecration, the bringing about through him of the Eucharistic Presence. He now appears as nothing more than a Protestant minister.”
There are two dozen other serious objections that were put before the Church authorities by Cardinals Ottavianni and Bacci to show that (at the best) it was extremely doubtful that the New Mass could be valid.
Their authoritative conclusions were simply ignored! Catholics were given the New Mass anyway!
Yet, at the same time, non-Catholic theologians AGREED that the New Mass was NOT the same as the Catholic Mass which we used to have —and which they could never accept.
To use the same Mass as the Catholics Brother Max Thurian of the Taize community and one of the six Protestant theologians who helped compose the New Mass — “It is now theologically possible for Protestants to use the same Mass as the Catholics (La Croix, May 30th, 1969).
Professor M. Seigwalt, a member of the Catholic-Protestant Unity Commission of France:— “There is nothing in the new Catholic Mass that would disturb a Protestant,” (Le Monde, Novemeber 22nd, 1969)
Your Eminence, we know that the true Catholic Mass disturbed them enough centuries ago to have them put Catholic Priests to death for saying it.
We know that the Catholic Real Presence disturbs them still. Now they use the New Mass themselves as a non-Catholic service!
They are quite certain it is NOT a Catholic Mass. So Catholics who are told that it is have excellent reasons for doubt, as you see.
Besides, (to make the New Mass even more “doubtful!”), in its English translation it contains a false rendering of Our Lord’s words of Consecration of the wine.
The New Mass has it that at the Last Supper Our Lord said that His Blood would be shed “for all men.” (See end note.)
It is objective truth that He said His Blood would be shed “for many.” The Bible tells us so. The Catholic Church has officially confirmed it— and explained it. Now the New Mass changes Our Lord’s words. AND OUR LORD’S WORDS MAKE UP THE FORM OF THE SACRAMENT!
Here is official Church teaching:
“The words of Consecration which are the form of this Sacrament are these: — ‘For this is My Body’ and ‘For this is the Chalice of My Blood, of the new and eternal testament: the mystery of faith; which will be shed for you and for many unto the remission of sins.’ If anyone were to omit or change anything in the form of the Consecration of the Body and Blood and in this change of words, the words do not mean the same thing, he would not produce the Sacrament.”
(“Defects occurring in the celebration of the Mass”, in the official Roman Missal of Pope Pius V, 1570).
In the Catechism of the Council of Trent (1566), the Church teaches: “In our Sacraments, the form is so defined that any, even a casual deviation from it renders the Sacrament null.”
But the deviation in the New Mass form is much more than a casual one. In fact the words”for all men” are the very words Our Lord AVOIDED using. The Church explained centuries ago (in the Trent Catechism) why Our Lord did not say “for all men”. It was not what He meant to say. He meant — and said — “for many” i.e., the many who would actually be saved. “For all men” changes Our Lord’s meaning.
No one then can lawfully change the form of the Sacrament by changing Our Lord’s words — which is, of course, forgery. No one in authority can lawfully require Bishops and Priests to make this sacrilegious change.
Pope St. Pius X (in the letter Ex quo nono Dec 26, 1910): “It is well known that to the Church there belongs no right whatever to innovate anything touching on the substance of the Sacraments.” Pope Clement VI (1351), the Council of Trent and Pope Pius XII said the same.
There is no getting away from the facts. Today, in the New Mass, we have a Mass which
(a) clearly and certainly falsifies Our Lord’s words of institution of the Blessed Eucharist;
(b) is seriously objected to by the Catholic theologians of proved orthodoxy;
c) is accepted by Protestant theologians as being able to be freely used as a Protestant service.
Your Eminence, it is reasonable and honest and completely in accord with the facts to conclude that (to say the best of it) such a Mass is doubtful.
As you know (and every Priest was taught this) that out of reverence for the Sacraments, a Priest is forbidden, under pain of mortal sin, to attempt to “confect” (produce) a “doubtful” Sacrament.
“In conferring the Sacraments (as also in Consecration in Mass) IT IS NEVER ALLOWED to adopt a probable course of action as to validity and TO ABANDON THE SAFER COURSE. The contrary was explicitly condemned by Pope Innocent XI. To do so would be A GRIEVOUS SIN AGAINST RELIGION, namely, an act of irreverence towards what Christ Our Lord has instituted; it would be A GRIEVOUS SIN AGAINST CHARITY, as the recipient would probably be deprived of the graces and effect of the Sacrament; it would be A GRIEVOUS SIN AGAINST JUSTICE, the recipient has a right to valid Sacraments, whenever the minister, whether ex officio or not, undertakes to confer a Sacrament.
In the necessary Sacraments* THERE IS NO DOUBT ABOUT THE TRIPLE SIN; In Sacraments that are not necessary THERE WILL ALWAYS BE THE GRAVE SACRILEGE AGAINST RELIGION.
“The same is true of one who uses a probable opinion IN THE RECEPTION of a Sacrament in respect of its matter or form, for HIS ACTION exposes the Sacrament to invalidity.” 1
The Blessed Eucharist is, as you know, one of the necessary Sacraments. So the New Mass is clearly forbidden under pain of mortal sin to the clergy and laity alike SIMPLY BECAUSE IT IS DOUBTFUL.
For a Catholic, there is no getting way from Catholic principles. The same reasoning applies everywhere in our lives. You would not risk taking a medicine which a professional analyst told you was poisonous. You would not have your solicitor agree to a doubtful contract for the Diocese. You would not risk death by touching an exposed wire that could be live.
Nor must you risk idolatry and sacrilege by using a Mass that could be (and professional theologians have stated it IS) not a Catholic Mass at all.
Your Eminence, it is no use saying “But the Church has approved the New Mass, therefore it must be lawful to use it.”
The Holy Catholic Church, the Mystical Body of Christ, could not possibly ever officially approve as a true Catholic Mass a service
(a) condemned as un-Catholic by Her own top-ranking
theologians,
(b) with a forgery — a lie — in Our Lord’s own words of Consecration, and
(c) acceptable to those who have always been bitterly opposed to the Catholic Mass.
The very idea is blasphemous and absurd, as anyone can see. It would be the all-holy Christ contradicting Himself, agreeing with dishonesty and error.
Your Eminence, on Catholic principles your position is quite certain. As a Priest, you personally are clearly forbidden in conscience and under pain of mortal sin to attempt to “confect” a doubtful Sacrament by using the “New Mass” ever again.
As a Bishop, you are equally seriously obliged to see that your Priests and people are not themselves involved ever again in such sacrilege. Catholics have a strict right in justice that — even at this late stage — you and your fellow Bishops and Priests will carry out your sacred duty n this matter and restore the certainly-valid Mass we used to have.
In this, you may be assured of the loyal support of all thinking Catholics.
Yours sincerely in Our Lord,
Rev. B. Buckley
on behalf of The Catholic Research Centre.
End Note by S. D. McLean: The mis-translation of pro multis as ‘for all men’ occurred in almost every vernacular translation. It was not corrected until the following appeared in a letter from Pope Benedict XVI to the German Episcopal Conference: On the Translation of Pro Multis in the Eucharistic Prayer” and no doubt in other places. In affect, the Pope gives the German Bishops a lesson in Latin translation!
What is important however, is that this mis-translation was allowed to persist for over forty years. Was that enough to render all those Masses invalid, or at least doubtful?
In this context, the Holy See has decided that in the new translation of the Missal, the words “pro multis” should be translated as they stand, and not presented in the form of an interpretation. In the place of the interpretative explanation “for all”, the simple rendering “for many” must appear. Let me take the opportunity to point out that neither Matthew nor Mark uses the definite article, so it is not “for the many”, but “for many”. 2
- Henry Davis S.J. ‘Moral and Pastoral Theology’ Vol. 3, The Sacraments P. 27 “The use of probable opinions”). ↩︎
- https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/on-the-translation-of-pro-multis-in-the-eucharistic-prayer-6885 ↩︎
Leave a Reply