Chapter 6: Is My Hypothesis On The Mass Valid?

Objections have been raised by those who claim that the ‘concelebrated event’ would not have the effect I ascribe to it. Thus some claim that the valid orders of the Catholic clergy present would in effect ‘overrule’ the invalid orders of the Protestant minister. Let me start by putting this event in context. It would have come about as the result of an ‘Inter-Church Process’ authorised by Pope John Paul II. Events started during the papal visit in 1982 when he was urged by the BCC leaders to allow the Church to join their organisations. As the official record then reveals: ‘the Pope invited representatives of the BCC together with representatives of the Episcopal Conferences of Great Britain, to continue the discussions in Rome’ – his own words were – ‘ I would like to think that, before too long, some of you would be prepared to visit Rome together with some representatives of the Episcopal Conferences of Great Britain to have further conversations with the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity and other offices of the Roman Curia..’ (meeting of 29/5/82: ‘The Pope in Britain’, Peter Jennings/Eamonn McCabe, Bodley Head, London 1982).

The outcome followed soon after, as revealed in a BCC booklet.. ‘in May 1983 there was a visit to Rome led by the Primus of the Scottish Episcopal Church (the Rt Rev Alistair Haggart) and made up of BCC and Roman Catholic leaders. They explored… what could be done to bring about closer working together.. From these tentative steps came the Inter-Church Process ‘Not Strangers But Pilgrims’ (emphasized). The result was: ‘On 7th May 1985, at Lambeth Palace the leaders of thirty-two Churches in England, Scotland and Wales met formally and agreed to launch ‘a three-year Inter-Church Process’ (‘Strangers No Longer’ by Derek Palmer, Hodder and Stoughton 1990). This ‘Process’ led to the Catholic Church joining the ecumenical organisation. Given that Scotland was to exploit this move more than anywhere, it was significant the Scots Primus led the delegation.

It is significant that when in 1992, the Pope met the Scottish Bishops, he commended them for joining the new ecumenical body launched by Canon Wright. (‘Osservatore Romano 4.11.92). His approval was thus evident throughout. That clear support effectively implicates the rest of the Church in the outcome. Remember that the entry of the Catholic Church into this organisation was hailed as the first stage towards a re-union of the churches. But one part of the Church cannot formulate ‘unity’ with Protestantism without implicating the rest. Thus the papal support for the plan, far from validating it, merely gives it a false legitimacy. Those mounting a ‘concelebrated Mass’ could, by the same token, claim a spurious mandate.

Then we should consider the nature of the Mass itself. Each Mass is as it were the sole Mass ever celebrated. This is because each Mass is not a separate sacrifice, but a re-presentation of the one perfect sacrifice of Christ on Calvary. So in a sense it is incorrect to refer to ‘masses’ in the plural – as there is no ‘multiplicity of Christs’.29 There is only one Christ who becomes present on the Church’s one altar – signifying the ‘Holy place’. So a substantial subversion of that sacrifice somewhere by the action envisaged, would have effects on the whole Church, abolishing the Mass.

As for the objection that valid orders ‘would overrule the invalid’, surely the intention would be paramount? And as the primary intention of the Catholic clergy would be to confer acceptance on Protestant ‘orders’, their intention would be defective. When actors in a film depict the marriage ceremony, no one is married. And as in the case we envisage, the intention would not be to validly celebrate Mass but to demonstrate acceptance for something which a Pope definitively declared as ‘totally void and worthless’ – it is impossible that that such an act of deception could truly consecrate bread and wine into Christ’s Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity.

But how can the setting up an idol on the altar, totally abolish the Mass? It begs a question: what role does the Mass fulfil? The answer is it establishes and perpetuates God’s Covenant. At the Last Supper Christ consecrated bread and wine into His Body and Blood, stating- ‘this is the New Covenant in My Blood’. A covenant is a binding agreement between parties, and the New Covenant fulfils that earlier covenant on Sinai, in which the Jews promised to keep the Commandments, in return for God’s protection. The First Commandment states that ‘Thou shalt not have false gods before me’ – with God warning of grave punishments for disobedience (Ex 20:5,6).

This has a relevance for the subject of the last days, because Christ revealed that their starting-point as ‘when you see abomination of desolation of which the prophet Daniel spoke, set up in the Holy place’ (Matt 24:15). This evidently refers to an idol being set up in a sanctuary of the Church, and as this is followed by a great persecution, it is logical to conclude that it the consequence of a sacrilege in the Church’s sanctuary. The end-time scenario is one in which Satan will inspire ‘false Christs’ to work ‘signs’ in an attempt to lead us astray in an era of persecution. It therefore presupposes the end of that Covenant which formerly protected the Church, which also implies the abolition of the means by which it was established. So I challenge those who still reject my hypothesis to explain:

  • why Daniel prophesied that ‘victim and sacrifice will fail’ 9:27? (Douai)
  • why Hippolytus and Irenaeus interpret this as the abolition of the Mass?
  • why St Alphonsus wrote ‘Antichrist will abolish as a punishment for the
    sins of men, the Sacrifice of the Mass precisely as Daniel had predicted?
  • why at the starting-point of events leading to the Third Secret in 1929, did Lucy witness a vision indicating the crucial importance of the Mass?
  • why should we be accorded a new means of spiritual defence in the consecration of Russia, if that provided by the Mass was still available?
  • and why Pius XII stated: ‘I am worried about the Blessed Virgin’s messages to Lucy… The day will come when.. the Church will doubt and be tempted to believe man has become God… In our churches, Christians will search in vain for the red lamp where God awaits them, like Magdalene weeping before the empty tomb, they will ask “Where have they taken him?”(Mgr Aloysius Roche: ‘Pie XII devant l’histoire’.

Exploring the crucial factor of ‘intention’. In the above I stated that what would undermine the ‘Mass’ was the fact that those priests ‘concelebrating it’ intended to demonstrate acceptance of Anglican orders, and as that intention was defective, the bread and wine would be unchanged. But the leader of the Fatima Center, Fr Gruner, challenged this, and in so doing disregarded the crucial fact of the defective intention: ‘the scenario you describe above does not invalidate the consecration of both the bread and wine into the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ. If ten ministers concelebrate the new order of the Mass and nine are Protestants (including the main celebrant) and only one is Catholic and all pronounce the words of consecration, the bread changes into the Body of Christ and the wine changes into His Blood.. So your statement is heresy. According to the Council of Trent, 3 things are required to confect the Sacrament: a properly ordained Catholic priest pronouncing the words of Consecration, proper matter (of the bread and wine) and the intention to consecrate the bread and wine’. So he totally disregarded the crucial factor. And when I consulted his colleague at the Fatima Center, Fr Paul Kramer, he also ignored it. But, as I said then, hen actors depict ‘marriage’ on the stage or in films – no-one is married, because of their intention is different. Thus too in law murder merits capital punishment, manslaughter does not, simply because the latter is considered to lack intention, the former does.

Note that the purpose of the event is to confer acceptance on Anglican ‘orders’. If it went ahead – it would imply that they were valid, and that the Anglican ‘communion service’ is the same as the Catholic Mass.  That after all, is the ultimate goal. But the point is: objectively they are not. So what the event would achieve is the obscuration of the one with the other. After all, our worship depends on faith, which in turn depends on a Church that communicates true, valid, orders. So if a different object were presented for worship, it would destroy the ‘sign-value’ of the Eucharist, and from then on, we would be unable to discern a true Eucharist from a false.

It is relevant that in other respects Fr Gruner fails to understand the true meaning of the Third Secret.. I was reading the current issue of ‘Fatima Crusader’ recently and noticed that it gives credence to the Vatican version of the Secret, in which a ‘Bishop in white is killed with bullets’. But this lacks plausibility when one considers what the then Cardinal Ratzinger stated, namely that the Secret corresponds with what is contained in the Scriptures on the last days? Where is the correlation in the Scriptures? There is another anomaly in the Vatican’s claims. For in the message of Fatima, Our Lady foretold various punishments on sinful mankind. She revealed that ‘unless man ceased offending God, He would send another war, worse than the first’, which was fulfilled by the Second World War. But what evidence is there that now mankind has ‘ceased to offend Almighty God’? Or has it devised new ways of offending him, as in the wholesale murder of the unborn? And yet the Vatican still claims the Secret referred to the attack on Pope John Paul II in 1981.

Note the total disparity in scale: the number killed in World War II runs to many millions, yet the Pope survived a failed attack. But if the Vatican’s ‘Third Secret’ refers to that event, then what the Vatican must imply is that such a failed attack represents God’s ultimate punishment on mankind.  But if we discount the Vatican’s claims – what are we left with? As stated above, both the former Cardinal Ratzinger and Sr Lucia, have indicated a link between the Secret and the end-time Scriptures.  Can I make a general point? All the Scriptures, including the end-time texts, has only one purpose to avail our salvation. So although those texts may seem to contradict the name of ‘good news’, there is no contradiction, for they provide advance intelligence of an attack so that, being forewarned, we will hold firm in a time of trial and so win through to salvation.

But how concerned is the Pope to reveal this? As I write, the present Pope is making changes that are bound to predispose an erosion of belief in the Eucharist. For allowing those ‘in irregular marriages’ to receive Holy Communion will inevitably lead to a diminution of faith in the Mass. And that same diminution of faith could advance the time when our leaders invite an Anglican to officiate at an event set up to confer acceptance of his orders: an action with a potential to subvert the Mass. Now recall what Christ gave as ‘the sign of His coming and of the last days’: ‘when you see the abomination of desolation of which the prophet Daniel spoke set up in the Holy place, let the reader understand,  there will be such tribulation as has never been from the beginning of the world..’ (Matt 24:15). Scripture tells us ‘the day of the Lord’ will come like a thief in the night, so perhaps the purpose of the Secret is to locate the fulfilment of Scripture in our times?  But Fr Paul Kramer dismisses my points, stating: ‘you have demonstrated only that you suffer from a total incapacity to reason on a theological level.. Fr Gruner and I have/had between us multiple ecclesiastical academic degrees. It is highly imprudent and utterly foolish of you to oppose clerics far more learned than yourself, a mere layman.’ (Note: the Third Secret was revealed to a girl of ten, so why the need for multiple degrees?) The Fatima Center is now in debt and facing closure. Perhaps if they stopped insulting people, their fortunes might revive. For Fr Kramer stated: ‘your pathetically errant seventy-page essay on the secret of Fatima is theologically worthless – it is rubbish… You are a crackpot fanatic obsessed with the grandiose belief of having solved the secret of Fatima’. His response contrasts with that of Bishop Burns in the following, in which he ‘commends my attempts to clarify the dangers involved in this very complex matter’ concluding ‘we must never welcome anyone into the Church on a watered-down accommodation, which would become a historic scandal, similar to that you write about’.* (emphasised IC)  Whose response is more authoritative: a Bishop appointed by the Pope, or one who as a sedevacantist denies there is one?

(*letters from Rt Rev Bishop Burns of Menevia, Wales – click here to view)