40 years of Abomination--The Novus Ordo Mass

OK. I have to speak up here.

I used to be Catholic and now I am Protestant.

I believe the Catholic church is the Great Whore of Revelations, along with the rest of the apostate church.

The Roman Catholic church (RC) DOES NOT GIVE THE ROUTE TO SALVATION, WHICH IS BEING BORN AGAIN, ATTESTED BY JESUS CHRIST HIMSELF.

The RC keeps people distracted with bits of truth, but they withhold the greatest truths. They allow people to live lives of dissipation, existing in an unsaved state. They deceive their congregants while fleecing them. They lead them into hell.

OK. I have to speak up here.

I used to be Catholic and now I am Protestant.

I believe the Catholic church is the Great Whore of Revelations, along with the rest of the apostate church.

The Roman Catholic church (RC) DOES NOT GIVE THE ROUTE TO SALVATION, WHICH IS BEING BORN AGAIN, ATTESTED BY JESUS CHRIST HIMSELF.

The RC keeps people distracted with bits of truth, but they withhold the greatest truths. They allow people to live lives of dissipation, existing in an unsaved state. They deceive their congregants while fleecing them. They lead them into hell.


Don't confuse Traditional Catholicism with modern day Catholicism.

OK. I have to speak up here.

I used to be Catholic and now I am Protestant.

I believe the Catholic church is the Great Whore of Revelations, along with the rest of the apostate church.

The Roman Catholic church (RC) DOES NOT GIVE THE ROUTE TO SALVATION, WHICH IS BEING BORN AGAIN, ATTESTED BY JESUS CHRIST HIMSELF.

The RC keeps people distracted with bits of truth, but they withhold the greatest truths. They allow people to live lives of dissipation, existing in an unsaved state. They deceive their congregants while fleecing them. They lead them into hell.

Catholicism whether traditional or modern, Protestantism in almost every shade and color, they all make a mockery of the Scriptures in one way or the other. Therefore the Scriptures have NO choice but to class them as the mother and the daughters. And who is a protestant? A protesting catholic, that's what he/she is.

Why not have a real traditional Catholic movement

Yes, go back to the traditional Latin mass, but still have the native languages available. The original Christians did not have to listen in a foreign tongue.

Did early Christians focus on prayers to the saints and the BV Mary ? Today's Cath trads talk about Fatima more than the word of God in Scriptures.

The marks of post 1870 end times Catholicsm - emphasis on how great the pope is ( mirror mirror on the wall, who is the most infallible of them all ?) and the crazy, anti-scripture concern for BVM aparitions. This caused the Vatican II problem - a drift away from scripture and a false importance of the pope. THe pope is supposed to be the leader in preaching the Gospel of Christ, not write his own gospel. In 1884, Pope Leo XIII had a vision warning him the Church would be chastised and even destroyed within a 100 years. Good Catholics throw away the bible, and all common sense when they ignore the reason God would chastise evil in the Church. The high and mighty infallibles have totally trashed the Chruch and permitted the enemies of Christianity to take over, just like Leo XIII and Pius X's visions indicated.

Time for the Church to repent and bring back healing in these last days. Then we can bring back the Protestants and have one fold based on the truth of Jesus Christ, not the false ecumenism and friendship with the world as the Vatican II false popes have promoted.

Any Catholics have the guts to be a real Christian Catholic ? Luke 18:8 suggests not.

Why not have a real traditional Catholic movement

Yes, go back to the traditional Latin mass, but still have the native languages available. The original Christians did not have to listen in a foreign tongue.

Did early Christians focus on prayers to the saints and the BV Mary ? Today's Cath trads talk about Fatima more than the word of God in Scriptures.

The marks of post 1870 end times Catholicsm - emphasis on how great the pope is ( mirror mirror on the wall, who is the most infallible of them all ?) and the crazy, anti-scripture concern for BVM aparitions. This caused the Vatican II problem - a drift away from scripture and a false importance of the pope. THe pope is supposed to be the leader in preaching the Gospel of Christ, not write his own gospel. In 1884, Pope Leo XIII had a vision warning him the Church would be chastised and even destroyed within a 100 years. Good Catholics throw away the bible, and all common sense when they ignore the reason God would chastise evil in the Church. The high and mighty infallibles have totally trashed the Chruch and permitted the enemies of Christianity to take over, just like Leo XIII and Pius X's visions indicated.

Time for the Church to repent and bring back healing in these last days. Then we can bring back the Protestants and have one fold based on the truth of Jesus Christ, not the false ecumenism and friendship with the world as the Vatican II false popes have promoted.

Any Catholics have the guts to be a real Christian Catholic ? Luke 18:8 suggests not.

Why not have a real traditional Catholic movement

Yes, go back to the traditional Latin mass, but still have the native languages available. The original Christians did not have to listen in a foreign tongue.

Did early Christians focus on prayers to the saints and the BV Mary ? Today's Cath trads talk about Fatima more than the word of God in Scriptures.

The marks of post 1870 end times Catholicsm - emphasis on how great the pope is ( mirror mirror on the wall, who is the most infallible of them all ?) and the crazy, anti-scripture concern for BVM aparitions. This caused the Vatican II problem - a drift away from scripture and a false importance of the pope. THe pope is supposed to be the leader in preaching the Gospel of Christ, not write his own gospel. In 1884, Pope Leo XIII had a vision warning him the Church would be chastised and even destroyed within a 100 years. Good Catholics throw away the bible, and all common sense when they ignore the reason God would chastise evil in the Church. The high and mighty infallibles have totally trashed the Chruch and permitted the enemies of Christianity to take over, just like Leo XIII and Pius X's visions indicated.

Time for the Church to repent and bring back healing in these last days. Then we can bring back the Protestants and have one fold based on the truth of Jesus Christ, not the false ecumenism and friendship with the world as the Vatican II false popes have promoted.

Any Catholics have the guts to be a real Christian Catholic ? Luke 18:8 suggests not.



The church of the last days will be the one world church which you will try to force upon people like me to be apart of. And when I refuse you will advocate the death of not only me but my wife and children as well.

Wait the priest may try to molest my children. When I think of a priest this is what comes to mind? Why?

OK. I have to speak up here.

I used to be Catholic and now I am Protestant.

I believe the Catholic church is the Great Whore of Revelations, along with the rest of the apostate church.

The Roman Catholic church (RC) DOES NOT GIVE THE ROUTE TO SALVATION, WHICH IS BEING BORN AGAIN, ATTESTED BY JESUS CHRIST HIMSELF.

The RC keeps people distracted with bits of truth, but they withhold the greatest truths. They allow people to live lives of dissipation, existing in an unsaved state. They deceive their congregants while fleecing them. They lead them into hell.


Don't confuse Traditional Catholicism with modern day Catholicism.

OK. I have to speak up here.

I used to be Catholic and now I am Protestant.

I believe the Catholic church is the Great Whore of Revelations, along with the rest of the apostate church.

The Roman Catholic church (RC) DOES NOT GIVE THE ROUTE TO SALVATION, WHICH IS BEING BORN AGAIN, ATTESTED BY JESUS CHRIST HIMSELF.

The RC keeps people distracted with bits of truth, but they withhold the greatest truths. They allow people to live lives of dissipation, existing in an unsaved state. They deceive their congregants while fleecing them. They lead them into hell.


You're entitled to your beliefs due to God's gift of freewill.

Doesn't mean that your beliefs are true though.

Should Roman Catholics attend and participate in the Novus Ordo Mass? What is you position on this?

Should Roman Catholics attend and participate in the Novus Ordo Mass? What is you position on this?


This is a decision that is not taken lightly, but such
people may take solace from the fact that many Catholics are
simultaneously struggling with the very same issue, now more than ever
as the American Catholic Church departs more and more from the
Traditional Latin Mass and introduces more and more novelties into the
Church's central act of worship.

This is no new difficulty. We read in St. Paul's Second Epistle
to the Thessalonians that these early Christians were being subjected to
"operationem erroris, ut credant medacio" [a misleading influence that
they may believe falsehood] (2 Thess. 2:11). St. Paul's exhortation to
the Thessalonians was: "state et tenete traditiones, quas didicistis"
[stand firm, and hold the traditions that you have learned] (2 Thess.
2:15); in other words, cling to Sacred Tradition, from which, with
Sacred Scripture, the authentic Magisterium of the Church derives.

Catholics attending the Novus Ordo are confronted with a very
serious issue. Some considerations that they need to factor in include
the following:

(1) By continuing to subject themselves to unauthorized methods of
celebrating even the Novus Ordo, to sermons and catechesis tinged with
unorthodox doctrine, and to a Protestantized approach to the Mass, they
may be subjecting their faith to real peril.

(2) Catholic moral theology tells us to avoid proximate occasions
of sin, among which would be occasions where significant jeopardy is
posed to one's faith.

(3) By continuing to participate at Novus Ordo Masses, they could
be seen by others as approving of the whole unorthodox environment
surrounding the Novus Ordo, even though they do not in fact personally
approve. Thus, their mere presence at such Masses could provide scandal
to others.

(4) Obedience, as St. Thomas Aquinas explains, is a secondary
virtue subordinate to charity, or love of God. Obviously, the necessity
of obedience depends upon the person and thing to be obeyed. Obedience
to evil is a vice, not a virtue, and participation in irreverence and,
more so, sacrilege, is certainly a vice. Catholic moral theology has
always taught that even if the Pope were to command something that is
against the divine or natural law, then it would certainly be sinful for
anyone to obey him, since the virtue of obedience is opposed not only by
disobedience, but is also violated by excessive or indiscreet obedience,
which is the sin of servility.

No Catholic, for example, would argue the Nazistic principle
"befehl ist befehl" [an order is an order], e.g., that obedience to the
lawfully-elected German Chancellor would be necessary if he or his
representatives commanded one to kill an innocent man in a gas chamber.
It is a stark analogy, but to Catholics the Faith, the Mass, and the
Sacraments are as dear as life itself. This is the clear example that
was set for us by our predecessors, the Christian martyrs of every age,
and that has been set before us by the Church through the ages by its
veneration of martyrs for the faith as the greatest class of saints.

(5) Finally, there is that nagging question: is the Novus Ordo
valid? Or is it so contrary to Sacred Tradition and papal
pronouncements (especially Pope St. Pius V's Quo Primum) of the last
twenty centuries that it must be considered invalid? Is it farther
removed from the Traditional Latin Mass than the Anglican liturgy, whose
ordinal (and by implication services) Pope Leo XIII pronounced to be invalid,
as
it did not intend to do as Christ and His Church intended?

Pope Innocent III, in his doctrinal letter "Cum Marthae circa,"
issued
in 1202, settled once and for all the question of the form of the words of
consecration for the Roman Rite, when he defined that the entire form as
found in the Missale Romanum are Christ's own words delivered to the Apostles
and through them to us, that the entire form is what Christ spoke and so the
entire form is necessary. The Novus Ordo does not use this form, not even
its Latin form. Pope Eugene IV confirmed the same doctrine in 1441 at the
17th Ecumenical Council (Florence, 1441).

The official definitions of the two Masses are strikingly
different. The New Mass is not a renewal of the Sacrifice of Calvary,
but merely an "assembly of the people." The role of the priest is not
to offer sacrifice to God in the name of the people, but merely to
"preside," or "chair" the meeting.

If the official (but rarely-used) Latin version promulgated by
Pope Paul VI is valid, is the English translation, which departs widely
from the authentic meaning of the Latin, valid? Is even the English
translation valid, but are Masses in many parishes using it invalid
because invalid form or matter or intention is being used? Or is the
Novus Ordo valid, but illicit, in that it is celebrated in most parishes
in such a way that it is irreverent or even sacrilegious?

The Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith instructed
the U.S. National Council of Catholic Bishops in a decision dated March
15, 1978: "It is particularly important to ensure careful observance of
the traditional theological interpretation about making of Eucharistic
bread, so that the faithful can be assured that every Eucharist is
celebrated with matter that is both valid and licit."

Apparently, this problem of Masses invalid because of defect of
matter was not corrected. A year later, according to a Letter from the
Cardinal Prefect of the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the
Faith to the President of the [U.S.] National Council of Catholic
Bishops, as approved by Pope John Paul II on May 11, 1979, the
Congregation found evidence that priests "have mistakenly used an
element for the Eucharist other than genuine bread" after the NCCB's own
Committee on the Liturgy admitted "abuses in regard to the making of
bread for the Holy Eucharist."

Nor has the problem yet been corrected. The ingredients of the
"Eucharistic bread" used in one Michigan diocese in 1998 is clearly not
valid wheaten bread at all, but a cinnamon cracker: white flour, brown
sugar, salt, baking powder, cinnamon, honey, shortening, and water. The
ingredients used in a California diocese constitute a sugar cookie:
white flour, whole wheat flower, salt, sugar, baking powder, margarine.
Moreover, invalidating grape juice is being used instead of grape wine in
many dioceses.

In other words, to peel away the ecclesiastical language, invalid
Novus Ordo Masses have been celebrated in the dioceses of the United
States, and the faithful cannot be assured that the Novus Ordo Eucharist
is in fact valid, as bishops and priests in many dioceses in the United
States persist in using the same invalid matter. And an invalid Mass is
no Mass at all.

Moral theology does not require a Catholic, simply to fulfil his
Sunday obligation, to attend a sacrilegious Mass: one having sugar
cookies instead of unleavened bread, profane items set on or around the
altar, ad-libbed prayers, hosts dropped on the floor unceremoniously or
placed in unconsecrated hands, laypeople performing sacred actions
reserved to the ordained clergy, Gay Masses, Clown Masses, Dance Masses,
Children's Masses, etc. Have such present-day debacles in fact "crossed
the line" and become caricatures of the rightful Sacrifice of Calvary?

Even serious, tradition-minded Catholics who are exposed week
after week to the Novus Ordo cannot help but imbibe the unorthodox
attitudes to the Mass, the Sacraments, and the Faith itself, whether
they wish to or not. According to the ancient maxim: legem credendi
statuat lex supplicandi [the law of praying should determine the law of
believing].

"replaced the Apostolic Mass with a Protestantized ecumenical worship service is by far worse than all the massacres, genocides, murders (including abortion) and rapes ever committed."

You do realise that this statement makes you (or who ever made it) out to be completely insane.

What your saying is that by replacing one hocus pocus ceremony with another they have commited a worse crime then genocide.

No healthy human being can agree with that.

"replaced the Apostolic Mass with a Protestantized ecumenical worship service is by far worse than all the massacres, genocides, murders (including abortion) and rapes ever committed."

You do realise that this statement makes you (or who ever made it) out to be completely insane.

What your saying is that by replacing one hocus pocus ceremony with another they have commited a worse crime then genocide.

No healthy human being can agree with that.


Hear, hear!

I agree!

"replaced the Apostolic Mass with a Protestantized ecumenical worship service is by far worse than all the massacres, genocides, murders (including abortion) and rapes ever committed."

You do realise that this statement makes you (or who ever made it) out to be completely insane.

What your saying is that by replacing one hocus pocus ceremony with another they have commited a worse crime then genocide.

No healthy human being can agree with that.


Hear, hear!

I agree!


I suppose one could agree with you if all one was concerned with was death of the flesh.
However, when one is concerned with death of the eternal soul, genocide pales in comparison, wouldn't you agree?

Should Roman Catholics attend and participate in the Novus Ordo Mass? What is you position on this?


This is a decision that is not taken lightly, but such
people may take solace from the fact that many Catholics are
simultaneously struggling with the very same issue, now more than ever
as the American Catholic Church departs more and more from the
Traditional Latin Mass and introduces more and more novelties into the
Church's central act of worship.

This is no new difficulty. We read in St. Paul's Second Epistle
to the Thessalonians that these early Christians were being subjected to
"operationem erroris, ut credant medacio" [a misleading influence that
they may believe falsehood] (2 Thess. 2:11). St. Paul's exhortation to
the Thessalonians was: "state et tenete traditiones, quas didicistis"
[stand firm, and hold the traditions that you have learned] (2 Thess.
2:15); in other words, cling to Sacred Tradition, from which, with
Sacred Scripture, the authentic Magisterium of the Church derives.

Catholics attending the Novus Ordo are confronted with a very
serious issue. Some considerations that they need to factor in include
the following:

(1) By continuing to subject themselves to unauthorized methods of
celebrating even the Novus Ordo, to sermons and catechesis tinged with
unorthodox doctrine, and to a Protestantized approach to the Mass, they
may be subjecting their faith to real peril.

(2) Catholic moral theology tells us to avoid proximate occasions
of sin, among which would be occasions where significant jeopardy is
posed to one's faith.

(3) By continuing to participate at Novus Ordo Masses, they could
be seen by others as approving of the whole unorthodox environment
surrounding the Novus Ordo, even though they do not in fact personally
approve. Thus, their mere presence at such Masses could provide scandal
to others.

(4) Obedience, as St. Thomas Aquinas explains, is a secondary
virtue subordinate to charity, or love of God. Obviously, the necessity
of obedience depends upon the person and thing to be obeyed. Obedience
to evil is a vice, not a virtue, and participation in irreverence and,
more so, sacrilege, is certainly a vice. Catholic moral theology has
always taught that even if the Pope were to command something that is
against the divine or natural law, then it would certainly be sinful for
anyone to obey him, since the virtue of obedience is opposed not only by
disobedience, but is also violated by excessive or indiscreet obedience,
which is the sin of servility.

No Catholic, for example, would argue the Nazistic principle
"befehl ist befehl" [an order is an order], e.g., that obedience to the
lawfully-elected German Chancellor would be necessary if he or his
representatives commanded one to kill an innocent man in a gas chamber.
It is a stark analogy, but to Catholics the Faith, the Mass, and the
Sacraments are as dear as life itself. This is the clear example that
was set for us by our predecessors, the Christian martyrs of every age,
and that has been set before us by the Church through the ages by its
veneration of martyrs for the faith as the greatest class of saints.

(5) Finally, there is that nagging question: is the Novus Ordo
valid? Or is it so contrary to Sacred Tradition and papal
pronouncements (especially Pope St. Pius V's Quo Primum) of the last
twenty centuries that it must be considered invalid? Is it farther
removed from the Traditional Latin Mass than the Anglican liturgy, whose
ordinal (and by implication services) Pope Leo XIII pronounced to be invalid,
as
it did not intend to do as Christ and His Church intended?

Pope Innocent III, in his doctrinal letter "Cum Marthae circa,"
issued
in 1202, settled once and for all the question of the form of the words of
consecration for the Roman Rite, when he defined that the entire form as
found in the Missale Romanum are Christ's own words delivered to the Apostles
and through them to us, that the entire form is what Christ spoke and so the
entire form is necessary. The Novus Ordo does not use this form, not even
its Latin form. Pope Eugene IV confirmed the same doctrine in 1441 at the
17th Ecumenical Council (Florence, 1441).

The official definitions of the two Masses are strikingly
different. The New Mass is not a renewal of the Sacrifice of Calvary,
but merely an "assembly of the people." The role of the priest is not
to offer sacrifice to God in the name of the people, but merely to
"preside," or "chair" the meeting.

If the official (but rarely-used) Latin version promulgated by
Pope Paul VI is valid, is the English translation, which departs widely
from the authentic meaning of the Latin, valid? Is even the English
translation valid, but are Masses in many parishes using it invalid
because invalid form or matter or intention is being used? Or is the
Novus Ordo valid, but illicit, in that it is celebrated in most parishes
in such a way that it is irreverent or even sacrilegious?

The Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith instructed
the U.S. National Council of Catholic Bishops in a decision dated March
15, 1978: "It is particularly important to ensure careful observance of
the traditional theological interpretation about making of Eucharistic
bread, so that the faithful can be assured that every Eucharist is
celebrated with matter that is both valid and licit."

Apparently, this problem of Masses invalid because of defect of
matter was not corrected. A year later, according to a Letter from the
Cardinal Prefect of the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the
Faith to the President of the [U.S.] National Council of Catholic
Bishops, as approved by Pope John Paul II on May 11, 1979, the
Congregation found evidence that priests "have mistakenly used an
element for the Eucharist other than genuine bread" after the NCCB's own
Committee on the Liturgy admitted "abuses in regard to the making of
bread for the Holy Eucharist."

Nor has the problem yet been corrected. The ingredients of the
"Eucharistic bread" used in one Michigan diocese in 1998 is clearly not
valid wheaten bread at all, but a cinnamon cracker: white flour, brown
sugar, salt, baking powder, cinnamon, honey, shortening, and water. The
ingredients used in a California diocese constitute a sugar cookie:
white flour, whole wheat flower, salt, sugar, baking powder, margarine.
Moreover, invalidating grape juice is being used instead of grape wine in
many dioceses.

In other words, to peel away the ecclesiastical language, invalid
Novus Ordo Masses have been celebrated in the dioceses of the United
States, and the faithful cannot be assured that the Novus Ordo Eucharist
is in fact valid, as bishops and priests in many dioceses in the United
States persist in using the same invalid matter. And an invalid Mass is
no Mass at all.

Moral theology does not require a Catholic, simply to fulfil his
Sunday obligation, to attend a sacrilegious Mass: one having sugar
cookies instead of unleavened bread, profane items set on or around the
altar, ad-libbed prayers, hosts dropped on the floor unceremoniously or
placed in unconsecrated hands, laypeople performing sacred actions
reserved to the ordained clergy, Gay Masses, Clown Masses, Dance Masses,
Children's Masses, etc. Have such present-day debacles in fact "crossed
the line" and become caricatures of the rightful Sacrifice of Calvary?

Even serious, tradition-minded Catholics who are exposed week
after week to the Novus Ordo cannot help but imbibe the unorthodox
attitudes to the Mass, the Sacraments, and the Faith itself, whether
they wish to or not. According to the ancient maxim: legem credendi
statuat lex supplicandi [the law of praying should determine the law of
believing].

Should Roman Catholics attend and participate in the Novus Ordo Mass? What is you position on this?


This is a decision that is not taken lightly, but such
people may take solace from the fact that many Catholics are
simultaneously struggling with the very same issue, now more than ever
as the American Catholic Church departs more and more from the
Traditional Latin Mass and introduces more and more novelties into the
Church's central act of worship.

This is no new difficulty. We read in St. Paul's Second Epistle
to the Thessalonians that these early Christians were being subjected to
"operationem erroris, ut credant medacio" [a misleading influence that
they may believe falsehood] (2 Thess. 2:11). St. Paul's exhortation to
the Thessalonians was: "state et tenete traditiones, quas didicistis"
[stand firm, and hold the traditions that you have learned] (2 Thess.
2:15); in other words, cling to Sacred Tradition, from which, with
Sacred Scripture, the authentic Magisterium of the Church derives.

Catholics attending the Novus Ordo are confronted with a very
serious issue. Some considerations that they need to factor in include
the following:

(1) By continuing to subject themselves to unauthorized methods of
celebrating even the Novus Ordo, to sermons and catechesis tinged with
unorthodox doctrine, and to a Protestantized approach to the Mass, they
may be subjecting their faith to real peril.

(2) Catholic moral theology tells us to avoid proximate occasions
of sin, among which would be occasions where significant jeopardy is
posed to one's faith.

(3) By continuing to participate at Novus Ordo Masses, they could
be seen by others as approving of the whole unorthodox environment
surrounding the Novus Ordo, even though they do not in fact personally
approve. Thus, their mere presence at such Masses could provide scandal
to others.

(4) Obedience, as St. Thomas Aquinas explains, is a secondary
virtue subordinate to charity, or love of God. Obviously, the necessity
of obedience depends upon the person and thing to be obeyed. Obedience
to evil is a vice, not a virtue, and participation in irreverence and,
more so, sacrilege, is certainly a vice. Catholic moral theology has
always taught that even if the Pope were to command something that is
against the divine or natural law, then it would certainly be sinful for
anyone to obey him, since the virtue of obedience is opposed not only by
disobedience, but is also violated by excessive or indiscreet obedience,
which is the sin of servility.

No Catholic, for example, would argue the Nazistic principle
"befehl ist befehl" [an order is an order], e.g., that obedience to the
lawfully-elected German Chancellor would be necessary if he or his
representatives commanded one to kill an innocent man in a gas chamber.
It is a stark analogy, but to Catholics the Faith, the Mass, and the
Sacraments are as dear as life itself. This is the clear example that
was set for us by our predecessors, the Christian martyrs of every age,
and that has been set before us by the Church through the ages by its
veneration of martyrs for the faith as the greatest class of saints.

(5) Finally, there is that nagging question: is the Novus Ordo
valid? Or is it so contrary to Sacred Tradition and papal
pronouncements (especially Pope St. Pius V's Quo Primum) of the last
twenty centuries that it must be considered invalid? Is it farther
removed from the Traditional Latin Mass than the Anglican liturgy, whose
ordinal (and by implication services) Pope Leo XIII pronounced to be invalid,
as
it did not intend to do as Christ and His Church intended?

Pope Innocent III, in his doctrinal letter "Cum Marthae circa,"
issued
in 1202, settled once and for all the question of the form of the words of
consecration for the Roman Rite, when he defined that the entire form as
found in the Missale Romanum are Christ's own words delivered to the Apostles
and through them to us, that the entire form is what Christ spoke and so the
entire form is necessary. The Novus Ordo does not use this form, not even
its Latin form. Pope Eugene IV confirmed the same doctrine in 1441 at the
17th Ecumenical Council (Florence, 1441).

The official definitions of the two Masses are strikingly
different. The New Mass is not a renewal of the Sacrifice of Calvary,
but merely an "assembly of the people." The role of the priest is not
to offer sacrifice to God in the name of the people, but merely to
"preside," or "chair" the meeting.

If the official (but rarely-used) Latin version promulgated by
Pope Paul VI is valid, is the English translation, which departs widely
from the authentic meaning of the Latin, valid? Is even the English
translation valid, but are Masses in many parishes using it invalid
because invalid form or matter or intention is being used? Or is the
Novus Ordo valid, but illicit, in that it is celebrated in most parishes
in such a way that it is irreverent or even sacrilegious?

The Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith instructed
the U.S. National Council of Catholic Bishops in a decision dated March
15, 1978: "It is particularly important to ensure careful observance of
the traditional theological interpretation about making of Eucharistic
bread, so that the faithful can be assured that every Eucharist is
celebrated with matter that is both valid and licit."

Apparently, this problem of Masses invalid because of defect of
matter was not corrected. A year later, according to a Letter from the
Cardinal Prefect of the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the
Faith to the President of the [U.S.] National Council of Catholic
Bishops, as approved by Pope John Paul II on May 11, 1979, the
Congregation found evidence that priests "have mistakenly used an
element for the Eucharist other than genuine bread" after the NCCB's own
Committee on the Liturgy admitted "abuses in regard to the making of
bread for the Holy Eucharist."

Nor has the problem yet been corrected. The ingredients of the
"Eucharistic bread" used in one Michigan diocese in 1998 is clearly not
valid wheaten bread at all, but a cinnamon cracker: white flour, brown
sugar, salt, baking powder, cinnamon, honey, shortening, and water. The
ingredients used in a California diocese constitute a sugar cookie:
white flour, whole wheat flower, salt, sugar, baking powder, margarine.
Moreover, invalidating grape juice is being used instead of grape wine in
many dioceses.

In other words, to peel away the ecclesiastical language, invalid
Novus Ordo Masses have been celebrated in the dioceses of the United
States, and the faithful cannot be assured that the Novus Ordo Eucharist
is in fact valid, as bishops and priests in many dioceses in the United
States persist in using the same invalid matter. And an invalid Mass is
no Mass at all.

Moral theology does not require a Catholic, simply to fulfil his
Sunday obligation, to attend a sacrilegious Mass: one having sugar
cookies instead of unleavened bread, profane items set on or around the
altar, ad-libbed prayers, hosts dropped on the floor unceremoniously or
placed in unconsecrated hands, laypeople performing sacred actions
reserved to the ordained clergy, Gay Masses, Clown Masses, Dance Masses,
Children's Masses, etc. Have such present-day debacles in fact "crossed
the line" and become caricatures of the rightful Sacrifice of Calvary?

Even serious, tradition-minded Catholics who are exposed week
after week to the Novus Ordo cannot help but imbibe the unorthodox
attitudes to the Mass, the Sacraments, and the Faith itself, whether
they wish to or not. According to the ancient maxim: legem credendi
statuat lex supplicandi [the law of praying should determine the law of
believing].

So this raises so many questions?

Many of the faithful never question. It is not in the nature of most Roman Catholics. They believe the New Mass is where they should be and they go there every Sunday. What about them?

And what if there is no traditional Mass in your area?

I guess another question is, is it better to worship with a group of Christians in a church setting, or stay home? I am battling with this.

And if the Mass has been Protestantized is it because the Pope, et al want unity of the religions above all else? I keep telling everyone that the Episcopal Mass is the same Mass as the Roman Catholic New Mass. Same format, same ceremony, same participation by lay people. In both Masses all sorts of non-traditional music is brought in. Blues Guitar at Communion in both places. So distracting. Way too much solo singing. Puts the performance before the worship. Does this bother anyone else?