Per ipsum, et cum ipso, et in ipso, est tibi Deo Patri omnipotenti, in unitate Spiritus Sancti, omnis honor et gloria.
In my hand missal (publisher: Baronius Press, 2009), the Per ipsum is translated in English as follows:
By Him, and with Him, and in Him, is to Thee, God the Father Almighty, in the unity of the Holy Ghost, all honor and glory, world without end.
Following this, the priest then either speaks aloud or sings, “Per omnia saecula saeculorum.” To this, the server (schola or choir) responds, “Amen;” thereby giving assent, on behalf of the faithful, to all of the preceding prayers of the Canon.
In the official English translation of the Novus Ordo, the priest elevates the Host and Chalice following the so-called “Eucharistic Prayer;” praying the Per ipsum aloud as follows:
Through Him, and with Him, and in Him, O God, almighty Father, in the unity of the Holy Spirit, all glory and honor is yours, for ever and ever.
To which, all of the faithful respond with what is commonly called the “Great Amen.”
Clearly, there are some noteworthy differences between the two. First, the Per ipsum in the Traditional Roman Rite is prayed by the priest in low voice, whereas it is prayed aloud in the Novus Ordo (and nearly always facing the people).
More importantly for our purposes, the Novus Ordo prayer in English reads, Through Him…, as opposed to By Him…, as it is translated in the Baronius hand missal.
Is there a difference? Perhaps I am overthinking the matter; aware as I am of the “reformers” deliberate effort to impart a Protestant flavor to the Novus Ordo, but I would say yes, there is a difference, and a rather profound one at that. Readers can decide for themselves.
When the contrast between these two translations first caught my attention, I spoke with several traditional priests about it and discovered that, unlike Baronius, certain other publishers of Latin Mass hand missals also translate the words “Per ipsum” as “Through Him.” I was surprised – at least initially – to find that this is true even of hand missals that were published prior to the Council and the advent of the Novus Ordo.
Before we attempt to make sense of these facts, let’s consider how, if at all, Through Him differs from By Him in a theological sense.
It seems to me that the latter expression communicates much more clearly the reality that it is Jesus Christ the High Priest Himself who offers His Body and Blood to God the Almighty Father at Holy Mass; i.e., the perfect Sacrifice of the Altar is truly being offered By Him.
By contrast, the expression Through Him seems to suggest that it is we – be this understood as the priest, the faithful, or both – who are the primary offerers of the Sacrifice; with Our Lord’s role being that of an intercessor.
One of the priests with whom I spoke (a native English speaker) consulted his Latin-English dictionary and confirmed that per can be translated as either by or through; i.e., both are correct. Furthermore, he takes the position that the English words by and through mean essentially the same thing.
The website Dictionary.com, however, captures the nuanced difference between the two words rather well. It defines “by” to mean “through the agency, efficacy, work, participation, or authority of,” whereas it defines “through” to mean “by the means or instrumentality of; by the way or agency of.”
With this in mind, one would have to conclude that while these words can perhaps be used interchangeably, it is not always fitting to do so inasmuch as “through” can suggest instrumentality; in the present case, intercessory action as opposed to direct action, which the word by necessarily captures.
I believe that this nuanced understanding of these words is well-applied to the translation of the Per ipsum.
Evidently, the publishers of the Baronius hand missal also believe that through and by are not truly interchangeable when applied to the theology of the Mass, or at least not profitably so in that setting.
On close inspection, one discovers that the Latin word per, which occurs frequently in the Mass, is consistently translated by the publisher as through; the solitary exceptions being the Final Doxology that follows the Minor Elevation, which we have already discussed, the Supplice te rogamus, and the priest’s prayer after the proclamation of the Gospel, both of which we will consider momentarily.
A number of prayers in the Mass conclude with the phrase, Per Christum Dominum nostrum; that is, Though Christ Our Lord. In each instance, it is clear that Christ is acting as intercessor; presenting our intentions to God on our behalf, as in the Nobis quoque peccatoribus, which is said just before the Minor Elevation.
Now let’s consider the exceptions.
Following the Gospel, the priest prays Per evangelica dicta, deleantur nostra delicta, which is translated, “By the words of the Gospel may our sins be blotted out.” [Emphasis added]
This particular instance does not seem especially relevant to the present study as the word by is not used in a literal sense; i.e., it is understood that our sins are not blotted out by the words of the Gospel themselves directly, per se, but it is in embracing, believing and living according to them that makes this possible in Christ.
The remaining exception is by far the more informative. Following the consecration, the priest prays:
Supplices te rogamus, omnipotens Deus: iube haec perferri per manus sancti Angeli tui in sublime altare tuum, in conspectu divinae maiestatis tuae: ut quotquot, ex hac altaris participatione sacrosanctum Filii tui, Corpus et Sanguinem sumpserimus, omni benedictione caelesti et gratia repleamur. Per eumdem Christum Dominum nostrum. Amen. [Emphasis added]
We most humbly beseech Thee, Almighty God, command these offerings to be borne by the hands of Thy holy Angel to Thine altar on high, in the sight of Thy Divine Majesty, that as many as shall partake of the most holy Body and Blood of Thy Son at this altar, may be filled with every heavenly grace and blessing. Through the same Christ Our Lord. Amen. [Emphasis added]
Here, we see that the central action, as requested in the prayer, is to be directly accomplished by the holy Angel. And yet, the prayer – the plea itself – is being submitted to Almighty God through Christ, who acts in this instance as intercessor. In this, we find that the two actions, each denoted by the Latin per, are translated by the publisher with sharp specificity; i.e., mindful of the fact that by and through are not always profitably treated as if interchangeable.
To be perfectly clear, it is helpful to note what St. Thomas Aquinas taught with respect to the Supplices te rogamus. He writes:
The priest does not pray that the sacramental species may be borne up to Heaven; nor that Christ’s true body may be borne thither, for it does not cease to be there; but he offers this prayer for Christ’s mystical body, which is signified in this sacrament, that the angel standing by at the Divine mysteries may present to God the prayers of both priest and people… (Summa, III, Q. 83, art. 4, Reply to Obj. 9.)
In other words, the Angelic Doctor is telling us that the offerings of which this prayer speaks concerns the Church Militant and the intentions that are offered by her members in union with the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
This distinction is crucial in order for one to understand that the Minor Elevation is unique inasmuch as it pertains to the offering – not simply of a prayer or an intention – but the Body and Blood of Christ to the Almighty Father; an action accomplished Per ipsum, that is, by Him; not simply through Him.
It is indeed the case, as Aquinas makes plain, that our prayers and sacrifices – joined to the perfect Sacrifice of Christ made present on the Altar – are also offered to God the Almighty Father at Holy Mass. This, we can say, does indeed take place through Him in an intercessory way, and the remainder of the Per ipsum accounts for this with the words et cum ipso, et in ipso – in English, and with Him, and in Him.
As such, it seems to me that those hand missals that use the English translation Through Him, and with Him, and in Him are guilty, not only of redundancy, but far worse as the omission of the word by leaves an opening for misunderstanding as to what is actually taking place in the Mass.
Prior to the advent of the Novus Ordo Missae, this danger was not exactly the clear and present one that it is in our day thanks to the Protestantized rite of Paul VI. This perhaps explains why some pre-conciliar publishers at times used the less-than-ideal translation Through Him…; i.e., the theology of the Mass was plainly taught and much more widely known then, and not the source of confusion that it is today.
As for the bastard rite of Paul VI, was the choice of through Him over by Him in the English text merely incidental, fifty-fifty proposition that could have gone either way?
I don’t believe so for a moment. Though Him is perfectly acceptable to Protestants – the same that the “reformers” were at great pains to placate – whereas by Him is most certainly not in keeping with their liturgical sensibilities. Indeed, deliberately avoiding the latter accomplishes precisely what Cardinal Ottaviani noted of the rite elsewhere; namely, “the priest’s position is minimized” (cf Ottaviani Intervention). Far more injurious to all concerned, the Lord’s position is minimized in the process as well.
One notes that following the Per ipsum, spoken aloud by the priest in the Novus Ordo, is the so-called “Great Amen.”
This serves to give one the impression that the faithful, every bit as much as the priest, are offering the Sacrifice of the Altar to God; thus not only blurring the line between those actions that are proper to the priest and those that are proper to the people, but also between those which are purely human and those that are carried out by Jesus Christ, true God and true man.
Let us not be naïve: This was, after all, the very purpose of the so-called liturgical reform; to craft a rite that would be acceptable to the heretics, who cannot bear the theology of the Mass as a true and propitiatory Sacrifice offered by a priest who acts in persona Christi.
And why should those of us who are steeped in the Traditional Latin Mass concern ourselves with the failings of the Novus Ordo?
First and foremost, because souls are at stake, but also because the Novus Ordo is very much like a contagion that is capable of infecting even those who are sincerely determined to remain faithful to Catholic tradition. Other than those who, by the grace of God, have never been exposed to the Novus Ordo and have known only the Traditional Latin Mass, many of us – priests included – likely still carry some Protestant residue left over from the bitter “new Mass” experience.
So, the next time you assist at the Traditional Latin Mass, regardless of what your hand missal might say, be mindful of the reality that the Body and Blood of Christ is being offered, not so much through Him, as by Him; with the priest at the altar acting in persona Christi.
Ad Majórem Dei Glóriam!
One can just imagine that some readers saw this click-worthy headline and thought to themselves, Wow, Bergoglio is going issue a correction of his own heresy; showing that he really is a ‘son of the Church’ by affirming the true faith!
Those who took the bait, clicked through and read the interview, however, quickly came to the realization that they had been had. Let’s take a closer look.
The Bishops of Kazakhstan and Central Asia, during their recent ad lumina, were given the opportunity to speak with His Hereticalness directly; after which, Bishop Schneider was asked by LifeSite News:
Can you say more about how Pope Francis responded to your concern about the Abu Dhabi statement on the diversity of religions? The controversial passage reads: “The pluralism and the diversity of religions, color, sex, race and language are willed by God in His wisdom, through which He created human beings.”
Bishop Schneider replied:
On the topic of my concern about the phrase used in the Abu Dhabi document – that God “wills” the diversity of religions – the Pope’s answer was very clear: he said that the diversity of religions is only the permissive will of God. He stressed this and told us: you can say this, too, that the diversity of religions is the permissive will of God.
I tried to go more deeply into the question, at least by quoting the sentence as it reads in the document. The sentence says that as God wills the diversity of sexes, color, race and language, so God wills the diversity of religions. There is an evident comparison between the diversity of religions and the diversity of sexes.
I mentioned this point to the Holy Father, and he acknowledged that, with this direct comparison, the sentence can be understood erroneously. I stressed in my response to him that the diversity of sexes is not the permissive will of God but is positively willed by God. And the Holy Father acknowledged this and agreed with me that the diversity of the sexes is not a matter of God’s permissive will.
But when we mention both of these phrases in the same sentence, then the diversity of religions is interpreted as positively willed by God, like the diversity of sexes. The sentence therefore leads to doubt and erroneous interpretations, and so it was my desire, and my request that the Holy Father rectify this. But he said to us bishops: you can say that the phrase in question on the diversity of religions means the permissive will of God.
OK, here’s the real deal. First, while many will be moved to applaud Bishop Schneider for addressing the issue, he has shown himself to be timid and ineffectual.
To say of the Abu Dhabi statement, “the sentence can be understood erroneously” is but a half-truth at best; more appropriately, it is a lie. The reality is that the sentence as written is heresy plain and simple. Schneider knows this, and yet, in confronting Bergoglio to his face, unlike St. Paul, he evidently feared the man more than God.
More importantly, what Bergoglio revealed of himself is not that he is correctable; on the contrary – he revealed himself to be a formal heretic. Recall Bishop Schneider’s account:
…he said that the diversity of religions is only the permissive will of God. He stressed this and told us: you can say this, too, that the diversity of religions is the permissive will of God. He stressed this and told us: you can say this, too, that the diversity of religions is the permissive will of God.
You can say this too. How very big of Bergoglio; giving a bishop permission to teach like a Catholic! The only thing this proves is that Francis couldn’t possibly care less what is taught; much less what is believed, which is why he has no problem with the diversity of religions in the first place.
What all of this adds up to is simple: Bergoglio has confirmed that he knows damned well what the Church teaches in this regard, and yet, he is sticking to his error. He is determined to allow the document and the heresy within it to stand as it is written; a document, I might remind readers, that bears the signature of the man that most of the world considers to be the Successor of St. Peter and the Vicar of Jesus Christ!
Once again, it is perfectly clear where we find ourselves at this remarkable moment in Church history: A formal, manifest, pertinacious, obstinate heretic is posing as the pope, and even the cream of the episcopal crop has not the Catholic faith to declare as much to the world for the good of souls.
By: Cornelia Ferreira
In this issue of the Fatima Newsletter, Lucia writes about the second apparition of the angel to the three young seers:
“Make of everything you can a sacrifice, and offer it to God as an act of reparation for the sins by which He is offended, and in supplication for the conversion of sinners…”
A perfectly timed message as we begin the penitential season of Lent.
Please click the HERE or the banner to the right to read the rest of this issue.
On February 25, Superior General of the Society of St. Pius X, Fr. Davide Pagliarani, responded to Bergoglio’s joint declaration with Muslim Sheik Ahmad el-Tayeb wherein he declared that God wills religious pluralism.
Fr. Pagliarani writes [emphasis added]:
The Document on Human Fraternity for World Peace and Living Together signed by Pope Francis and the Grand Imam of Al-Azhar is nothing but a house built on sand. It is furthermore an impious gesture that scorns the First Commandment of God and attributes to the Divine Wisdom, incarnate in Jesus Christ who died for us on the Cross, the statement that “the pluralism and the diversity of religions” is “willed by God in His wisdom”
Such talk is opposed to the dogma that declares that the Catholic religion is the one true religion (cf.Syllabus of Errors, proposition 21). When something is a dogma, anything opposed to it is called heresy. God cannot contradict Himself.
Following Saint Paul and our revered founder, Abp. Marcel Lefebvre, under the protection of Our Lady, Queen of Peace, we will continue to hand on the Catholic faith that we have received (cf.1 Cor 11:23), working with all our might for the salvation of souls and of nations, by preaching the true faith and the true religion.
God bless Fr. Pagliarani for using the “H” word! That said, one wonders if most of what he stated beyond that is reality, or simply a series of empty words.
You see, if he and the Society stop right there and just continue on their merry way – effectively behaving as if this and other even graver Bergoglian offenses against Christ never happened – then all claims to be “following Saint Paul” will be exposed as little more than hot air. So too will the claim of “working with all our might for the salvation of souls and of nations.”
On this note, I would respectfully remind the Superior General that it was St. Paul who “withstood Peter to the face, because he was to be blamed” (cf Galatians 2:11), and furthermore, that he revealed this information only after he had already cautioned the Galatians:
But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema. (Galatians 1:8)
In identifying this most recent heresy, it is clear that Fr. Pagliarani can see the falseness of Bergoglio’s modernist “gospel.” As such, if indeed he and the SSPX are true followers of St. Paul, we should expect that they will boldly point to Francis while repeating after the Apostle, let him be anathema!
And why would they do such a thing? Well, because that is what “working with all our might for the salvation of souls and of nations” requires – the same reason that St. Paul opposed Peter to his face and wrote as boldly as he did.
So, what does it mean for one to be “anathema”?
In the New Testament anathema no longer entails death, but the loss of goods or exclusion from the society of the faithful. St. Paul frequently uses this word in the latter sense. (1917 Catholic Encyclopedia)
If, therefore, it is reasonable (and I insist that it most certainly is) to consider Bergoglio “excluded from the society of the faithful” – for so many more reasons than just this most recent heresy, and graver ones at that – then how is it possible for any true follower of St. Paul to speak of Francis as if he is head of said society?
If St. Paul’s instructions to those who wish to follow his example are not yet clear enough, consider the following:
A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid: Knowing that such a one is subverted and sinneth, being condemned by his own judgment. (Titus 3:10-11)
In these words, it is perfectly plain that St. Paul simply assumes that responsible churchmen (like Titus) who are “working with all their might for the salvation of souls and of nations,” will not only take the initiative in issuing those admonitions, but will also warn the faithful of this act of self-condemnation.
At this point, numerous admonitions and corrections of Bergoglio have taken place, many of them issued by churchmen, and in the public arena at that!
All of this having been said, it is perfectly plain that a true follower of St. Paul cannot help but acknowledge that Jorge Bergoglio is condemned by his own judgment, anathema, and therefore is to be avoided.
If the SSPX is unwilling to take the path laid out by St. Paul, then perhaps they will consider following the instructions given by Our Lord. Surely this is not too much to ask of anyone who proposes to stand guard over tradition:
But if thy brother shall offend against thee, go, and rebuke him between thee and him alone. If he shall hear thee, thou shalt gain thy brother. And if he will not hear thee, take with thee one or two more: that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may stand. And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican. (Mt. 18:15-17)
Francis’ heresy and blasphemy is an offense first and foremost against Christ, but also against every member of His Body. As noted, numerous “rebukes” of Francis, most notably the heresies enshrined in Amoris Laetitia, have been made.
In response to these rebukes, Francis will not hear them.
With the dubia, the Church as represented by members of the College of Cardinals has rebuked him.
In response to this rebuke, Francis will not hear the Church.
As such, according to Our Lord’s own instructions, Francis must be treated as a heathen and publican; i.e., as one who is outside the Body of Christ, and as such, clearly not head of said Body. Will the SSPX do this?
In conclusion, I will end by posing a question that I never would have imagined having to ask just a half-dozen or so years ago:
In light of the prominent role that Catholic Episcopal Conferences played at the recent “Sex Abuse Summit” held at the Vatican from February 21 to February 24, 2019, I thought I would treat AKA Catholicreaders to a “Blast from the Past,” article I wrote in December 2006 on the role of national conferences in the promotion of homosexuality and pederasty.
Here’s that shot over the USCCB bow written 13 years ago. I think it will leave a bitter-sweet memory in the mind of every faithful Catholic, especially as the dust settles on Francis’ just concluded dog and pony show at the Vatican.
As a Catholic writer, over the years I have covered a few of the main fall meetings of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops/United States Catholic Conference, today known as the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, in Washington, D.C.
It didn’t take me more than a few sessions of reporting on the ecclesiastical politics of the NCCB/USCC to reach the conclusion that these semiannual meetings were nothing more than an elaborate dog and pony show staged annually by the “progressive” arm of the post-Conciliar American Church (AmChurch).
So after a couple of tours of duty, I decided to trade in my plane ticket and the expenses of lodgings at the NCCB/USCC hotel of choice for a comfortable armchair at home where I could video tape the proceedings carried by EWTN and study them at my leisure.
The debacle that took place at the November 13-16, 2006 meeting of Catholic bishops at the Marriott Waterfront in Baltimore in connection with the passage of the “gay-friendly” USCCB-drafted document “Ministry to Persons with a Homosexual Inclination: Guidelines for Pastoral Care” reaffirmed the wisdom of my decision.
It’s no great secret, of course, that since its founding in 1966, the American bishops’ mega-bureaucracy has had an on-going love affair with all things liberal including the “Gay Liberation Movement” within and without the Church.
Without the active cooperation of the NCCB/USCC, the Homosexual Collective could never have so quickly and thoroughly colonized and metastasized the Catholic priesthood and religious orders and diocesan and parish life in the United States.
Many bishops and cardinals who have served as officers of the NCCB or General Secretaries of the USCC have themselves been active homosexuals. From the earliest years of the NCCB/USCC, avowed “gay” activists were recruited and placed in sensitive positions within the AmChurch bureaucracy.
Likewise, key departments within the USCC such as the Office of Social Justice have used their extensive resources to advance the political agenda of the Homosexual Collective. Even the USCC Family Life Office was used as a vehicle to disseminate “gay” propaganda into Catholic elementary and secondary schools under the guise of so-called sex education.
By the late 1970s, Dignity and New Ways Ministry, two of the most virulent strains of “gay” Catholic ministries operating in AmChurch had successfully established strong working liaisons with NCCB/USCC officials, staffers and sympathetic bishops.
In 1986, after the Holy See belatedly put the kibosh on the use of Church facilities and resources by pro-homosexual groups, Dignity and New Ways went on to create new, more inclusive, “gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, sado/masochist ministries” to advance the ideological and political agenda of the Homosexual Collective in AmChurch.
They also continued to provide direction and input into NCCB/USCC documents on homosexuality including the outrageously “gay-friendly” documents “The Many Faces of AIDS” (1988) and “Always Our Children’ (1997).
Among the most important second-generation “gay” ministry groups inspired by Dignity and New Ways is NACDLGM (National Association of Catholic Diocesan Lesbian and Gay Ministries) which is currently active in 55 dioceses and 131 Catholic parishes in the United States and Canada.
The most important thing the reader needs to remember about Dignity, New Ways, NACDLGM and other so-called “gay” Catholic ministries is that despite their religious trappings, these organizations are essentially political not religious. They are not “ministries” in the traditional sense of the word. Their objectives are ideological and political in nature and they are designed to extend and strengthen the hold of the Homosexual Collective on the Catholic Church in America and to secure its vast resources for their own ends.
“Gay” ministries transform parishes into political and propaganda cells for “gay” activism. They undermine authentic Church teachings on Faith and morals. “Gay” ministries systematically strip parishioners of every vestige of natural revulsion that the normal person experiences when initially confronted by sexual perversion. Rather than helping the homosexual extricate himself from the vice to which he has become habituated, “gay” ministries confirm the homosexual in his sin and bind him ever tighter to the Homosexual Collective which frown upon defectors. “Gay” ministries, male and female, recruit like the Army, especially among vulnerable youth.
“Gay” ministries have gone to great lengths to cover up the historical fact that pederasty, that is, sexual acts between an adult male and a minor male, has been the most universal and pervasive form of homosexuality from ancient to modern times.
In a number of liberal dioceses, “gay” ministries have been instrumental in establishing “gay” parishes, that is, parishes that cater almost exclusively to a sexually-active “gay” clientele.
Most Holy Redeemer Parish in the Archdiocese of San Francisco which is located in the “gay” Castro District of the city, recently made national headlines when news leaked out that the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, a group of homosexual drag queens nationally known for their anti-Catholic antics and blasphemous parodies, had secured MHR parish hall for a salacious night of revival bingo and homo-sex hosted by he/she Peaches Christ, a drag queen “freaknick” who claims to be a descendent of Jesus Christ. Each year MHR participates is the annual Gay Pride Parade, and “gay” speakers and activists regularly use the pulpit and other parish facilities to promote their “gay” theology.
Clearly, the American bishops don’t need USCCB “guidelines” for “gay” ministries. What they do need is explicit and enforced directives from Rome on how to divest their dioceses from these organized forces of perversion and prevent further inroads from being made by the Homosexual Collective into the Church.
Too bad the American bishops didn’t take my advice 13 years ago! They could have saved themselves at least three billion dollars in settlements and billions more in countless litigations, to say nothing of the countless lives and souls of thousands of clerical sex abuse victims and their families.