Note that the entire fulfilment concerns the entire Old Testament Law of the Temple Cult and therefore cannot be projected on the Last Supper at all. It is Exodus 12:3 that instructed the observance of Passover. The "Children of Israel" had to choose an unblemished lamb for the Passover sacrifice on the 10th day of the 1st month (Nissan), so 4 days before the actual slaughter would take place. Indeed, that day the "Children of Israel" shouted (Matt. 21:9), "Hosanna to the Son of David! Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord! Hosanna in the highest!" (Hosanna means, "Please save us!"). In doing so, the messianic prophecy was fulfilled as given by Psalm 118, one of the Hallel Psalms (Psalms of Praise) recited during Passover meal "Save us, pray I! Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord! Blessed is the Kingdom to come! Our father David! Save us from the highest. Save us son of David! Blessed is the King who comes in the Name of the Lord, yea, the King of Israel!" So, by mass acclaim, Jesus is designated the Messiah. Unconsciously, the "Children of Israel" choose their Passover Lamb on the day the lambs were to be chosen. Furthermore Ex. 12:5 instructs that the Lamb must be checked for blemishes. Only a perfect, spotless and unblemished Lamb would suffice for the Passover. Now, while Christ is teaching in the Temple, he was approached by Pharisees, Sadducees, Herodians and other teachers of the Torah. Each group poses questions, trying to trap Him in his words. They were looking for any blemish, which might disqualify Him as Messiah. The narrative of these tests are preserved in Matthew 22. They could not find any fault with Him, the [Eternal] Passover Lamb indeed was without blemish [13].

       Then, at the Last Supper, Christ instituted the Eucharistic Sacrifice, using the symbolic meaning of the Unleavened Bread as His own Unblemished Body (I Cor. 5:7). Where after, on the same evening before His Crucifixion, the Sanhedrin themselves could not find any blemish and finally they condemned Him to death for His claim to be the Son of God. Then, Pilate and Herod respectively, representing the worldly Government, also could not find any blemish, after which Pilate let the "Children of Israel" choose between Jesus and Barabbas. Then, the "Children of Israel", who had acclaimed Christ being the innocent Passover Lamb without sin, now also designated Him as the Scapegoat who bore the sins of the "Children of Israel". He was then taken outside the City of Jerusalem, where He as Eternal High Priest, in the order of Melchisedech, sacrificed Himself, the innocent Passover Lamb as Scapegoat, for our sins on the cross at Calvary at the traditional appointed time for the Passover Lamb to be slaughtered, i.e. the 9^th hour of the 14^th day of the 1^st month (Ex. 12). Herewith Christ perfectly fulfilled the Old Testament Law concerning the associated Temple Feasts "Pesach" and "Yom Kippur" (Num. 29:11).

       Undoubtedly the fulfilment of the Law concerns even more aspects of the Old Testament Temple Cult than just the institution of the Eucharist at the Last Supper. Christ as the Eternal Lamb of God born in the Stable of "City of David", Bethlehem, i.e. the Stable of the lambs usually destined for the Paschal Sacrifice, while the shepherds were the first to be informed by the angels about the "Birth of the Lamb of God" in their Stable. Furthermore, the Resurrection of Christ on the third day, took place on the Old Testament Temple Feast of the "First Fruits" (Ex. 13:1) that caused a paradigm shift by which Jesus Christ as the "Firstborn" is the "First Fruit" (Hebr. 1:6). And the Old Testament Temple Feast of Pentecost, concerning the remembrance of the gift of the Law of God, has been transformed now into the commemoration of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit and the gift of God's Law spiritually into our hearts and our consciences (II Cor. 1:12; II Cor. 3:7). Then, while God had said of the Israelites "and you shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation" (Ex. 19:6) it was after the outpouring of the Holy Spirit that Peter said similarly "But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God's own people" (I Peter 2:9). Thus "a holy priesthood" who "offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ" (I Peter 2:5) [14] during which the ordained priests "in Person of the High Priest, Christ" offers the Passover Lamb and then "in Person of the High Priest, Christ" eats first of the Passover Lamb as Sacrificial (Spiritual) Meal, after which the faithful as a "holy priesthood" follow. This is the one, true and eternal Sacrifice of the Eternal Passover Lamb, who is without sin (blemish) but as the appointed "scapegoat" He bears our sins. In this way Christ used the context of the Passover as a reminder of the "Exodus from Egypt, the land of slavery" and the mystically connected "Yom Kippur" through a paradigm shift to its commemoration of the "exodus out of the land of slavery to sin" through which He is the door to Heaven [15].

       Therefore, when Christ instituted the Eucharist at the Last Supper He commanded the Apostles with the words, "This is My Body which is given for you: do this in remembrance of me" and "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you" (Luc 22:17-20. 1 Cor. 11:24). He simply did not say "... which is given to you" and "... which is poured out to you" as if it were only a central part of the meal of the Last Supper. By this He clearly said that He gave His Body and Blood for us to His Father, by which these expressions can only refer to the Sacrifice on the Cross. It is therefore that He gave His offered Body and Blood to the Apostles to eat in order to participate in His Sacrifice. And when He said "Do this ..." He did not command them to repeat the Last Supper, but to repeat this offering act in union with Him and in remembrance of Him, who fulfilled the entire Law with His Sacrifice on the Cross.
       As mentioned above from Fr. Fortescue the essence for an Eucharist can be deduced from the New Testament as follows [1, p1-2]: "Our Lord took the bread, gave thanks and blessed it; He took the cup of wine, again gave thanks (and blessed it)" (= Offertory: taking Bread and Wine from profane use to prepare them by offering it to God for the sacred use), then "He said the words of Institution over it" (= Consecration, after first saying the preparatory prayers regarding this offer of the Body and Blood of our Lord) with the "Remembrance" (= Anamnesis), after which "He broke the (consecrated) Bread" (= Fraction) and finally "he gave it (i.e. the consecrated bread and wine, his flesh and blood} to eat" (= Communion) as the Sacrificial Meal through which the faithful participate in the Sacrifice of Christ.

       In summary: each Holy Mass is mystically the One Sacrifice by Christ, the Eternal High Priest, offering His own Flesh and Blood at Calvary through "His Mystical Body" with the ordained priests acting "in Persona Christi".

3.2 Sacred Liturgy and the Body of Christ

       As mentioned in Chapter 2.4, by referring to the book "Mysterium Fidei" of Fr. De la Taille (1921) [4, p182 note 21], Fr. Jungmann argued that the H. Mass refers to both, the "Sacrifice of Christ" and the "Sacrifice of the Church" and stated "Thus the Eucharistic institution does more than commemorate our Saviour" at which the "The meal is a sufficiently striking proof of that" [4, p179]. Evidently, herewith, he divided the full commemoration to our Saviour into two contradictorily and competitive commemorations, namely that to our Saviour and that to the faithful i.e. ourselves. Is that really the true "Meaning of the Mass"? Anyway it contrast the order by Christ "Do this in commemoration of me" and the entire fulfilment of the Law by Christ. It is really most remarkable that Fr. Jungmann with regard to the "Meaning of the Mass did not refer to the fulfilment of the entire Law by Christ nor to the Church as "Mystical Body of Christ".

       Evidently, the Holy Scripture is speaking in three ways about the "Body of Christ", namely as (1) His historical, (2) His Sacramental and (3) His Mystical "Body". And because Christ can only have one Body that He has taken from the world, this must mean that it concerns three distinguished ways of the one and unique "Body of Christ'.

       To this all three distinguished ways of the "Body of Christ" are taken from the world in an similar way after they were dedicated to God before becoming "Body of Christ". First of all the historical Body was taken from the Holy Virgin Mary, as prepaerde by the Holy Spirit and by her free will she dedicated here body by offering her virginity to God. Secondly, the Sacramental Body is taken from the world by the unleaven bread as it was prepared by the Holy Spirit to stand for being unblemished and dedicated to God, therefore each time during the H. Mass, the Priest is firstly offering "Bread and Wine" to God during the Offertorium after which it becomes the Sacramental "Body of Christ" through the Consecration which is then offered "in Personna Christi" by the Priest. Thirdly, the Mystical "Body of Christ" is taken from the world too when man dedicates themselves by free will to God through the Baptism and the use of Sacraments becoming a member of the "Mystical Body of Christ".

       This meaAnd so Jungmann's "Sacrifice of the Church" must be the "Sacrifice of the Mystical Body of Christ" and by that it is included within the "Sacrifice of Christ". And so the "Meaning of the H. Mass" must be the pure "Sacrifice of Christ" by which indeed the "Eucharist is a Sacrifice" with the full commemoration to our Saviour.

1. Justin, martyr (105-165) [16]
   In his dialogue with the Jew Trypho he says that according to the prophecy of Malachias God has rejected the Jewish sacrifices and then continues: "Hence God speaks by the mouth of Malachi, one of the twelve [prophets], as I said before, about the sacrifices at that time presented by you: 'I have no pleasure in you, says the Lord; and I will not accept your sacrifices at your hands: for, from the rising of the sun unto the going down of the same, My name has been glorified among the Gentiles, and in every place incense is offered to My name, and a pure offering: for My name is great among the Gentiles, says the Lord: but you profane it' Malachi 1:10-12". (Dial. c. Trypho, 41. MG 6, 564)
2. Irenaeus (140-202) [17]
   "But He utterly rejects those presented by you and by those priests of yours, saying, 'And I will not accept your sacrifices at your hands; for from the rising of the sun to its setting my name is glorified among the Gentiles(He says); but you profane it'". (Mal. 1:10-1; Adv. haer. 4, 17, 5. MG 7, 1023)
3. Cyprian (200-258) [18]
   "For if Jesus Christ, our Lord and God, is Himself the chief priest of God the Father, and has first offered Himself a sacrifice to the Father, and has commanded this to be done in commemoration of Himself, certainly that priest truly discharges the office of Christ, who imitates that which Christ did; and he then offers a true and full sacrifice in the Church to God the Father, when he proceeds to offer it according to what he sees Christ Himself to have offered" (Ep. 63, 14. ML 4, 385)

       Evidently, these testimonies refer to fulfilment of the Old-Testament prophecy of Malachias through the Eucharist as the New Testament Sacrifice that fulfilled the Old Testament Sacrifice: "For from the rising of the sun even to the going down, my name is great among the Gentiles, and in every place there is sacrifice, and there is offered to my name a clean oblation: for my name is great among the Gentiles, saith the Lord of hosts" (Mal. 1:11).

       Although the Didache is an anonymous text attributed as a writing from between 50 to 150 AD, which as such cannot be called a testimony from specified Apostolic Fathers it is quoted here anyway [11]: "Now gathered together on the day of the Lord, you shall break bread and give thanks, having confessed your sins beforehand, that your offerings may be clean. But whosoever argues with his companion, do not come together with you until he is reconciled. That thy Sacrifice be not profaned (allusion to Mt. 5:24) Yet thus is the utterance of the Lord: 'A pure Sacrifice must be offered to Me at every place and at all times, because I am the great King, saith the Lord, and my name is wonderful among the nations' (free quote from Mal. 1:11)." (c. 14. F 1, 32). This testimony from the Didache is in great contrast with the meal-setting interpretation by the Liturgical Movement based on the same manuscript!

4 Reform of 1969

4.1 Call for deception and betrayal of the Pope and the Council

       Before discussing the Reform of 1969, the generally deceptive spirit responsible for the text of the Council document Sacrosanctum Concilium must be mentioned. One must first recall the words spoken by the secretary of the Consilium commission when he still was the secretary of the Preparatory Commission on the Liturgy, Fr. Bugnini, at Domus Mariae on November 11^th, 1961, to a small number of select members and consultants of the sub-commission on the evening before the plenary meeting on 12-15 November [19, p82]: "It would be most inconvenient for articles of our Constitution to be rejected by the Central Commission or by the Council itself. That is why we must tread carefully and discreetly. Carefully, so that proposals be made in an acceptable manner (modo acceptabile), or, in my opinion, formulated in such a way that much is said without seeming to say anything: let many things be said in embryo (in nuce) and in this way let the door remain open to legitimate and possible post-conciliar deductions and applications: let nothing be said that suggests excessive novelty and [that] might invalidate all the rest, even what is straightforward and harmless (ingenua et innocentia). We must proceed discreetly. Not everything is to be asked or demanded from the Council - the essentials, the fundamental principles [are]" [Here Yves Chiron refers to: "Pontificia Commissio de Sacra Liturgia Preeaparatoria Concilii Vaticani II": Documenti, Testi, Verbali (Rome: Edizione Liturgiche, 2013) Angelo Lameri,433].

       This is a clear and deliberate call to deceive and betray the Pope and the Council Fathers, which cannot bring forth good fruits. With specific reference to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass on the one hand it was suggested to describe A: "the Trent defined Sacrifice setting" in such a way that it can be interpreted in retrospect according to their hidden intent B: "the meal-setting concept". On the other hand this deception also consisted in refraining at the outset from excessively bold and detailed proposals, that might be rejected from certain questions by the Council, by formulating these subjects in such a way that "these questions are postponed until after the Council" [19, p82]. This is a clear attack on the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth and cannot bear good fruits. While this method had been initiated by Fr. Bugnini in the preparatory period of the Council, it is confirmed as also having been common practice by the Council's Commissions with the specific intention of deluding most of the Council Fathers. Near the end of the Council in an interview published in the Dutch Dominican weekly Bazuin, on occasion of the publication of the first edition of the International Theological Magazine Concilium (February 1965), Fr. Edward Schillebeeckx O.P. confirmed that this spirit of lies and deceit had worked behind the scenes of the Council too. He said [30]: "We will express it in a diplomatic way, but after the Council we will draw out implicit conclusions". And again, because of the deliberate mal-intent this can never bear good fruits.

       Finally Cardinal Cicognani, president of the Preparatory commission on the Liturgy signed the draft preparatory document on Liturgy on February 1st, 1962, one week before he died. So, his successor, Cardinal Larraona, had to prepare himself for presenting the draft for the discussion by the Central Preparatory Commission from March 26^th to April 2^nd, 1962. This Central Preparatory Commission under the actual Presidency of Cardinal Ottaviani made several changes, including the rejection of a several unclear, but potentially far-reaching proposals to reform the Liturgy. These amendments were to be implemented by the executive amendment sub-commission in accordance with the decisions of the Central Preparatory Commission. However this subcommittee did the contrary and replaced the rejected items back in the document and sent this as the final document directly to the Pope, suggesting this would be the final Preparatory document as approved by the Central Preparatory Commission [19, p89]. This not only deluded the Central Preparatory Commission, but above all it was a clear betrayal of the Pope and of the entire Council on which no blessing can rest.

       Then during the Council, Cardinal Ottaviani, who had presided over the discussions in the Central Preparatory Commission on the draft document, announced the illegal amendments to the Council Fathers. However, halfway through his explanation, Cardinal Alfrink deliberately turned off the microphone. But before the microphone was turned off, Cardinal Ottaviani, spoke of his concern about an expression in the schema that can be considered as one of the "embryonic ambiguities" as follows: "What does ordo missae... recognoscendus [the ordo of the Mass is to be revised] mean? Now, is a sort of revolution of the entire Mass desired? ... What will remain of it?" Then he noted that communion under both kinds was mentioned in article 42 and concelebrating was mentioned in article 44 even though the majority of the Central Preparatory Commission, over which Ottaviani had presided, had rejected these novelties a few months before. He was clearly denouncing the deceptive manoeuvres and deemed that the text as provided to the Council was not the same as that to which the Central Commission had granted its approval [19, p88].

       Contrary to these deceptive intentions, on October 11^th, 1962, in his Opening Address to the Council Fathers, Pope John XXIII had given a clear guide to understand the Council and its documents [31]: "the fundamental doctrine of the Church, which has repeatedly been taught by the Fathers and which is presumed to be well known and familiar to all", "Never depart from the sacred patrimony of truth received from the Fathers", "that the sacred deposit of Christian doctrine should be guarded and taught more efficaciously" and "the truth of the Lord will remain forever ". Thus, despite all the (embryonic) ambiguities and afterwards all kinds of suggested hermeneutic rules, the true hermeneutical rule (i.e. continuity) was established by Pope John XXIII, as legislator of the Second Vatican Council, in his Opening Address when he said that all was to be done "in unity and in accordance with the doctrines taught by the Church Fathers". Pope John XXIII did not call for a renewal of the Church, its Structure, Its Doctrine, Its Liturgy neither did he describe an undefined form of continuity, on the contrary he described a strict and well-defined continuity.

4.2 "Consilium ad exsequendam Constitutionem liturgicam Sacrosanctum Concilium" at work

       Subsequently, Pope Paul VI, the former Cardinal Montini, succeed Pope John XXIII. On January 25th 1964 he established the committee "Consilium ad exsequendam Constitutionem liturgicam Sacrosanctum Concilium" (shortly "Consilium") to implement the liturgical reform in accordance with the Liturgical Council document Sacrosanctum Concilium. Pope Paul VI personally chose Fr Annibale Bugnini as secretary together with the Cardinals Lercaro (Bologna), Giobbe (Curia) and Larraona (Prefect of the Congregation of Rites). This was obviously a political move which reversed Bugnini's banishment from responsibility for liturgical reform by Pope John XXIII in 1962, in favour of Fr Ferdinando Antonelli. This nucleus proposed the names of the other members and consultants to Paul VI who acted on their advice. Many of the members had been involved in the commission for liturgical reform of Pius XII, the Preparatory Liturgical Commission or the Conciliar Liturgical Commission. Names such as Fr. Jungmann, Gy, Botte, Martimort, Righetti, feature rightly enough amongst the consultants. Interestingly Louis Bouyer was only included in 1966, while Antonelli was also one of the members [32].

       This means that many of the members of the "Consilium" were already involved with the Preparatory Liturgical Commission and/or the Conciliar Liturgical Commission. Therefore, they were also involved with the deluding texts and knew exactly the hidden intent behind the embryonal ambiguities that were deliberately introduced to betray the Pope and the Council. So, forces were at work that were driven by a hidden agenda: the paradigm shift of the Holy Mass from the Perfect Temple Cult to a Synagogue/Last Supper setting in accordance with the mainstream Liturgical Movement.

       This "Consilium" came up with draft-reforms by which they proposed the following principle objectives:

1. The preparatory prayers of the priest with Confiteor as penitential act were replaced by a Greeting of the People. The H. Mass would directly start with the Kyrie [33]. Logically, if the Holy Mass would consist of a "Synagogue study house" and a "Last Supper" memorial meal without being a real Sacrifice, why would the priest and faithful have to prepare for a Sacrifice? This intrinsically means a "de-secration" of the H. Mass;
2. While Sacrosanctum Concilium stated "In sacred celebrations there is to be more reading from holy scripture, and it is to be more varied and suitable" (n. 35), the "Consilium" decided instead of an extension of readings, to replace the entire traditional liturgical readings sequences. By suggesting that Catholics do not know enough about the H. Scripture and therefore needed more exposure to it, they replaced the at least the 1500 years old traditional Lectionary with a new Order of Readings. This new Order of Readings comprised of three readings (incl. the Gospel) with a three-year cycle on Sundays and a biannual cycle on weekdays is in fact a novelty. So, the "Consilium" replaced the liturgical readings of the Scripture of the Temple Cult with a Synagogue Teaching system, in which the continuation of the readings during the multi-year cycles seems to be of more importance to them than any relationship with the liturgy and the spiritual preparation of the Sacrifice, as it always had been in the at least 1500-year-old traditional Lectionary. As the Jewish Synagogue study house developed independently from the Jewish Temple Cult and its Old Testament Law, this could also have been developed separately from the H. Mass;
3. Abolition of the Offertory Prayers. If the Holy Mass would consist of a Synagogue study house and a memorial meal of the Last Supper without being a real sacrifice, why would one ask for a blessing of the profane substances to prepare them for the Sacrifice? As this is the consequence of the hidden intentions, this novelty contradicts the clear letter of Sacrosanctum Concilium;
4. Installing a "procession ritual", of which they suggest that it would be a restoration of the ancient Offertory Procession as being a form of active participation of the faithful. In doing so, they completely ignored the fact that the Offertory Procession in which the faithful brought their gifts "in natura" to the altar was replaced by collecting money since about the 11^th century. In other words, the original essence of the Offertory Procession still exists today, but in a modified and more efficient and protective anonymous way. In other words, we are not dealing here with a restoration of an old custom, but with a completely new phenomenon, which is a novelty and therefore contradicts Sacrosancto Concilium. And above all, can this really be considered as an active participation of the faithful, while only a few faithful are involved in such an activity? It is something that looks more like a theatrical event.
5. Abolition of the age-old traditional Roman canon believed to date from the time of Saint Peter, by replacing it with three entirely newly created Eucharistic prayers.

       These draft implementations of the Council Document Sacrosancto Concilium by the majority of the "Consilium" was a full break with the traditional H. Mass in accordance with their intentions hidden behind deliberately ambiguous expressions. This was, in fact, the ideology of the hard-core Liturgical Movement containing the paradigm shift from the perfected Temple Cult to the Synagogue/Last Supper setting, in accordance with the objective to reject or weaken Trent's definition of the "Eucharist is a Sacrifice". It must be clear to all that this proposal does not preserve Christ's example and instruction "Do this ...". These proposals are a clear break with Sacred Tradition - therefore heretical.

4.3 Pope Paul VI and the "Consilium"

       Firstly it must be recalled that according to the testimony of Fr. Bouyer, one of the "Consilium" members, that both Pope Paul VI and the (conservative) members of the "Consilium" were strongly manipulated by its secretary Fr. Bugnini. Fr. Bouyer wrote in his memoirs about a conversation with Pope Paul VI in 1974: "As he was discussing our famous work with the work he had ratified without being much more satisfied with it than I was, he said to me: 'Now why did you do [x] in the reform?' At this point, I must confess that I no longer recall specifically which of the details I have already mentioned was bothering him. Naturally, I answered: 'Why, simply because Bugnini had assured us that you absolutely wished it' His reaction was instantaneous: 'Can this be? He told me himself that you were unanimous on this!' " [34 (p225)]. Apparently, it must be considered that any decision by the Pope Paul VI or by "Consilium" might be a result of these machinations by Fr. Bugnini. Note that this was also explicitly reported earlier by Msgr Jacques Masson, who had occasion to hear this anecdote from Louis Bouyer in Rome. He gives it in fuller form: "Father Bouyer: And meanwhile, when we have studied a question, and have chosen what we can propose to you, in conscience, Father Bugnini took our text and, then said to us that, having consulted you: 'The Holy Father wants you to introduce these changes into the liturgy'. And since I don't agree with your propositions, because they break with the Tradition of the Church, then I tender my resignation. Paul VI: But not at all, Father, believe me, Father Bugnini tells me exactly the contrary: I have never refused a single one of your proposals. Father Bugnini came to find me and said: 'The experts of the Commission charged with the Liturgical Reform asked for this and that'. And since I am not a liturgical specialist, I tell you again, I have always accepted your judgement. I never said that to Monsignor Bugnini. I was deceived. Father Bugnini deceived me and deceived you." [42].

       Apparently, it was clearly not the intention of Pope Paul VI to break the validity of the liturgy. On the contrary, he sought to ensure the validity of the liturgy through a number of personal interventions. While preserving the example of Christ and the Christ's instruction "Do this ..."Pope Paul VI was extremely motivated to maintain the validity of the reform in continuity with Trent and preserving the fundamental "Eucharist is a Sacrifice", mandated te following:

1. Regarding the Opening Prayers with Confiteor should be replaced back. The Kyrie should be retained when the Gloria is not said; when the liturgy prescribes the Gloria, however, the Kyrie should be replaced with another penitential prayer (20.06.1966) [19 (p128)].;
2. The Offertory should be given more prominence since it "should be the part of the Mass in which . . ." (22.01.1968) [19 (p134)];
3. The traditional Roman Canon is to be left untouched in the Roman Rite; two or three other anaphora may be composed or sought in existing texts for using during certain defined seasons (20.06.1966) [19 (p128)], that the words of consecration . . . not be recited simply as a narrative but with the special, conscious emphasis given them by a celebrant who knows he is speaking and acting 'in the person of Christ' (22.01.1968) [19 (p134)] and the expression Mysterium fidei should be maintained at the end of the formula of consecration (22.01.1968) [19 (p134)];
4. The triple Agnus Dei invocation should be retained and that the last Gospel at the end of Mass (the prologue of the Gospel according to St. John) should be restored (22.01.1968) [19 (p134)];
5. The pope issued several warnings (14.10.1968) [19 (p135)]: "Reform of the liturgy must not be taken to be a repudiation of the sacred patrimony of past ages and a reckless welcoming of every conceivable novelty". He insisted on the "ecclesial and hierarchic character of the liturgy" (16.10.1968): "The rites and prayer formularies must not be regarded as a private matter, left up to individuals, a parish, a diocese, or a nation, but as the property of the whole Church, because they express the living voice of its prayer. No one, then, is permitted to change these formularies, to introduce new ones, or to substitute others in their place" [19 (p136)].

       Certainly, these interventions confirm the true intention of Pope Paul VI regarding the essential intentions of Christ's example and instruction "Do this in remembrance of me". However, the "Consilium/ Fr. Bugnini" clearly did not fully implement these interventions. On the contrary:

1. Instead of clearly replacing the Opening prayers with the Confiteor they changed the text of the Confiteor and designed a "midway"-construction by making these prayers optional. Priests could now deliberately and ideologically choose never or always to say these prayers. What does this novelty mean? Isn't this a clear path to a privatization of the Sacred Liturgy?
2. In case of the traditional Offertory Prayers the "Consilium" deliberately choose to replace these prayers with a non-Christian Jewish table blessing, which lacks any connection with Catholic Liturgy, but is from the Passover ceremony [1 (p74)]. This Jewish Sabbath table prayer clearly demonstrates and expresses the hidden intention of transforming the H. Mass into a meal-setting. In this way a clear novelty was introduced which contradicts Sacrosanctum Concilium.
3. Similarly, the "Consilium" also introduced a "midway" -solution regarding to the Roman Canon which Pope Paul VI insisted be retained. They made the Roman Canon optional along with the newly created Eucharistic Prayers. Likewise, priests could deliberately choose never or always to say the Roman Canon. What does this mean? Isn't this a clear novelty?
4. Additionally the "Consilium" wrote the following definition of the Mass: "the Lord's Supper or holy gathering or assembly of the people of God, as they come together, intone [body], with the priest as presider and taking on the persona of Christ, to celebrate the memorial of the Lord". This is a truly novel, incorrect, fundamentally ambiguous and incomplete definition without any reference to the explicitly formulated definition of the Council of Trent: "Eucharist is a Sacrifice".

       As mentioned above Pope Paul VI promulgated this 1969 Reform without correcting the ambiguous and incomplete definition written by the "Concilium", which objectively is a very serious fault. This document was not sent by the "Consilium" to the Congregation of Doctrine and Faith (CDF) for reviewing on dogmatic formulations. This should immediately have raised the question how and why this could happen? Obviously, as this definition contradicts the 1965 Encyclical Mysterium Fidei, Pope Paul VI must have been deliberately and seriously be misled here by the "Consilium". But, what then with the Divine Inspiration of the Holy Spirit, why did the Holy Spirit allow this? Alarm bells should have rung here!

       Is this ambiguous and incomplete definition supernaturally a sign that the Holy Spirit cannot be held responsible for this 1969 Missal which includes the meal-setting option that intrinsically reduces the entire focus on Christ's Sacrifice. As well as the other ambiguities and a lack of clarity, which are all intrinsically a source for potential abuses of the liturgy? Of course, the incompleteness of this definition was subsequently revised by addition of "or the Eucharistic Sacrifice" [19 (p145-147)]. On the other hand there were allocutions given during the general audiences on November 19 and 26, 1969, two Wednesdays in a row. They were entirely devoted to the new Mass. Paul VI had explained the reasons for the changes in the rite and reaffirmed that it substantially "is and will remain the Mass as it always has been: a Sacrifice offered by the priest in a different mode, that is, unbloodily and sacramentally, as his perpetual memorial until his final coming" [19 (p146)].

       Furthermore He acknowledged that abandoning Latin was a "great sacrifice", necessary for a better "understanding of prayer". He also asserted: "Finally, close examination will reveal that the fundamental plan of the Mass in its theological and spiritual import remains what it always has been." [19 (p146)]. There were also the important corrections to the Institutio Generalis. Under the pressure of the moment, so to speak, Cardinal Gut and Fr Bugnini published a "Declaration" to specify that the Institutio "is not to be considered as a doctrinal or dogmatic document but as a pastoral and ritual instruction describing the celebration and each of its parts" [19 (p146)]. But then why correcting this institution, including the definition, if it is only a pastoral description? Is it not true, then, that a correct doctrinal or dogmatic formulation is always a necessity, also for pastoral and ritual descriptions? Above all, these corrections were only done following the critical comments by the Ottaviani Intervention [35]. What if they had not commented by this critical Intervention? Therefore it is still a very serious and grave matter of concern that an ambiguous and incomplete definition of the Holy Mass had already appeared in a document bearing the signature of the Pope anyway.

       It should be obvious that a missal is either valid or not, it cannot be a partially valid. Certainly, the intention of Pope Paul VI absolutely takes precedence above the intention that "Consilum" has tried to convey. Aside from the fundamental questions of the erroneous definition and supposed meal setting, Pope Paul VI's intention of maintaining Trent's dogmatic definition of the "Eucharist is a Sacrifice" is made manifest in three different ways: firstly, in his intervention to reintroduce the Offertory and Traditional Roman Canon, secondly in his encyclical Mysterium Fidei and thirdly by his correction of the incorrect definition of the H. Mass as implemented within a year after its publication. Here the Encyclical Mysterium Fidei made his deepest intention as well as the affirmation of the doctrine by the Second Vatican Council very clear:

(3) In order to make the indissoluble bond that exists between faith and devotion perfectly clear, the Fathers of the Council decided, in the course of reaffirming the doctrine that the Church has always held and taught and that was solemnly defined by the Council of Trent, to offer the following compendium of truths as an introduction to their treatment of the Most Holy Mystery of the Eucharist:
(4) "At the Last Supper, on the night when He was betrayed, our Savior instituted the Eucharistic Sacrifice of His Body and Blood. He did this in order to perpetuate the Sacrifice of the Cross throughout the centuries 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 eaten, the mind is filled with grace, and a pledge of future glory is given to us"
(5) These words highlight both the sacrifice, which pertains to the essence of the Mass that is celebrated daily, and the sacrament in which those who participate in it through holy Communion eat the flesh of Christ and drink the blood of Christ, and thus receive grace, which is the beginning of eternal life, and the "medicine of immortality" according to Our Lord's words: "The man who eats my flesh and drinks my blood enjoys eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day."

       While on the one hand Pope Paul VI's deepest intention determines how to understand his words and acts, on the other hand these words and acts, as finally expressed by the "Consilium/Bugnini" has its own contradictory meaning. Any discrepancy between the intention of Pope Paul VI and the objective meaning of the words used by the "Consilium/Bugnini" is a source of ambiguity and will lead to misunderstandings. Therefore, it is due to the "Consilium/Bugnini" novel and deliberate introduction of the meal concept for the Holy Mass, it's novel Offertory prayer and other ambiguities, by which the danger of abuses is intrinsic to the 1969 reformed Missal. Of course, these matters must be understood in accordance with Pope Paul VI's intention, i.e. in compliance with Trent's correct definition of the "Eucharist is a Sacrifice". However due to the hidden intentions of the "Consilium/Bugnini"the 1969 Reform of the H. Mass is deliberately open for the priest to celebrate Mass either in accordance with the Church's prior intentions consistent with Sacred Tradition or not. Such clear and deliberate ambiguity cannot bear good fruits and cannot be the work of the Holy Spirit.

       Regarding the manipulation by Archbishop Bugnini, it is necessary to mention that after Pope Paul VI had spoken his famous words in 1972 about "the smoke of satan ..!", the Cardinals Staffa and Oddi accused Archbishop Bugnini of being a Freemason. Pope Paul VI turned over these accusations for investigation to Archbishop Benelli, Deputy of the Secretary of the Vatican State. In 1975 Archbishop Benelli confirmed not only the accusation against Bugnini: "Benelli concluded that the reports concerning Archbishop Bugnini were well-founded ... On basis of which we decided to send His Excellency to Iran as our nuncio" [36], but he also came forward with another accusation against Cardinal Baggio, prefect of the Congregation of Bishops, of also being a Freemason. Pope Paul VI elevated Archbishop Benelli to Cardinal-Priest in 1977. However, regarding the accusation of Cardinal Baggio Pope Paul VI appointed Archbishop Gagnon in 1975 to lead a second investigation in a wider context of the infiltration by the Church's enemy, independent from Archbishop Benelli's investigation. Three years later, in 1978, Archbishop Gagnon came out with the same conclusion as Benelli's. Meanwhile Pope Paul VI was deadly ill and left the action to be taken to his successor. He died a few months later.

       Given the testimony of Fr Bouyer and the discovery in 1975 that the then Mgr. Annibale Bugnini, as Freemason, was able to carry out these machinations and manipulations concerning the 1969 Missal. It is most remarkable that this had not directly led to corrections in the 1969 Missal. One must ask why?

4.4 Evaluation of the 1969-Reform

       The Constitution on the Liturgy, \Sacrosanctum Concilium (SC), did ask for a complete review of the Rite (SC 50), but did not establish a complete list of the reforms to be undertaken. A full review does not necessarily need to imply a full reform of the Rite, on the contrary, the outcome could also show that no reform is needed. This is obviously one of the "embryonic ambiguities" which Fr. Bugnini had called for and by which the Council did not say anything regarding a reform of the Liturgy. Very deliberately nothing was prescribed in SC such that the initiative to decide what and how to reform was postponed until after the Council [19, p82]. Therefore, these "Bugnini's embryonic" wishes and recommendations are worded as a few vague indications, "lacking any detailed" norms. For example, it called for a greater diversity of Scripture readings (SC 51), a higher esteem for the homily (SC 52), a restoration of the common prayer (SC 53), a suitable place for use of the mother tongue (SC 54), communion under both kinds (SC 55) and concelebration (SC 57 & 58) but all without detailed meaning. SC 54 does not envisage the use of the vernacular in the liturgy for the entire Mass, but only for some parts. Latin was to remain the liturgical language (SC 36): "Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites".