Once the Church has bindingly edicted anything, we must understand and interpret such documents or decrees as they were written. This was confirmed by the First Vatican Council and by Pope St. Pius X. Some Novus Ordo Bishops fail to do so, even when they apparently speak conservatively. For example, We cite the remarks of Bishop Dorman of Rockford, Illinois, at the inaugural Mass for the Institute of Christ The King in his diocese on April 21, 1996.

Recalling his initial Novus Ordo experience, he stated the following in reference to regulations for the New Order (Novus Ordo) Church's Liturgy. "To us, because I was a priest in those days, it seems like when the new Mass came in, all the restrictions were off, all the rules were suspended, all the rubics were abrogated and we could do whatever we wanted to. That's not true. Look it up. In the twenty-second article of Sacrossanctum Concillium, the decree of the Second Vatican Council on the Liturgy, it sas those that I said to you : No other person, not even a priest, may ad, remove or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority. (Const. On the Sacred Liturgy, n.22 - The institute's Bulletin, 1996).

Bishop Dorman's arguments are both impregnated with a "temporal non-sequiter" and are illogical. First of all, Vatican II had no power, and did not exercise any power, to make dogmatically binding decrees which are novel or precedent. Therefore, the statements of Vatican II must be understood as the Church has always understood them. On whose authority is the Novus Ordo commanded to be said in the USA? "No one on is own authority can change anything in the liturgy" The New Order Liturgy wasn't authorized on the authority of Vatican II.

Even suppose the Bishops of Vatican II had exercised authority - which they didn't do - what would have been the object of their authority? The Latin mass as canonized by the faithful and by Popes, especially Pope St. Pius V, throughout the ages. The Bishops of Vatican II would have condemned a New Order Liturgy. Why? They went out of their way to uphold the canonized "Tridentine" Mass Liturgy.

The majority of Bishops at Vatican II understood their statements the way the Church demanded that they understand them. Not even in their weirdest nightmares would they have envisaged a new Liturgy being created by men. Their liturgy was the Tridentine Canonized Liturgy, which was institued by Christ. According to their ecclesial convictions, no good Catholic would dare to modify or alter this liturgy. In the history of this liturgy, only two Popes bindingly did so in insignificant ways and then even with much sacred trepidation. Certainly, these good Bishops would never have considered their statements as a mandate for Bugnini and six Protestant heretics to write a New Liturgy. Not even a body with legal jurisdiction can bindingly legislate for a Possible future event - especially, when that event wasn't envisaged as being possible. Even if Vatican II exercised legislative power, it could Not do so in a way, which would apply, to a future unforeseen happening. Therefore, this Bishop has no right to command acceptance of the New order Liturgy on the authority of Vatican II.

Note the usual Liberal deception. "On his own authority" was added by the wicked periti who drafted this Document at Vatican II, so as to make a wedge into the Church's teachings and practices. On whose authority was the new liturgy imposed? As can be proven, on no binding Papal authority; but only on usurped committee and Episcopal authority, which is null and void - namely, usurped authority by a Vatican committee and by the Bishops in various nations throughout the world - over, as it were, the non-governing body (bodies) - or failure to properly govern - of the Pope(s).

Lastly, note how Bishop Dorman employs his statements in a vain and feeble attempt to get the cows Back into the barn after the barn doors have been opened. "I said the Novus Ordo Missae for twenty-five years. I know its spirit firsthand". Considering the facts, such as the vast number of eucharistic prayers at each presider's disposal; continual modifications (such as changing "many" to "all men" and then to "all" when the feminists were offended, in what should be the most sacred and unchangeable Christ-words given of the consecration of the wine); and the expectation that the presider will tailor each "mass" to the needs of each particular group of "celebrants" (in the New Order Liturgy, the people celebrate while te facilitator presides) - is not one led to conclude that the spirit and practice of the New Order liturgy is opposed to Vatican II; and that law and disorder prevail?