Content

Holy Mass and Christ's fulfilment of the Law

1.    Introduction

    This document tries to present an analysis and clarification of the Liturgical crisis in the Church. The fundamental question is how the Liturgical crisis in the Church is related to the replacement of the traditional "organic growth" of the liturgy, which is based on the gradual process through deepening of the understanding of Divine Revelation, namely Sacred Scripture and Tradition, with a search for the pure original source of early Divine Revelation through historical sources. Rediscovered so-called archaic primary documents, such as the Didache [2; 3 pp 7-20], plays a significant role in this. By appealing to these rediscovered documents they have been mistakenly used to re-interpret Sacred Scripture while simultaneously rejecting Sacred Tradition as having been erroneously established.

    The Didache [2], is a document that had been completely lost, but which was rediscovered in 1873 as an 11^th century copy and later published in 1883. As such its contents were considered an important ancient primary source, dated from between AD 50 and AD 150, depending on the objective to be achieved in using it to "revise" the liturgy.

    Refering to what was going on at the end of the 19th century in the field of liturgical studies Anton Baumstark wrote in his 1921 work "On the historical development of the liturgy" [1, p45 note*]:

"From the 1890s, the field of liturgical studies experienced a flurry of activity in the gathering, editing, and publication of primary documents." [1, p45 note*].

    Anton Baumstark also cited Edmund Bishop (1846 – 1917) who in 1899 wrote about this search for the so-called primary documents [1, p45 note*]:

From an increasing recognition of the all importance of the ‘document’ results that almost crazy activity in search of what has been hitherto unknown; that inquisitiveness as to the inedited [sic] which characterizes our time, and not infrequently is the cause of amusement or disdain according to the disposition of the onlooker.

    The fundamentally flawed archaistic and "document archeology" approach described above, results in an "incorrect understanding of the distinction between the natural and the supernatural orders" through a distorted view of Divine Revelation. The Didache and the other so-called primary documents do not belong to the Canon of Sacred Scripture and therefore do not belong to the pure source of Revelation, as officially established by the Council of Rome in 382. The Didache itself, which was on the list proposed by Eusebius of Caesarea (c. 260 to c. 340), was also formally rejected by this Council, a decision confirmed by numerous subsequent councils. It is therefore at best an apocryphal book and should be read in conjunction with Revelation, rather than the other way around.

    In contrast, true (and well established) "organic growth" is, and has always been, a gradual process through deepening of understanding of Revelation, i.e. Sacred Scripture and Tradition, each time again through unambiguous refutation of heresies as they arise, which creates the opportunity to convince those involved in propagating the heresies tof their errors and allow them to freely repent.
    Pope John XXIII described this process of "organic growth" clearly and extensively during his opening address to the second Vatican Council in 1962 [17, ad 2.5], when he stated:

"men either adhere toHim and His Church, and thus enjoy the light, goodness, just order and good of peace or otherwise they continue to live without him or fight against him and remain deliberately outside the Church and for this reason there is confusion between them, mutual relations become difficult".

    His prophetic words were neglected, and we therefore now live in times of confusion and difficult relations also within the Church.

    In conclusion this analysis suggests how the current and ongoing "Crisis in the Liturgy" can be solved through a return to genuine "organic growth" by reconsidering Christ’s fundamental mission on Earth as "Fulfilment of the Law", which demonstrated with His birth in Bethlehem:

"Christ, the 'Lamb of God', was born in the 'Stable of David' and therefore destined to be 'offered in the Temple' during the Passover".

    However, Christ as the ultimate pure and spotless sacrificial "Lamb of God" was rejected by the High Priest and the Children of Isreal, after which Christ offered Himself as Scapegoat for the Redemption of all mankind in perpetuity.

2.    Actual Crisis in Church

2.1.    Archaism versus Organic Growth

    Apparently, many theologians and liturgists became so enthusiastic by the discovery of the Didache that they lost sight of reality. This has led to them collecting, editing and publishing so-called primary documents. In itself there would be nothing wrong with this but considering these sources as primary documents goes a step too far when the Faith and the Liturgy are concerned. The real truth concerning Faith and the Liturgy is the Revelation, namely the divinely inspired Canonical books and Tradition. Therefore any conclusions from these so-called primary documents should be tested against them. The lack of this testing then may lead to the most remarkable and dangerous conclusions and more, to archaism, antiquarism and evolutionism. And certainly this is the case when the Revelation then is re-interpreted according to these so called 'primary' documents and other archaeologic discoveries, as they did with the Didache.

    It is the discovery of the Didache that has led to the current archaic quest for the "pure source" to reconstruct the original form of the Holy Mass [4, p48]. In doing so, this quest completely ignores the essential distinction between the divinely inspired source of Revelation and all other sources that contains human-generated, fallible interpretations and hypotheses to fill in the gaps that by definition exist between the several fragmented discoveries by the Liturgical Movement [7, Volume 1: p10-11, p14-15, p175-195, p392]. The same is also valid for the many aspects of the modern sciences used in the New Theology [28, p76, p90, p112-113].
    Revelation, as the pure source of our Faith and Liturgy, is unchangeable, no one can add to it, alter it, or subtract from it. Moreover, it is the understanding of Revelation only that is continually growing through a gradual deepening of our insight into it. Herewith it is under the divine, protective and preserving guidance of the Holy Spirit, who leads the Church's "organic growth" of understanding Revelation by refuting heresies through studying the Revelation in collaboration with the Church Fathers. Herewith, the "organic growth" in turn, largely determines the historical development of the religious life of the Church, such as the development of prayers and devotional practices and explains the legal differences between the loocal Churches.
    Instead of this, however, in their enthusiasm for the discovery of the Didache, many modern scholars of the Liturgical Movement have lost sight of the fact that our understanding of Revelation has historically grown organically. By their archaistic view, they seeks this pure source in the fragmentary remains of history by means of archaeological search and thinks that these remnants of the past can then be applied today. This archaism breaks with the historical developments brought about by the "organic growth" of our understanding of Revelation and attempt to impose their antiquarian ideas under the guise of renewal through reform. They view historical developments, especially during the post-Constantine era as well as during the post-Tridentine era, as false developments. They consider that these developments must be replaced by their hypothetical analyses and ideas about the original, ancient form of Faith and Church (see also the examples in chapters 4.2.3, 4.2.4, 4.2.5 and 4.2.6).

    Note that archaeological investigations certainly provide us with valuable background information on historical developments and cannot and should not be prohibited, but they must certainly be viewed with caution (Humani Generis 9) and interpreted in harmony with the Revelation. One must never hypothetically reinterpret Revelation to fit these archaeological gaps. They should contribute to a deeper understanding of how the current state of doctrine came about historically through the combination of "organic growth" and the refuting of heresies in unity with the Church Fathers..

2.2.    Risks related to the Archaism

    This archaism to reconstruct the ancient origin intrinsically entails great risks. On the one hand these risks are the re-implementations of old heresies or aspects thereof, which have been fought by the "organic growth" of our understanding of Revelation and rejected in the past now being reintroduced "in embryo" as important and fundamental archaeological discoveries. These reimplemented "original sources" may contain all the heresies for which they have been condemned and refuted in the past, but may also contain traces of heresies that have been refuted and condemned since they themselves were condemned.

    On the other hand, there are also the many gaps in these archaeological results that subsequently are filled by hypothetical interpretations with all kinds of novelties that carry with them the risk of all kinds of new abuses and heresies. A clear reason for the existence of such gaps can be found in the ancient culture that was based on social memory. It is evident, that:

"... early Christianity was shaped by the apostolic tradition, which was not initially handed down by reference to written texts, but in fidelity to oral teachings, with a special role for social memory" [4, p37].

    If everyone within a tradition of social memory lives in complete harmony with the oral teaching, in which the examples of the teachers are of great importance too, there will be no trace of the origins. Generally, the first traces only become visible when objections, abuses and/or heresies arise against this oral teaching, which then have to be refuted. Therefore, visible traces of oral teaching only emerge when they have led to disagreements between proponents and opponents. These can be done by written discussions or refutations, but also warnings or simple reports about such historical divisions within various groups. We find this in many places in the letters of the Apostles. Also with regard to the fourth Gospel of St. John, it must be mentioned that this Gospel was written in addition to the other three Gospels as a corrective refutation of the heresy of the Ebionites in particular.
    This implies that in a society based on oral traditions, current customs cannot be traced back to the earliest period of their existence. Such archaeological research into these customs always has by definition many gaps that are subsequently filled by means of hypothetical theories:

"the nature of the oral tradition itself frustrates the historian's attempt at reconstruction; our knowledge of the liturgy in the earliest period is very limited and (as a result of that) much research in this area is hypothetical" [4, p48]

2.3.    Arguments against the Archaism

    Regarding these phenomena, among others one should pay attention to the following quotations from Cardinal John Henry Newman [1801-1890] and Pope Pius XII [1947] respectively, which are of great importance here:

• "It is indeed sometimes said that the stream is clearest near the spring. Whatever use may fairly be made of this image, it does not apply to history of philosophy or belief, which on the contrary is more equable, and purer, and stronger, when its bed become deep, and broad, and full" [4, p48]

• "This way of acting bids fair to revive the exaggerated and senseless antiquarianism to which the illegal Council of Pistoia gave rise. It likewise attempts to reinstate a series of errors which were responsible for the calling of that meeting as well as for those resulting from it, with grievous harm to souls, and which the Church, the ever-watchful guardian of the "deposit of faith" committed to her charge by her divine Founder, had every right and reason to condemn. For perverse designs and ventures of this sort tend to paralyze and weaken that process of sanctification by which the sacred liturgy directs the sons of adoption to their Heavenly Father of their souls' salvation." [Encyclical Mediator Dei 64 (1947)]

    It should be noted that the analogy "the stream is clearest at its source" on which archaism is based, is indeed correct. However, this is not so much the physical stream with which archaeology deals that counts, but the unchanging spiritual source itself from which the Church has drawn its nourishment throughout the centuries, namely the Revelation. This source was given orally by Christ to the Apostles and subsequently passed on by the Apostles, initially orally and then partly in writing and even not all by the Apostles themselves, but always within the Church. This source does not need archaeologic research but an "organic growth" of understanding it through deepening.
    As for "organic growth" that's based on a completely different comparison. Namely, that of the "growth of a mustard tree from a single tiny seed." Archaeological research to find the seed is pointless once the tree has grown and the seed is no longer present in its original form. So, searching for remnants of the seed to reintroduce into the mustard tree's current environment is also pointless. So while, after Christ planted the "Seed of Faith" upon the Apostles through the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, the Church's understanding of Revelation grew organically, gradually step by step. And just as a mustard seed grows into a mustard tree through the water of a spring, so too is the "organic growth" in the understanding of Revelation nourished by Revelation itself as the purest source. This growth in understanding Revelation, which takes place under the divine protection and guidance of the Holy Spirit, subsequently influences the religious life and devotions of the Church and the faithful, yet always in communion with the Fathers of the Church. This requires filial trust in the divine protection and preserving guidance of the Holy Spirit in the process of "organic growth".

    Note that this phenomenon of "organic growth" essentially applies to all human knowledge. Just as the development of our knowledge of Revelation is the result of a deepening of the understanding of revealed truth through "organic growth" so too the development of profane knowledge is the result of a gradual process of deepening, corresponding to an "organic growth", of the understanding of creation as being the profane sciences. The latter grows from simple experiences to systematic scientific investigation and analysis of diverse observations, which in turn leads to a deepening of the knowledge of creation and potentially to wisdom through life experience. This scientific knowledge is, by nature of man, fallible and, moreover, highly fragmented into various subjects.

    It is in view of the "organic growth" that Pope John XXIII instituted the Second Vatican Council as a manifestation of a "Renewal of Faith", through which the whole Church, "Children of God", is to clearly and unequivocally affirm the Faith [17, 3.2,.3.3,.5.0 and the first parts of the following articles.5.1, 6.3, 6.5], similarly to the "Children of Israel" did in the Old Testament through their "Renewal of the Covenant" [Deut. 29:1; Joshua 8:30; Joshua 24:1; 1 Sam. 11:14; 2 Kings 23:1-3; 2 Chron. 23:1-3]. By this he wants to prepare the Church for a gift of the Holy Spirit. Namely, an "organic growth" in the understanding of Revelation under His divine, preserving and protecting guidance, so that through this "Renewal of the Faith" He will resolve the inner struggle in the Church [17, the last part of the following articles 5.1, 6.3, 6.5]. All this in light of "Seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness" (Matthew 6:33) and then "all these things shall be added unto you" (Matthew 6:33).
    This allowed Pope John XXIII to say in his opening address:

• "that this doctrine may influence the numerous fields of human activity, with reference to individuals, to families, and to social life, it is necessary first of all that the Church should never depart from the sacred patrimony of Truth received from the Fathers"

    But what was left of this "Renewal of the Faith" after all the preparation had been removed and replaced by unclear and ambiguous texts?

2.4.    Crisis related to the Heresy

• "It is the Liturgical Movement that was and still is striving to a Liturgical Renewal by returning to the sources: Scripture, the Early Church, the Church Fathers, and the great Saints [26, p19]."

    It is noteworthy that a member of the Liturgical Movement and an expert who served on the preparatory and conciliar commissions for the liturgy, and from 1964 to 1975 on the post-conciliar commission Consilium (which was responsible, among other things, for the 1969 Roman Missal), was still using this description around 1995. He did so, while he supported the hermeneutic of the "Renewal through reform in continuity" subsequently the "Reform of the Reform"-movement.
    This means on the one hand that the Liturgical Movement, in addition to Sacred Scripture, also considered the "Church Fathers and great saints" and thus Tradition, as part of the source. It is these "Church Fathers and great saints" who, with their examples, shaped Tradition, in which the refutation of abuses and heresies is of particular importance. It was precisely through the refutation of abuses and heresies that the true understanding of Revelation could grow organically, assisted by the divine guidance and protection of the Holy Spirit, and through which they could pass on Revelation as a pure source to the next generation as a continuous process of "organic growth". On the other hand, they apparently also consider the "Early Church" as a pure source for their Liturgical Renewal. But what exactly is meant by the "Early Church"? What is the difference between the "Early Church" and the Church formed by it and the great councils, in which abuses and heresies were refuted? Should the Church then return to the Church in which these abuses had not yet been refuted and then commit them again?
    Isn't it a contradiction to view the "Early Church" as a pure source to judge the understanding of Revelation, the Sacred Scripture and Tradition, as it is handed down by the Fathers through the great councils, an understanding of Revelation that has grown organically through the refutation of abuses and heresies under the divineguidance, protection and preserving of the Holy Spirit? Such an attitude can only lead to a rejection of the Church as it had grown organically after what is considered the "Early Church", which is a result of an archaeologic research of the remnants of the past with a fallible and hypothetical interpretation. Such is an abuse against the Holy Spirit.
    It should also be noted here that following the Liturgical Movement, two other renewal movements were active, namely the Theological (New Theology) and the Biblical Movement. These movements shared the same principles and goals:

1. a.  A return to the ancient Christianity or the early Church as the pure source.
   It was said that the Church in the Constantinian era had choosen for a false development, that we have to return to the Faith of the Early Church;
   b.  Giving a preference of natural or profane human science above the pure and supernatural source of the Revelation.
   This is argued by the false accusation of the Reformation and Humanists against the Church in the case of Galilei.
2. a pursuit of renewal through a reform of the Church.
   It was said that as a consequence of the false development the pre-Vaticanum II Church must be reformed, because it was built on false premises and thus to be rejected.

    These principles and goals are in fact symptoms of a heresy that accused the Holy Spirit for not justly guiding, protecting and preserving the Church for about 16 centuries! Above all they strove for a renewal of the Church through a reform of the Church based on human archeologic work completed with hypothetic implementations instead of a "Renewal of the New Covenant" by a clear and unambiguous manifestation of re-affirmation of the Faith of the Fathers. These principles and goals of the Renewal Movements were clear symptoms of a crisis in the Church.
    As mentioned, the search for the purest source of the liturgy in the early Christian period entailed serious risks of abuse and heresy, about which Cardinal John Henry Newman in the 19th century and Pope Pius XII in 1947, among others, had already warned. Then shortly after the warning of 1947, in 1950, Pope Pius XII even issued a new warning, this time from a broader perspective, namely including the new theological and biblical movements, by his encyclical Humani Generis (HG), "concerning some false opinions threatening to undermine the foundations of Catholic Doctrine". He sharply condemned:

1. the unrestricted evolutionism (HG 5);
2. the existentialism that concerns itself only with existence of individual things and neglects all consideration of their immutable essences (HG 6);
3. the false historicism (HG 7);
4. the irenism (HG 8).

    Instead of listening to the wise warnings, the Liturgical Movement continues with antiquarianism by replacing the spiritual "organic growth" in understanding the Revelation with an evolutionist theory of a material development of the Church based on their archaeological ideas, which led to:

a quest for the reconstruction of early origins, which by definition is based on limited archaeological discoveries and hypothetical interpretations to fill in the many gaps in the archeological records.

    It is clear that by replacing "organic growth" with archaism and antiquarism, the supernatural source of Faith is essentially replaced by a natural source that in itself is secular and fallible. This is a clear symptom of the current crisis in the Church, based on pride, a lack of trust and resulting in a heretical ideology in which:

the correct understanding of the distinction between the natural order and the supernatural order has been lost.

    So, in fact, we have a heresy that has lost the proper distinction between the natural and supernatural orders and thus functions as a two-edged sword, that

• The natural order can be overvalued in relation to the supernatural order, as in the Reformation.

    And conversely

• The supernatural order can be overvalued in relation to the natural order, as in Ultramontanism.  

    Both edges are manifestly at work in the actual crisis of the Church in all possible degrees, even including the complete disregard of the supernatural order combined with the opposite, which has disastrous consequences for the Church in all her facets, like "the constant danger of fratricidal wars".

2.5.    Resolving a Crisis through "Organic Growth"

2.5.1.    An apostolic example of "Organic Growth"

    In order to resolve this crisis, it is of course impossible to respond in isolation to all the abuses and other symptoms that arise from the fundamental underlying heresy. In order to combat these abuses and other symptoms effectively, we must delve into their roots in order to identify the fundamental underlying heresy. Only then we can address them by refuting the heresy through deepening the doctrine of the faith in unity with the Fathers and resolving the crisis in the way that Pope John XXIII had proclaimed unambiguously in his announcement of the Council. This certainly brings about processes of purification of the Church and of maturation of the doctrine of the faith, just as in the example of St. Paul, when he wrote to the Corinthians:

"For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you" [I Cor 11:19]

    In general, this expression is very true, because it is a clear consequence of the fact that God created man in his own image and likeness with a free will. Therefore, every man, inherent in his free will, will be put to the test, whereby some will fall into the temptation of this heresy, while others will fall into another heresy.
    With these words St. Paul indicates that what happened in Corinth was indeed a concrete case of heresy that had to be refuted as part of a process of purification within the community and by maturing the doctrine of the faith as he did by his teaching. He did this by, on the one hand, condemning the heresy and, on the other hand, refuting it in unity with his previous oral teachings on the doctrine of the faith:

"For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body, which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me”. In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me”" [I Cor. 11:23-25].

    And from a deepening of the doctrine of faith, to proclaim the following maturation of the doctrine:

"For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself" [I Cor. 11:26-29].

    Apparently, the heresy was a matter of ignoring or disrespecting the "Breaking of Bread". St. Paul made here a clear distinction between the "Breaking of Bread", including the partaking of Christ's Body and Blood as the sacrificial meal: the Holy Communion and the real meal after that the Eucharist Fast was ended. While the beginning and end of the "Breaking of Bread" are fixed and determined solely by the celebrating priest, only regarding to the real meal there is the possibility of starting too early or too late, but to what reference. The fact that there is now a complaint that some of the faithful begin eating too early and that St. Paul responds to this with explaining the "Breaking of Bread" can only mean that by starting to eat too early this refer to the "Breaking of Bread". Thus, they did not wait for those who were taking part in the "Breaking of Bread".
    St. Paul is condemning this a heresy and fulminated against those who ignore the sacrificial nature of the "Breaking of Bread" by starting the real meal too early. Was it just because they didn't wait for the others or was it against those who did not respect the apostolic use of the Eucharist Fast from midnight until after Holy Communion.

"And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation" [I Cor. 11:34].

    This is an apostolic example of "organic growth" with a maturation process in the Doctrine of Faith. St. Paul’s answer is clear and unambiguous, allowing all those involved to return to correct behaviour. These words of St. Paul should also be sufficient to resolve the current crisis.

2.5.2.    Pope John XXIII and the "Organic Growth"

    In his Opening Address to the Council, Gaudet Mater [17], Pope John XXIII described, inpired by the Church's traditional hermeneutic, how to solve the actual internal conflict in the Church. He did this as legislator of the Council, which had initiated it to resolve conflicts within the Church. To this end, after a brief introduction, he began by stating, in the words of Christ, that whoever is not with Christ is against Christ, scatters, and is a source of confusion:

• And Jesus himself, as an adult, clearly showed how throughout time people would act towards him, when he uttered those mysterious words: "Whoever listens to you listens to me; whoever rejects you rejects me; but whoever rejects me rejects him who sent me" [Lk 10:16.]. and later spoke the words also recorded by St. Luke: "Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters" [Lk 11, 23] (ad 2.4);

• After almost twenty centuries, the very serious situations and problems facing humanity do not change; in fact, Christ always occupies the central place of history and life: "men either adhere to him and his Church, and thus enjoy the light, goodness, just order and good of peace or they live without him or fight against him and remain deliberately outside the Church and for this reason there is confusion between them, mutual relations become difficult" (ad 2.5).

    Pope John XXIII then spoke of the three years of preparatory work for the Council, which included intensive and extensive research into the precise nature of faith in our time, which he considered a first sign and gift of heavenly grace.

• In these three years, intense work has been carried out to prepare the Council, with the program of investigating more accurately and extensively what was in this age of ours the condition of Faith, of religious practice, of the incidence of the Christian and above all Catholic community (ad 3.2);

• Not wrongly this time spent in preparing the Council It seems to that it was almost a first sign and gift of heavenly grace; (ad 3.3);

    Pope John XXIII then described the internal conflicts within the Church in a generally diplomatic manner, without singling out any specific group.

• In fact, it often happens, as we have experienced in fulfilling the daily apostolic ministry, that, not without offense to our ears, we are told the voices of some who, although ignited by zeal for religion, evaluate the facts without sufficient objectivity or prudent judgment. In the present conditions of human society they are not able to see anything but ruins and trouble; they are saying that our times, if confronted with the past centuries, are completely worse; and they go so far as to behave as if they have nothing to learn from history, which is a teacher of life, and as if at the time of the previous Councils everything proceeded happily as to the Christian doctrine, to the morals, to the just freedom of the Church (ad 4.2);

• This is easy to argue if you look carefully at the political and economic problems and dangers of today. They keep men so occupied that they divert their interests and concerns from the religious fact, which is of relevance to the sacred Magisterium of the Church. This way of acting certainly does not lack error, and must be rightly proven. However, no one can deny that these new induced situations have at least this advantage, which are thus eliminated those countless impediments with which the children of the century used to hinder the free action of the Church. It is enough to browse the ecclesiastical annals with escape to note with evidence that the same Ecumenical Councils, whose events are recorded in golden characters in the history of the Church, have often been celebrated not without very serious difficulties and reasons for pain due to the undue interference of civil power. Sometimes, in fact, the Principles of this world sincerely proposed to assume the protection of the Church, but many times this did not happen without harm and spiritual danger, because more often they were guided by political calculations and worried too much about their own interests (ad 4.5);

    He then described how the maturation process to solve the conflicts should take place by "organic growth". On the one hand, by safeguarding and teaching the sacred treasure of Christian doctrine, and on the other hand, by insisting on this sacred treasure of Christian doctrine, one must deepen the doctrine, through which new ways of apostolate opens to refute abuses and heresies, always in union with the Fathers, about which Pope John XXIII explicitly refers with regard to the acts of the Councils of Trent and the First Vatican Council. This may asked offers to everyone. It is like "seeking the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well, like the necessary deepening in understanding the doctrine [Mt.6:33]".

• What most concerns the Council is that the sacred deposit of Christian doctrine be guarded and taught in a more effective form (ad 5.1);

• "Seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well" [Mt.6:33] (ad 5.4);

• It is necessary first of all that the Church never diverts her eyes from the sacred heritage of truth received from the ancients; and at the same time she needs to look also to the present, which has involved new situations and new ways of life, and has opened new ways to the Catholic apostolate (ad 5.5);

• The twenty-first Ecumenical Council — which makes use of the effective and important help of people who excel in the science of sacred disciplines, the exercise of the apostolate and righteousness in behavior — wants to transmit integral, not diminished, not distorted, Catholic doctrine, which, although between difficulties and controversies, has become the common heritage of men. This is not pleasing to everyone, but it is proposed as an offer of a very fruitful treasure to all those who are endowed with good will.; (ad 6.2);

• We must not only guard this precious treasure we must continue without fear, in the work that our age demands, continuing the path that the Church has gone through for almost twenty centuries (ad 6.3);

• To the present, however, it is necessary that in these times our entire Christian teaching be subjected by all to new examination, with a serene and calm soul, without taking anything away from it, in that accurate way of thinking and formulating the words that stands out above all in the acts of the Councils of Trent and Vatican I; it is necessary that the same doctrine be examined more widely and more thoroughly and the souls are more fully undeclared and informed, as they wish to be a certain In fact, the deposit of the Faith is another, that is, the truths that are contained in our venerable doctrine, another way in which they are announced, but always in the same sense (ad 6.5);

    Finally, Pope John XXIII affirms that the Church must vigorously oppose errors, but without condemning those involved in these errors. While abuses and heresies must be unequivocally refuted, those involved in these errors must be given the opportunity to repent freely and return to the Church in peace. However, with regard to those who persist in rejecting doctrine, one can only conclude that they are still outside the Church of their own free will. This, however, should not preclude the will to go further in refuting the abuses and heresies, so that they too may return in peace of their own free will.

• There is no time when the Church has not opposed these errors; she has often also condemned them, and sometimes with the utmost severity. As for the present time, the Bride of Christ prefers to use the medicine of mercy instead of taking up the weapons of rigor; she thinks that we must meet today’s needs, exposing more clearly the value of her teaching rather than condemning (ad7.2).

    With this, Pope John XXIII, as legislator of the Council, described the foundation of the organic growth of the understanding of Revelation as the Church's traditional hermeneutic for resolving conflicts within the Church. However he did so, unlike in the past, he argued that this must now be done by only opposing abuses and heresies without condemnations. This limits the Church's authority to overcome internal conflicts due to these abuses and heresies solely to a deepening of the understanding of Revelation, as handed down by the Fathers of the Church and nourished by Revelation itself as its purest source for this deepening, allowing the understanding of Revelation to grow organically. All this requires complete trust in the divine, protective guidance of the Holy Spirit, so that through this deepening, the source of these conflicts can be unequivocally refuted, allowing those involved to be convinced, freely repent, and peacefully return to the unity of the Church of Christ!
    This, however, requires that all involved act in good faith and possess the same power of persuasion to be convinced. Unfortunately, this is not the case, and this must be made unequivocally clear. Those who continue to reject a clear refutation remain outside the Church of their own free will, and this must be unequivocally stated in the interest of the pastoral care of the faithful, as Saint Paul did when he wrote to the Corinthians:

"And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation" [I Cor. 11:34].

2.5.3.    Vatican II and the "Organic Growth"

    That the heresy mentioned in 2.4 was actual present at the Council has been made clear by Cardinal Siri too. Cardinal Siri draw to a similar conclusion about the incorrect distinction between the natural and supernatural orders with regards to three of the most influential theologians of the Second Vatican Council, Fr Karl Rahner, Fr Henry De Lubac and Fr Jacques Maritain [5, pp35-70].
    It is clear that this heretical ideology has blinded those involved and that this blindness is behind the acceptation of the in itself unacceptabled call 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 11th, 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:

"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] [20, p82].

    This clearly is an unacceptical call to deceipt the Pope and the Church through the Council. It is a clear insult against the Holy Spirit that only could be spoken and accepted due to a loss of a correct distinction between the natural order and the supernatural order. Therefore Pope John XXIII took measures against Father Bugnini but also with regard to the Preparatory Document when he promulgated the Missal of 1962. He did so, because of a lack of time this document could not be rewritten. This had to be a sign for the Council Fathers of whom he trusted their good will.
    What consequences would these insults against the Holy Spirit have? Don't these words, uttered by someone who was later, in 1975, exposed as a Freemason, reveal the very source of the liturgical crisis in the Church?

    Such a mentality, however, was certainly present among several cardinals, bishops, and their theologians. This is clearly demonstrated by the fact that some subjects deleted by the General Preparatory Commission were reinstated by those who should have processed these deletions. They acted as if they had never been deleted. This is also reflected in the applause of several Council Fathers when Cardinal Ottaviani was silenced, while he was warning to the Council Fathers about this irregular reinstatement of the deleted subjects. This series of events demonstrates that several Council Fathers and their theologians, who supported the renewal movements, did not fully trust the divine, protective guidance of the Holy Spirit over the Council. Instead, they attempted to impose their own ideas through lies and deception via ambiguous texts, while simultaneously claiming to have the support of the Holy Spirit. These underlying insults to the Holy Spirit clearly demonstrate their inability to properly distinguish between the natural and the supernatural order.
    Moreover, this attitude penetrated to the very core of the Church too, particularly shortly before the Council. In the week before the opening of the Council, some cardinals decided in a secret meeting, against the rules of Pope John XXIII, to intervene during the first general session of the Council [18, p. 162]. They did this after Pope John XXIII refused to follow their recommendation to postpone the Council. This recommendation was based on their total rejection of these preparatory documents, which Pope John XXIII praised as a first heavenly gift. The arguments used in this regard may refer to the so-called doomsday scenarios Pope John XXIII mentioned in his opening address [17].
    This irregular intervention at the beginning of the Council was subsequently followed by a series of irregular actions that ultimately postponed the planned vote for the council commissions. In doing so, these cardinals, their supporting bishops, and theologians succeeded in forming council commissions by using their own lists, creating a rift between the preparations for the council and the council itself, with the sole purpose of having the preparatory documents rejected. These flagrantly irregular actions were, in fact, unacceptable insults to the Holy Spirit not trusting the supernatural guidance of the Holy Spirit.

    While the Holy Spirit protects, preserves, guides, and supports the Church, He will always respect human free will, and He did so in this instance of this rebellious intervention at the start of the Second Vatican Council. With this intervention, which clearly constitutes an abuse of power by these Cardinals and the support by many Bishops., these Cardinals demonstrated a clear lack of confidence in the supernatural character of the Church and the divine inspiration of the Holy Spirit, a clear insult against the Holy Spirit.
    What does this mean with regard to Pope John XXIII's expectation of the spiritual "Renewal of Church" or a "Renewal of (New) Covenant" through a "Reaffirmation of Faith" and subsequent "Organic Growth" as a gift of the Holy Spirit to refute all false ideas within the Church, inherited from modern times?

"Men are either with Him and His Church, and then they enjoy light, goodness, order, and peace. Or else they are without Him, or against Him, and deliberately opposed to His Church, and then they give rise to confusion, to bitterness in human relations, and to the constant danger of fratricidal wars"" [17 ad 2.5].

    Didn't the renewal movements, through these irregular actions during the Council, instead of a spiritual "Renewal of Church", achieve precisely the opposite by seeking to reform the Church's structure, doctrine, liturgy, and pastoral care? Did they thereby bring about a transformation of the Church's very nature, rather than a transformation through conversion? Isn't it true that this form of renewal through reform is always unsatisfactory and can therefore only lead to a constant and insatiable desire for further reform and a source to fraternital wars? Isn't it that this is the result of the loss of a proper distinction between the natural and supernatural order?

    And because the Holy Spirit protects, preserves, guides, and supports the Church, while always respecting human free will, He did so in this instance of the rebellious attitudes at the Second Vatican Council, through which the Documents provided are mostly ambigious. These Council documents should therefore not be read in accordance with any specific intention of the minority or the majority of the Council Fathers, since they represent only the minority or the majority respectively. On the contrary, the Council's documents must be read unequivocally in accordance with Pope John XXIII's true intention in convening this Council. Thereto it is most important how he, as the Council's legislator, had prepared the Council and the task he had entrusted to it, the latter particularly in his opening address. Therefore it must be read in accordance with the full understanding of Revelation, which, nourished by the pure source of Revelation: Sacred Tradition and Scripture, has grown organically under the divine protection and guidance of the Holy Spirit. In unity with the Church Fathers "never diverts her eyes from the sacred heritage of truth received from the ancients" [17 ad 5.5] and "without taking anything away from it, in that accurate way of thinking and formulating the words that stands out above all in the acts of the Councils of Trent and Vatican I" [17 ad 6.5].

3.    The fulfilment of the Law

3.1.    Hermeneutic Key

    May the preceding analysis and the subsequent attempt to deepen Revelation contribute to resolving the crisis in the Church. To this end, an attempt has been made to deepen the essence and meaning of the Holy Mass, the Living Creed, as it is contained in Christ's fulfillment of the Law. Christ did not come to abolish the Law, which regulates the entire Temple Service of the Old Covenant, but rather to fulfill this Law. A fulfillment that ultimately replaced the Sacrifices of the Old Covenant in the Temple with the Sacrifice of the New Covenant, the "Sacrifice of the New Covenant". This is a point of great importance. It also encompasses the question of how, within the Law, the Old Covenant could be replaced by the New Covenant through the fulfillment of the Law without abolishing the Law of the Old Covenant.
    Therefore, within the general hermeneutic of the Church as pronounced by Pope John XXIII the hermeneutical key to use here must be based on the fulfillment of the Law that regulates the entire Old Convenant's Temple Worship. Hereto the entire event around the Birth of Christ cannot be considered as a natural coincidence. It cannot be a coincidence that Joseph and Mary had to travel to Bethlehem and that there was no room in the inn, so that the only place for them was the Stable of Bethlehem. The supernatural nature of this event is of great significance. First, Christ is born the Stable of David, and second, at the beginning of his public life, Christ was called by John the Baptist as the "Lamb of God":

"The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world. ... And looking upon Jesus as he walked, he saith, Behold the Lamb of God!" [Jn 1:29,36].

    These two events made the hermeneutical key that Christ Himself arranged:

Christ, the Lamb of God, was born in the Stable of David.

    Notice that "Christ, the Lamb of God" not only refers to the Gospel of St. John, but also to St. Paul in his letter to the Hebrew and to the Book of Revelation. [4, p39-44].

    May this analysis be a source of inspiration for further deepening of the Doctrine of the Faith, through which heresies may be refuted and the Church purified by a gift of the Holy Spirit.

3.2.    Christ, Lamb of God

• "Tell all the congregation of Israel that on the tenth day of this month every man shall take a lamb according to their fathers' houses, a lamb for a household. Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." [Isaiah 7:14]
• "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished." [Matthew 5:17-18]
• "Then he took unto him the twelve, and said unto them, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem, and all things that are written by the prophets concerning the Son of man shall be accomplished." [Lk 18:31]

    Christ fulfilled the Law and the Prophets. He began the fulfillment of the Law according to the prophecy of Isaiah, by taking the flesh of the Immaculate Virgin Mary:

"a virgin shall conceive and bear a son" [Is 7:14].

    Christ indeed assumed the immaculate flesh of the Virgin Mary, but out of respect for the free will of humanity, created in His image and likeness, not before the Virgin Mary had given her consent. With this consent, Mary paved the way for Christ's work of salvation, making her not only the Mother of God but also the Co-Redemptrix. Indeed, without her fiat, Christ could not assume flesh, and there would be no salvation for us.

    Then, it cannot be a coincidence either that the Shepherds nearby in the fields were informed by the Angel about the birth of the "Lamb of God". Given the supernatural nature of this pregnancy, it cannot be a coincidence that Joseph and Mary had to go to Bethlehem and that there was that particular Stable of Bethlehem, the "Stable of David". While in accordance with the Rabbinic tradition [23, #7:4] all animals suitable for the altar in the area around Jerusalem with a radius from Jerusalem to Migdal Eder (=Tower of Flocks) nearby Bethlehem were intended to be sacrificed in the Temple. The importance of Migdal Eder and Bethlehem Ephrata is confirmed by the Prophet Micah [Micah 4:8, 5:2, 5:4]. Thus, with His birth, Christ showed supernaturally how he will fulfill the Law:

"Christ, 'Lamb of God' who was born in the 'Stable of David' was also destined to be 'sacrificed in the Temple' at Passover".

And so it cannot be a coincidence either that the Shepherds nearby in the fields were informed by the Angel about the birth of the "Lamb of God".

"And there were shepherds living out in the fields nearby, keeping watch over their flocks at night. An angel of the Lord appeared to them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were terrified. But the angel said to them, “Do not be afraid. I bring you good news that will cause great joy for all the people. Today in the town of David a Savior has been born to you; he is the Messiah, the Lord. This will be a sign to you: You will find a baby wrapped in cloths and lying in a manger"." [Luke 2:8-12].

    Apparently, the addition "wrapped in swaddling clothes" seems to have some significance here. It apparently provides a necessary, more precise addition to the sign, allowing the shepherds to know exactly where Christ would be found. Otherwise, simply saying "You will find a baby in a manger" would have sufficed. This may have something to do with the spotlessness required of the lambs sacrificed in the Temple during Passover.

3.3.    Christ and the Law

    Certainly, the fulfillment of the Law refers to the Law that regulated the Temple Worship in the Old Covenant. So, a proper understanding of this fulfillment requires a proper understanding of how God's Law regulated Temple Worship in the Old Covenant. With this purpose in mind, the books of the Law must be read from the hermeneutical key as stated above. Without claiming to be exhaustive, a rough outline of this fulfillment is given here in its major aspects as it relates to the final week of Passion and even to the outpouring of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost:

3.3.1.    The Lamb had to be chosen

• "Tell all the congregation of Israel that on the tenth day of this month every man shall take a lamb according to their fathers' houses, a lamb for a household." [Exodus 12:3]

    Thus, according to the Law the "Children of Israel" had to choose an unblemished lamb for the Passover Sacrifice on the 10^th day of the 1st month [Nissan] [Ex 12:3], so 4 days before the actual slaughter would take place. Indeed, that day the "Children of Israel" shouted:

"Hosanna to the Son of David! Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord! Hosanna in the highest!" [Matt. 21:9]

    Hosanna means: "Please save us!". In doing so, the messianic prophecy was fulfilled as given by one of the Hallel Psalms 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!" [Psalm 118 (Messianic interpretation of the Paashaggada)]

    So, by mass acclaim, Jesus is designated the Messiah. Unconsciously, the "Children of Israel" choose the "Lamb of God" as their Passover Lamb on the day the lambs were to be chosen.
 

3.3.2.    The Houses had to be cleaned

• "Seven days shall ye eat unleavened bread; even the first day ye shall put away leaven out of your houses: for whosoever eateth leavened bread from the first day until the seventh day, that soul shall be cut off from Israel. ... And ye shall observe the feast of unleavened bread; for in this selfsame day have I brought your armies out of the land of Egypt: therefore shall ye observe this day in your generations by an ordinance for ever. In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month at even, ye shall eat unleavened bread, until the one and twentieth day of the month at even" [Ex 12:15,17-18].
• "Thou shalt eat no leavened bread with it; seven days shalt thou eat unleavened bread therewith, even the bread of affliction; for thou camest forth out of the land of Egypt in haste: that thou mayest remember the day when thou camest forth out of the land of Egypt all the days of thy life. And there shall be no leavened bread seen with thee in all thy coast seven days; neither shall there any thing of the flesh, which thou sacrificedst the first day at even, remain all night until the morning" [Deut 16:3-4].

    Thus the Law instructs the Jews to clean their houses from any crumb of leavened bread.
    While symbolically the unleavened bread stands for Unblemished [I Cor. 5:7, I John 3:5, Hebr. 7:26], the leavened bread stands on the contrary for sin [Amos 4:5, Hosea 7:4, Lk 12:1, Matt. 16:6-12, Gal. 5:9, I Cor. 5:6-8]. The houses had to be cleaned from the leavened bread, i.e from sin. And whereas, in accordance to His words to His mother, when they found Him after three days in the Temple:

"And he said to them, 'Why were you looking for me? Did you not know that I must be in my Father's house?'" [Lk 2:49].

    Apparently, the Temple is the Father's House of Jesus and therefore Christ had to clean the Temple from leaven, which mean from sin [Mt 21:12-15; Mk 11:15-18; Lk 19:45- 48; Jn 2:13-16].

3.3.3.    The Passover Lamb had to be checked

• "Your lamb shall be without blemish, a male a year old. You may take it from the sheep or from the goats, and you shall keep it until the fourteenth day of this month, when the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall kill their lambs at twilight." [Exodus 12:5-6].

    The Law also instructs that the Lamb must be checked for blemishes. Only a perfect, spotless and unblemished Lamb would suffice for the Passover [Ex 12:5].

1. While Christ was teaching in the Temple, he was approached by Pharisees, Sadducees, Herodian 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, for not being the "Lamb of God" [Mt 22:23-46; Mk 12:18-37; Lk 10: 25-28; Lk 20:27-44; ]. They could not find any fault with Him, the Eternal Passover Lamb indeed was without blemish.
2. And after Last Supper, on the same evening before His Crucifixion, the Sanhedrin continued this search for blemish by themselves and neither could they find any blemish too and finally they condemned Him to death for His claim to be the Son of God [Mt 26:57-68, Mk 14:53-65; Lk22:63-71; Jn 18:12-27].
3. Then, Pilate and Herod respectively, representing the worldly Government, could not find any blemish either [Mt 1-2,11-26; Mk 15:1-15; Lk 23:1-25; Jn 18:28-19:19].

3.3.4.    To cast lots for the Scapegoat

• "And it came to pass on the morrow, that Moses said unto the people, Ye have sinned a great sin: and now I will go up unto the Lord; peradventure I shall make an atonement for your sin" [Ex 32:30].
• "And Aaron shall cast lots upon the two goats; one lot for the Lord, and the other lot for the scapegoat. ... But the goat, on which the lot fell to be the scapegoat, shall be presented alive before the Lord, to make an atonement with him and to let him go for a scapegoat into the wilderness" [Lev 16:8,10].

    According to the law, an error of Passover was to be corrected like at the associated Temple Feast of "Yom Kippur", the Day of Atonement. For this, the High Priest cast lots over two goats. While the blood of the chosen one was to be sprinkled on the altar, the other goat was to bear the sins of the "Children of Israel" and was taken as a "Scapegoat" outside the city of Jerusalem to be sacrificed in the wilderness for the Atonement of sins.
    And, after the High Priest had rejected the "Lamb of God" [Mt 26:63-66; Mk 14:61-64; Lk 22:70-71] as the spotless and unblemished "Passover Lamb", the High Priest sent Christ to Pilate [Mt 27:1-2; Mk 15:1; Lk 23:1] to execute judgement on Christ [Jn 18:28-32]. Then Pilate, representing the Worldly Government of the Emperor, was convinced of Christ's innocence and wanted to release Him [Mt 27:18; Mk 15:10; Lk 23:13-16; Jn19:38]. As it was already foreseen as a custom, it was Pilate, who, as representative of the Worldly Government, now cast lots for the two goats, Barabbas and Christ, upon which the "Children of Israel", as persuaded by the High Priest and his men, chose Barabbas. [Mt 27:13-23; Mk 15:6-14; Lk 23:17-25; Jn 18:39-40]. Then Pilate washed his hands in innocence and delivered Christ to the High Priest [Mt. 27:24-26; Mk 15:15; Jn 19:4-7], after which Christ, the unblemished "Lamb of God" and Priest in the order of Melchizedek, sacrificed Himself, the sin offering of "Scapegoat" on the Cross bearing our sins.
    Apparently the error of the High Priest had to be corrected by a sin offering similar to the sacrifice of the scapegoat on the associated Temple Feast of "Yom Kippur" by casting lots between Barabbas and Jesus. And so the "Children of Israel", who had already proclaimed Christ as the innocent Passover Lamb without sin, now came forwards with Christ to bear our sins as "Scapegoat" for our Atonement with God. [Lev. 16:8-10; Mt. 27:17-26; Mk. 15:6-15; Lk. 23:13-25; John 19:14-16].

    As the "Scapegoat" was then brought outside the City of Jerusalem to be offered in the Wilderness for the atonement of the sins, Christ too, was brought outside the City of Jerusalem to be offered in the wilderness for the atonement of sin. And because of the representants of the worldly goverment had recognised Him as the innocent Lamb, He as "Eternal High Priest, in the order of Melchizedek" sacrificed Himself as sin offering of atonement for the entire world. The innocent Passover Lamb as Scapegoat sacrificed for our sins on the Cross at Calvary, died at the appointed time for the Passover Lamb to be slaughtered, i.e. the 9^th hour of the 14^th day of the 1st month [Num. 29:11; Ex 12; Is 53; Mt 27:32-50; Mk 15:21-37; Lk23:26-46; Jn 19:16-30]. In this way, Christ perfectly fulfilled the Old Testament law by joining the two temple festivals, "Passover" and "Yom Kippur", together, as they were already one whole.

3.3.5.    The First Fruits

• "That thou shalt take of the first of all the fruit of the earth, which thou shalt bring of thy land that the LORD thy God giveth thee, and shalt put it in a basket, and shalt go unto the place which the LORD thy God shall choose to place his name there" [Exodus 13:1-2];
• "Thou shalt not delay to offer the first of thy ripe fruits, and of thy liquors: the firstborn of thy sons shalt thou give unto me" [Exodus 22:29].
• "And the Lord spoke unto Moses, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When ye be come into the land which I give unto you, and shall reap the harvest thereof, then ye shall bring a sheaf of the first fruits of your harvest unto the priest: And he shall wave the sheaf before the LORD, to be accepted for you: on the morrow after the sabbath the priest shall wave it." [Leviticus 23:9-11].

    Thus in accordance to the Law, the day after the Feast of Passover was the Feast of the "First Fruits". This was also the third day after the crucifixion of Christ and thus that of Christ's Resurrection. This Feast refers on the one hand to the "Sanctification of the first born" [Ex 22:29], on the other hand it also refers to the land that the Lord had given to the "Children of Israel" [Ex 13:1-2].
    With the resurrection of Christ this Feast underwent a paradigm shift by which Jesus Christ as the "First Born" [Exodus 13:1-2] is really the "First Fruit" [Hebr. 1:6; I Cor 15:23] who first enters the promised land, the heavenly Paradise that is without sin.

"But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the first fruits of them that slept" [I Cor 15:23].

3.3.6.    The Gift of the Law

• "In the third month, when the children of Israel were gone forth out of the land of Egypt, the same day came they into the wilderness of Sinai. ... Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine. And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and a holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel. ... And Moses brought forth the people out of the camp to meet with God; and they stood at the nether part of the mount. And mount Sinai was altogether on a smoke, because the Lord descended upon it in fire: and the smoke thereof ascended as the smoke of a furnace, and the whole mount quaked greatly. And when the voice of the trumpet sounded long, and waxed louder and louder, Moses spake, and God answered him by a voice" [Ex 19:1, 5-6, 17-19].
• "At that time the Lord said unto me, hew thee two tables of stone like unto the first, and come up unto me into the mount, and make thee an ark of wood. And I will write on the tables the words that were in the first tables which thou brakest, and thou shalt put them in the ark. ... And he wrote on the tables, according to the first writing, the Ten Commandments, which the Lord spoke unto you in the mount out of the midst of the fire in the day of the assembly and the Lord gave them unto me." [Deut 1:1-2,4].
• "And the Lord spoke unto you out of the midst of the fire: ye heard the voice of the words, but saw no similitude; only ye heard a voice. And he declared unto you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, even Ten Commandments; and he wrote them upon two tables of stone." [Deut 4:12-13].
• "These words the Lord spoke unto all your assembly in the mount out of the midst of the fire, of the cloud, and of the thick darkness, with a great voice: and he added no more. And he wrote them in two tables of stone, and delivered them unto me" [Deut 5:22]

   It is the Feast of Weeks, Pentecost. On this day Christ poured out the Holy Spirit upon the Apostles and wrote His Law spiritually in our hearts and consciences [II Cor. 1:12; II Cor. 3:7]. Now the Holy Spirit spoke through (non-consuming) tongues of fire and every man heard them speak in his own language.

"And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance. And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven. Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language." [Acts 2:3-6].

   Clearly these non-consuming flame of fire are similar to the other times when God spoke to mankind, such as when God spoke to Moses through the non-consuming flame of fire from the midst of a bush and Moses was given the task of leading the "Children of Israel" out of the land of slavery into the promised land [Ex. 3:2:11] and to all the assembled "Children of Israel" on the mountain out of the midst of the non-consuming fire [Ex. 19:18; Deut. 1:4; Deut. 4:12; Deut 5:22] where God commanded to carry out the Ten Commandments, which He wrote on two tablets of stone: the Law of the Old Covenant [Deut 4:13; Deut 5:22].

   With the description "In the third month" [Ex 19:1] the exact day on which God spoke to the "Children of Israel" and gave them the Law cannot be deduced further from the Sacred Scriptures. On the other hand, it is certain that the outpouring of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost took place in this same month. Therefore it should not be a coincidence that both events of receiving the Law from God would specifically have occurred on the same day. On the one hand, this would then confirm that the remembrance of the gift of the Law of God, written on stone in the Old Covenant [Lev. 23:15-16], which has now been transformed in the New Covenant with the outpouring of the Holy Spirit and the gift of God's Law in our hearts and consciences [II Cor. 1:12; II Cor. 3:7] as living stones such as Peter wrote:

"Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. ... But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God's own people" [I Peter 2:5,9].

   Therefore these words of Peter in his first letter refers to the Words said by God to the Israelites when He gave them the Law written on stone:

"and you shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation" [Ex 19:6].

   On the other hand, this day of the Feasts of Pentecost is also known under several other names, like the Feast of the Weeks, the Feast of Harvest and the Second Feast of the First Fruit. Now on this day the Holy Spirit appeared unto the Apostles by "cloven tongues like as of fire" He spoke through the Apostles directly to the Jews in Jerusalem resulting in a large amount of Jews converting to Christ. This harvest confirms the true spiritual meaning of the Feast of Harvest as it does with the Second Feast of the First Fruits, whereas these converts where the First Fruits of Christianity.

Council of Trent, 22^nd Session, 1^st canon:

If one saith, that in the Mass a true and proper sacrifice is not offered to God; or, that to be offered is nothing else but that Christ is given us to eat; let him be anathema.

Council of Trent, 22^nd Session, 6^thcanon:

If any one saith, that the canon of the mass contains errors, and is therefore to be abrogated; let him be anathema.