Online Catechesis: Holy Mass in General...

The Fruits and Effects of the Holy Mass

What is the Holy Mass?

- is the unbloody sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ. (Baltimore Catechism no.917)

- is "the source and summit of the Christian life." (Catechism of the Catholic Church 1324)
.
.
Why does the Holy Mass called Sacrifice?

- it is called sacrifice because it has the same effect of the sacrifice of Christ on the cross. It is an offering to a Supreme Being who is God. It is an act of propitiation.
.
.
What is the "matter" of the Holy Mass?

- they are the Bread and Wine.
.
.
What is the "form" of the Holy Mass?

- the form of the Mass are the words or the order of the Mass.
.
.
Who instituted the Holy Mass?

- Christ himself who instituted the Mass at the upper room. It was during the Last Supper with his Apostles. (Mat.26:26-28, Mk.14:22-24, Lk.22:19-20)
.
.
Why Christ instituted the Holy Mass?

- it is because the holy sacrifice forgives sins and he commanded it as his remembrance. As He said: "do this in remembrance of me", "which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins."
.
.
.
Exposition:

Eucharist is derived from the Greek word "eucharistein" which freely translated as thanksgiving.

The Holy Mass is known in many other terms: Holy Eucharist, Breaking of the Bread and Holy Sacrifice. They are not many but ONLY ONE, TRUE and HOLY SACRIFICE.

The objects (matter) of this sacrifice are the Bread and the Wine which after the words of consecration the SUBSTANCE of the bread and wine will transform into the SUBSTANCE of Christ - Body and Blood WITHOUT changing the appearance of the Bread and Wine.

The effect of the Holy Eucharist has the same effect of the Sacrifice of Christ at the Calvary. Christ's act on the cross is once and for all. Only Christ can do such sacrificial act. And Christ never commanded his Apostles to be crucified in order to forgive sins. Rather, Christ commanded to do in his REMEMBRANCE what he did during the Last Supper.

The Last supper was the moment of its INSTITUTION of the Holy Mass and the INSTITUTION of Holy Orders (priesthood). Christ ordained his Apostles in order for them to CELEBRATE VALIDLY the Holy Sacrifice of the Eucharist. Only VALID PRIEST can CELEBRATE a VALID MASS.
.
.
Holy Mass in Relation to the other Sacraments:

The Seven Sacraments of the Church are categorized into three (3) namely: Sacrament of Inintiation, Sacrament of Reconciliation and Sacrament of Mission (Vocation).

The sacrament of initiation comprises the sacraments of Baptism, Confirmation and Holy Eucharist. Confession and Annointing of the Sick belongs to the Sacrament of Reconciliation. While the remaining two (2) sacraments Holy Orders and Matirmony belong to the Sacrament of Mission (Vocation).

As we have observed in every celebration of the Seven Sacraments there's always a Communion (Holy Eucharist). For example: in annointing of the sick Communion is given to the sick, in Ordination, Matrimony, Confirmation (if inside the Mass). This means that we are sharing one Bread who is Christ. He draws us to himself so that we might live.

"At the Last Supper, on the night he was betrayed, our Savior instituted the Eucharistic sacrifice of his Body and Blood. This he did in order to PERPETUATE the sacrifice of the cross throughout the ages until he should come again, and so to entrust to his beloved Spouse, the Church, a memorial of his death and resurrection: a sacrament of love, a sign of unity, a bond of charity, a Paschal banquet 'in which Christ is consumed, the mind is filled with grace, and a pledge of future glory is given to us.'" (Catechism of the Catholic Church 1323)
.
.
Deus benedicat vos fratres!

Why we go to Mass?

Quam mira missa est!

The Holy Mass is the holiest thing we have here on earth. Why? Because it it the action of Christ. The main things in the Mass is not what is read from the Holy Scriptures, even though this is the word of God and should be listened to as such. The main thing in the Mass is not what the priest preaches in his sermon nor what the people do or sing.

The main thing is what Christ does. And what does Christ do in the Holy Mass? He offers himself for us, as he offered himself on the Cross. He sacrifices himself for us. That is why we say that the Mass is the same sacrifice as that of the Cross renewed in an unbloody manner on the altar. On the altar just as on the Cross, Christ offers his body and blood for us. The difference is that on the Cross, his body and blood were visible to our eyes of those who were present, while in the Mass they are hidden under the appearance of bread and wine. But they are really present. This is the great fact. In each Mass, Christ is really present and renews the Sacrifice of the Cross.

The Holy Eucharist is the "mystery of faith." Without faith, all you would see is bread and wine being offered, no more. Without faith, the most you could see in this is a gesture, a symbol, nothing more. With faith, you know that at the moment of the Consecration - which is when the priest says. "THIS IS MY BODY," "THIS IS THE CHALICE OF MY BLOOD" - the bread and wine are changed into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ who is then really present as God and Man sacrificing himself for us on the altar as he sacrificed himself on the cross.

If you come to Mass without faith, or with little faith, you would not easily get distracted and perhaps even bored. Would we have been bored if we had been present at Calvary?

"The Mass Explained" by Msgr. Comrac Burke

VATICAN II AND CHANGE - REFUTING THE CLAIMS OF THE SSPX Part 1 By: Fr. Abe, CRS

Blessed Pope John XXIII in full regalia... Did St. Peter the Apostle and St. Linus clothed with the same jewelled Tiara, pectoral and ring? Is wearing the Tiara a Dogma of the Faith for the Popes?

Anonymous said...

What Has Changed?

In the wake of the Second Vatican Council, an unprecedented number of changes have been implemented in the Church. Not only was the ancient rite of Mass changed ("for the first time in history, a manufactured liturgy was imposed upon the faithful"), but there was also a new canon law, a new catechism, new prayers/songs, a new liturgical calendar, a new Bible translation, new canonization procedures, new rites for ordination and baptism, new exorcism procedures, indulgences were changed, etc.

Although not all changes were authorized or called for by Vatican II, the Second Vatican Council may be considered an impetus for such change. In fact, not just external practices have changed since this revolutionary council, but the entire orientation of the Church has changed. The changes, while not revising infallible dogmas - which, of course is impossible - have nonetheless given the impression that the Church has changed entirely.

In fact, some have referred to the Church after the Second Vatican Council not as the "Catholic Church", but as the "Post-Conciliar Church". This terminology is interesting especially in light of the fact that some post-conciliar documents from the highest levels of the Church may appear as if the Church itself started with Vatican II. As Amerio has stated, "This conviction that a great innovation has occurred in the Church, attested by the universal change in everything from ideas to material objects to terminology, is also apparent in the continual reference made to the faith of the Second Vatican Council, while abandoning reference to the one Catholic Faith, which is the faith of all the councils." In any event, the Church after the Council has clearly presented a "new face" to the world.

November 16, 2011 7:04 PM

Fr. Abe, CRS said...

[What Has Changed?]

WHAT HAS CHANGED IN THE CHURCH ARE THINGS THAT ARE CHANGEABLE AND IT IS THE POPE WHO DECIDES IF THEY ARE TO BE CHANGED OR NOT. YOUR WACKY OLD FOOL LEFEBVRE HAS NO AUTHORITY TO DECIDE FOR THE WHOLE CHURCH IN OPPOSITION TO THE POPE.

[In the wake of the Second Vatican Council, an unprecedented number of changes have been implemented in the Church.]

AND IT IS RIGHTLY SO. THE BISHOPS FROM ALL OVER THE WORLD GATHERED TOGETHER UNDER THE GUIDANCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT TO LEAD THE CHURCH IN FACING THE MODERN WORLD. AND THE BISHOPS IN COMMUNION WITH THE POPE DECIDED WHICH THINGS TO BE CHANGED AND WHAT CANNOT BE CHANGED.

YOUR WACKY OLD FOOL LEFEBVRE COWARDLY SIT DURING THE FOUR YEARS OF THE COUNCIL NEVER ONCE RAISED HIS VOICE INSIDE THE COUNCIL TO OPPOSE. HE WAS TOO COWARDLY AND SENILE TO DO THAT. BUT, THE ARCHBISHOP OF MANILA, CARDINAL SANTOS DEBATED CARDINAL KOENIG IN LATIN FOR A SEPARATE DOCUMENT ON MARY. HE LOST THE VOTE BUT ACCEPTED IT GENTLEMANLY. CARDINAL OTTAVIANI ALSO LOST IN THE DEBATES AFTER HE VALIANTLY DEBATED HIS OPPONENTS BUT HE ACCEPTED DEFEAT WITH GRACE AND CHARITY. BUT LEFEBVRE ACCEPTED THE LOST WITH BITTERNESS SIMILAR TO WHAT LUCIFER FELT AFTER BEING THROWN FROM HEAVEN. LIKE LUCIFER HE STARTED DECEIVING OTHERS TO REBEL AGAINST THOSE CHOSEN BY GOD. UNFORTUNATELY YOU ARE ONE OF THOSE DECEIVED. SORRY FOR YOU.

[Not only was the ancient rite of Mass changed ("for the first time in history, a manufactured liturgy was imposed upon the faithful"),]

LIAR, LIAR, LIAR. THE TLM IS NOT THE ANCIENT RITE OF THE MASS. EXCUSE ME. THERE ARE RITES OLDER THAN THE TLM. THE TLM IS ACTUALLY A NEW RITE - A MANUFACTURED LITURGY IMPOSED UPON THE FAITHFUL BY THE POPE - IF YOU WANT TO USE THAT LANGUAGE.

IN QUO PRIMUM, POPE ST. PIUS V HIMSELF ADMITTED THAT THE TLM IS A NEW RITE MADE BY A COMMISSION THAT HE FORMED. THAT WAS EXACTLY THE WAY POPE PAUL VI, OF BLESSED MEMORY, HAD DONE FOR THE PAULINE MASS:

"We deemed it necessary to give our immediate attention to what still remained to be done, viz, the re-editing of the Missal as soon as possible.

Hence, We decided to entrust this work to learned men of our selection. They very carefully collated all their work with the ancient codices in Our Vatican Library and with reliable, preserved or emended codices from elsewhere." [QUO PRIMUM of Pope St. Pius V 1st & 2nd par]

IF YOU ARE ANGRY AT THE REVISIONN OF THE MISSAL AND OF THE COMMISSION RE-EDITING AND REVISING IT THEN YOU SHOULD HATE POPE ST. PIUS V WHO DID THE SAME FOR THE TLM. HOW COME WHAT IS GOOD FOR THE 16TH CENTURY CHURCH CANNOT BE DONE FOR THE 20TH CENTURY CHURCH?

THE TLM IS A NEW RITE:

"This NEW RITE alone is to be used unless approval of the practice of saying Mass differently was given at the very time of the institution and confirmation of the church by Apostolic See at least 200 years ago, or unless there has prevailed a custom of a similar kind which has been continuously followed for a period of not less than 200 years, in which most cases We in no wise rescind their above-mentioned prerogative or custom. However, if this Missal, which we have seen fit to publish, be more agreeable to these latter, We grant them permission to celebrate Mass according to its rite, provided they have the consent of their bishop or prelate or of their whole Chapter, everything else to the contrary notwithstanding." [QUO PRIMUM par 4]

THE TLM WAS A NEW RITE WAY BACK IN THE 16TH CENTURY. IT WAS NOT THE RITE OF THE MASS OF THE APOSTLES AND THE ROMAN MARTYRS AND OF THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS BUT THE GREEK MASS.

IF HAVING A NEW RITE IS EVIL THEN THE TLM WAS EVIL WHEN IT WAS NEW. IN FACT, IT WAS ALSO A FINISHED PRODUCT OF A COMMISSION FORMED BY THE POPE.

[but there was also a new canon law, a new catechism, new prayers/songs, a new liturgical calendar, a new Bible translation, new canonization procedures, new rites for ordination and baptism, new exorcism procedures, indulgences were changed, etc.]

THANKS BE TO GOD THAT THERE ARE THESE BLESSINGS. WHERE IS IT IN THE TRADITION OF THE CHURCH THAT THE CALENDAR, THE CANON LAW, THE PRAYER BOOKS AND THE RITE OF EXORCISMS CANNOT BE REVISED OR EDITED OR BE RENEWED? WHERE? WHO IS THE DEVIL WHO TAUGHT YOU THAT THESE THINGS CANNOT BE REVISED, EDITED AND BE RENEWED? TELL ME... TELL US.

IF YOU ARE NOT IGNORANT OF HISTORY THE PREVIOUS CALENDAR OF THE CHURCH WAS THE JULIAN CALENDAR BUT IT WAS LATER CHANGED INTO THE GREGORIAN CALENDAR. AND IF YOU ARE NOT A FOOL YOU KNOW TOO WELL THAT EVERY TIME THERE IS THE NEWLY CANONIZED SAINT THE LITURGICAL CALENDAR IS BEING REVISED TO INCLUDE THE FEAST OF THAT SAINT. HE HE HE...

IF YOU ARE NOT AN IDIOT IN CHURCH HISTORY AND IF YOU ARE NOT BLIND YOU WILL REALIZE THAT IT WAS THE COUNCIL OF TRENT, POPE ST. PIUS V AND THE QUO PRIMUM THAT TAUGHT US THAT THE MISSAL, BREVIARY, CATECHISM, ETC. CAN BE REVISED. IT IS THERE IN QUO PRIMUM:

"For, besides other decrees of the sacred Council of Trent, there were stipulations for Us to revise and re-edit the sacred books: the Catechism, the Missal and the Breviary. With the Catechism published for the instruction of the faithful, by God's help, and the Breviary thoroughly revised for the worthy praise of God, in order that the Missal and Breviary may be in perfect harmony, as fitting and proper - for its most becoming that there be in the Church only one appropriate manner of reciting the Psalms and only one rite for the celebration of Mass - We deemed it necessary to give our immediate attention to what still remained to be done, viz, the re-editing of the Missal as soon as possible." [QUO PRIMUM par 1]

HA HA HA... YOU SEE YOU SON OF THE DEVIL. YOU ARE HIDING THESE THINGS TO OUR FAITHFUL SO THAT YOU CAN DECEIVE THEM IN YOUR LUCIFERIAN AND PROTESTANT-LIKE REBELLION AGAINST THE CONTEMPORARY POPES.

IF THE COUNCIL OF TRENT STIPULATED THAT THESE THINGS CAN BE CHANGED SO DID THE VATICAN II. IF POPE PIUS V CAN REVISE AND RE-EDIT SO DID POPE PAUL VI. THE POWER THAT BINDS IS THE POWER THAT LOOSES. THE POWER THAT CLOSES IS THE POWER THAT OPENS. THAT POWER IS THE POWER OF THE POPE. IN THE BIBLE IT IS CALLED "THE POWERS OF THE KEYS OF PETER".

[Although not all changes were authorized or called for by Vatican II, the Second Vatican Council may be considered an impetus for such change.]

ARE YOU REALLY OUT OF YOUR MIND. ARE ALL CHANGES AFTER THE COUNCIL OF TRENT AUTHORIZED AND CALLED FOR BY TRENT? NO. THE SPECIFIED DETAILS DEPENDED UPON THE POPE AND THE HOLY SEE WHO WORKED UNDER HIM.

THE VATICAN II IS THE IMPETUS OF CHANGE THAT HAPPENED AFTERWARD JUST LIKE TRENT WAS THE IMPETUS OF THE CHANGE THAT HAPPENED AFTER IT. BOTH COUNCIL PRODUCED CHANGE. BOTH EFFECTED CHANGES IN THE RITE OF THE MASS, THE MISSAL, THE BREVIARY, THE CATECHISM, ETC. ANY PROBLEM WITH THAT?

[In fact, not just external practices have changed since this revolutionary council, but the entire orientation of the Church has changed.]

THE SSPX IS THE REVOLUTIONARY ONE. BUT THE VATICAN II IS NOT REVOLUTIONARY. IT ONLY FOLLOWED THE ANCIENT TRADITION OF TRANSLATING THE BIBLE FROM GREEK TO LATIN AND SO IF THE BIBLE CAN BE TRANSLATED THEN THE CATECHISM, THE MISSAL AND THE BREVIARY CAN BE TRANSLATED AS WELL. LATIN WAS FORMERLY A VULGAR LANGUAGE BUT IT WAS USED BY THE CHURCH. IF TRENT CAN REVISE VATICAN II CAN REVISE ALSO. WHO IS THE DEVIL WHO TOLD YOU THAT THE POWER TO CHANGE OR REVISE OR EDIT IS EXCLUSIVE ONLY OF THE TRENT ERA? IF THE BIBLE CAN BE TRANSLATED INTO VULGAR LATIN THEN THE MISSAL CAN BE TRANSLATED INTO VERNACULAR LANGUAGE. IS THE MISSAL MORE CANONICAL THAN THE BIBLE?

[The changes, while not revising infallible dogmas - which, of course is impossible - have nonetheless given the impression that the Church has changed entirely.]

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR ADMITTING THAT THE DOGMAS OF THE CHURCH WERE NOT CHANGED. HOW NICE OF YOU. DO YOU WANT COFFEE, A BURGER, A COOKIE OR A HUG EVEN A KISS FOR THAT? HA HA HA... YOU SEE EVEN THE DEMONS DO ADMIT THE FIDELITY OF THE CHURCH. HE HE HE...

CONCERNING IMPRESSION, WELL THAT IS ONLY YOUR IMPRESSION. BUT YOUR IMPRESSION IS NOT OUR IMPRESSION. ITS YOURS AND YOURS ALONE. YOU CAN GO TO HELL FOR YOUR IMPRESSION BUT WE KEEP OUR FIDELITY TO THE POPE AND TO THE TRUTH OF THE FAITH. THE ESSENCE OF THE FAITH IS CHANGELESS AND THE SAME SEMPER ET UBIQUE, BUT THE ACCIDENTS CAN BE CHANGED. AND WE ARE GRATEFUL TO THE POPE FOR THOSE CHANGES. IF YOU DONT LIKE IT YOU CAN DIE IN YOUR DISGUST AND ENJOY YOUR PAIN TILL KINGDOM COME. IF YOU DON'T WANT ETERNAL PAIN THEN SUBMIT TO THE AUTHORITY OF THE VICAR OF CHRIST.

[In fact, some have referred to the Church after the Second Vatican Council not as the "Catholic Church", but as the "Post-Conciliar Church".]

I DON'T KNOW WHO ARE THESE SOME. MAY BE YOU'VE GOT SPECIAL COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE MALIGNANT SPIRITS AROUND THAT WE ARE NOT AWARE OF. HA HA HA... BUT ON OUR PART, OFFICIALLY AND LITURGICALLY AND CANONICALLY WE REFER TO THE CHURCH ALWAYS AS "THE CATHOLIC CHURCH". THAT IS WHAT WE ARE RECITING IN THE CREED. ANY PROBLEM WITH THAT? HA HA HA...

IF YOU ARE NOT IGNORANT OF HISTORY, THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD AND OF ANY INSTITUTION IS USUALLY SUBDIVIDED BASED ON VERY IMPORTANT EVENTS. FOR INSTANCE, THE PRE-CIVIL WAR AMERICA AND THE POST-LINCOLN AMERICA. AND SO, THE TERM 'POST-VATICAN II CHURCH' DOESN'T MEAN THAT THE CHURCH IS NO LONGER THE SAME CHURCH AFTER VATICAN II BECAUSE THERE IS ALSO A TERM CALLED 'THE POST-TRENT CHURCH' OR THE POST-NICAEAN CHURCH OR THE POST-PATRISTIC CHURCH OR THE POST APOSTOLIC CHURCH. WHAT IS WRONG WITH THAT? THESE ARE MERE DISTINCTIONS OF HISTORICAL PERIOD.

YOU SSPX ARE VERY PHARISAICAL. EVEN IN GOOD THINGS YOU ARE SEEING EVIL. REPENT BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE FOR YOUR SOULS.

[This terminology is interesting especially in light of the fact that some post-conciliar documents from the highest levels of the Church may appear as if the Church itself started with Vatican II.]

ONLY IDIOTS WILL THINK LIKE THAT. BECAUSE THE VATICAN II NEVER TAUGHT THAT THE CHURCH STARTED ONLY WITH THE VATICAN II. THAT IS YOUR HALLUCINATION AND DELUSION. THAT IS A CLAIM THAT YOU INVENTED BUT NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY IOTA OF PROOF FROM THE DOCUMENTS OF THE COUNCIL ITSELF. YOU ARE SPITTING US WITH YOUR LIES AND WE WANT TO TELL YOU THAT YOU ARE CAUGHT WITH YOUR PANTS DOWN BECAUSE YOUR LIES ARE TOO OBVIOUS TO BE HIDDEN.

[As Amerio has stated,]

AMERIO WHO? WHO IS THIS ANIMAL? I DON'T KNOW HIM? HE IS NOT MY SHEPHERD AND HE IS NOT THE VICAR OF CHRIST. I ONLY RECOGNIZE AND OBEY THE VOICE OF OUR SHEPHERDS. YOU CAN GO TO HELL WITH THAT ANIMAL.

["This conviction that a great innovation has occurred in the Church, attested by the universal change in everything from ideas to material objects to terminology, is also apparent in the continual reference made to the faith of the Second Vatican Council, while abandoning reference to the one Catholic Faith, which is the faith of all the councils."]

HA HA HA... THIS SSPX FOOL AND DECIEVER IS JUST COPY PASTING ARTICLES MADE BY HIS FELLOW TRAITORS INTO THIS BLOG. HA HA HA... LET US THROW THEIR ARGUMENTS BACK AT THEM.

IF THIS AMERIO IS NOT AN IDIOT HE IS SURE AWARE THAT THE PRE-VATICAN II CARDINAL AND NOW BLESSED JOHN HENRY NEWMAN WROTE ABOUT THE DEVELOPMENT OF DOGMA. THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH AND ITS ESSENCE ARE ONE AND THE SAME BUT OUR UNDERSTANDING OF THEM DEVELOPS. SO THAT EVEN CREEDS HAVE EXPERIENCED DEVELOPMENT OF LANGUAGE AND TERMINOLOGIES. IS POPE LEO AND GREGORY THE GREAT AWARE OF "TRANSUBSTANTATION" AS A TERMINOLOGY FOR THE EUCHARIST? DID ST. JOHN THE APOSTLE WROTE USING THE TERMINOLOGIES: CONSUBSTANTIAL, THEOTOKOS, ONE BEING THREE PERSONS, IMMACULATE CONCEPTION, ASSUMPTION OF MARY BODY AND SOUL INTO HEAVEN... THE TRUTH OF FAITH IS ONE AND THE SAME BUT IDEAS AND TERMINOLOGIES ARE DEVELOPING.

WHAT IS DEMONIC WITH SSPX IS THAT INSTEAD OF SEEING THE DEVELOPMENT THEY PROHIBIT IT. SO IMPLICITLY THEY ARE AGENTS OF THE DEVIL - THE FATHER OF LIES.

[In any event, the Church after the Council has clearly presented a "new face" to the world.]

EVERY COUNCIL THE CHURCH PRESENTED A NEW FACE TO THE WORLD BUT THE SAME DOCTRINE. DEFINITELY THE APOSTLES DIDN'T WEAR THE EXTRAVAGANT AND POMPOUS CLOTHES OF SSPX IN TLM DURING THEIR MASSES. ALSO THE BISHOPS AND PRIESTS IN THE CATACOMBS. THE FACE OF CATHOLIC CHURCH DURING THE CATACOMBS ERA IS DIFFERENT FROM THE FACE OF THE CHURCH DURING THE CONSTANTINIAN ERA AND DURING THE TRIDENTINE ERA. WHAT DIDN'T CHANGE IS THE ESSENCE OF THE FAITH.

THE FACT THAT THE POPE CHANGES FROM PERIOD TO PERIOD PROVES THAT THE FACE OF THE CHURCH CHANGES. HE HE HE... HOW ABOUT THE SSPX DID THEIR FACE DIDN'T CHANGE? OF COURSE THEY DID. BEFORE IT WAS UNDER THE LEADERSHIP OF LEFEBVRE THE WACKY OLD FOOL NOW IT IS UNDER FELLAY.


JUST STUDY THE ARCHITECTURE OF THE CHURCH AND YOU WILL SEE THE GLARING CHANGE OF THE FACE OF THE CHURCH: BYZANTINE, GOTHIC OR BAROQUE, ETC. THERE ARE CHANGES BUT THESE CHANGES ARE GOOD. IN MUSIC, DID ANY OF THE FATHERS OF THE CHURCH ATTENDED THE MASS WITH THE MUSIC OF PALESTRINA OR THE KRONUNMESSE-DIES IRAE OF MOZART BEING PERFORMED BY THE CHOIR? HA HA HA...

Source: VATICAN II AND CHANGE - REFUTING THE CLAIMS OF THE SSPX Part 1