The Dangers of the New Mass
"From the rising of the sun even to the going down, my name is
great among the Gentiles, and in every place there is sacrifice, and there
is offered to my name a clean oblation: for my name is great among the
Gentiles, saith the Lord of hosts." (Malachias 1:11)
St. Augustine said: "He who devoutly hears Holy Mass
will receive a great vigor to enable him to resist mortal sin, and there
shall be pardoned to him all venial sins which he may have committed up
to that hour."1
Had satan been aware that Jesus Christ was the Second Person of the
Blessed Trinity, he would have never pushed for the Crucifixion.
Every True Mass reminds him, once again, of his terrible mistake and at
the same time it is a vehicle for bestowing infinite grace on mankind.
It is no wonder that the devil has an intense hatred for the True
St. John Fisher said: "He who goes about to take
the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass from the Church plots no less a calamity
than if he tried to snatch the sun from the universe."2
St. Alphonsus said: "The devil has always attempted,
by means of heretics, to deprive the world of the Mass, making them precursors
of the antichrist, who before anything else, will try to abolish and will
actually abolish the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, as a punishment for the
sins of men, according to the prediction of Daniel, 'And strength was given
him against the continual sacrifice."3
St. Robert Bellarmine said: "When we enter ornate
and clean Basilicas, adorned with crosses, sacred images, altars and burning
lamps, we most easily conceive devotion. But on the other hand, when
we enter the temples of the heretics, where there is nothing except a chair
for preaching and a table for making a meal, we feel ourselves
to be entering a profane hall and not the House of God."4
Luther's slogan was: "Take away the Mass, destroy the Church."5
St. John Vianney said: "All the good works together
are not of equal value with the Sacrifice of the Mass because they are
the works of man, and the Holy Mass is the work of God."6
A general history: In his letter to the Corinthians in
the year 88 A.D., Pope St. Clement of Rome (martyr and fourth Pope after
St. Peter), wrote that Our Lord laid down the order of the Mass, referring
to the Offertory, Consecration and Communion. St. Justin the Martyr
(in his writings, 155 A.D.) stated that after His Resurrection, Our Lord
taught the Apostles how to say Mass.
Many liturgical historians believe that the writings of St. Clement
and St. Justin were expressed in a formal way by St. Ambrose (approximately
360 A.D.) in a book titled, De Sacramentis. De Sacramentis
essentially contains the canonized Mass prayers. The Mass prayers
appeared in written form only three hundred years after Jesus Christ's
death. It was in the 4th century that Latin became the
official language of the Church and the word missa was introduced.
This was probably introduced by St. Ambrose in the Leonine Sacramentary
(Pope St. Leo in 450 A.D.) and the Gelasian Sacramentary (Pope Gelasius
I in 498 A.D.). The essential parts of this missal were found to
be almost the same as those in the Tridentine Mass. In the year 600
A.D., Pope St. Gregory the Great (590-604 A.D.) finished his Gregorian
Sacramentary, which is essentially the Mass "codified" by Pope
St. Pius V in 1570.7
How did we get the Mass?
The True Mass goes back to Apostolic times; and it was "codified",
solidified, or set in stone by St. Pope Pius V in his Papal Bull Quo
Primum Tempore on July 14, 1570. Pope St. Pius V specified
the exact Mass ritual "of and for" the Roman Rite. Only
this Liturgy or Ritual was to be used from that time until the end of time
(for the Roman Rite). The Canon with the exception of one short clause,
inserted by Pope Gregory the Great, had remained unchanged ". . .
until 1962, when John XXIII added the name of St. Joseph to the Canon of
the Mass. A total of 26 words have been added to the Traditional
Canon, by Popes Leo (440-461 A.D.) and St. Gregory the Great (590-604 A.D.).
Thus, as the Council of Trent accurately states, the Canon is composed
out of the very words of the Lord, the tradition of the Apostles, and the
pious institutions of the holy Pontiffs."8
It is called "the Mass of All Times" (because it dates back
to the Apostles in its essential elements--though it is eternal in its
nature), the "Tridentine Mass" (only because the 16th century
Council of Trent <Tridentum in Latin> ordered it to be "codified"),
the "Mass of Pius V" (after the Pope who actually "codified"
it in 1570), and on occasion (but loosely and incorrectly) "the Latin
Mass" (incorrectly because any Rite can be translated into Latin and
because the Novus Ordo Missae itself was issued originally in Latin).9
The True Mass should be called the Roman Rite of the Mass. This way
there isn't any confusion.
Names Given to the Roman Rite of the Mass
In the middle to late 60's, Rome started to have the Mass said in
the vernacular and then in 1970, Paul VI gave us a whole new rite of
Mass called the "Novus Ordo Missae". It is
not by chance that the enemies of the True Faith who are building "a
Novus Ordo Seclorum" (a new world order) would establish "a
Novus Ordo Missae" (a new order of the Mass) to destroy the
Roman Catholic Church. Even in the original Latin form, the New Mass
was bad enough, but after going to the vernacular through the International
Committee on English in the Liturgy (ICEL), disaster ensued, and the questions
of validity were justified. A total of 35 prayers or approximately
70% of the Tridentine Mass has been replaced or discarded.10
New World Order: New Order of the Mass
Here is what Paul VI put in the new Roman Missal on April 3, 1969:
#13 "We hope that the Missal will be received by the Faithful"
and #15 "We wish that these, our decrees and prescriptions,
may be firm and effective."11 To
impose a law the Pope must make it clear to the Church that a Law is being
imposed, or that he is binding the Church to use this New Mass. He
did not do so. What Paul VI did had nothing to do with the
Church's indefectibility or the Pope's infallibility. Paul VI said
on November 19, 1969: "This Rite (New Mass) and its related
rubrics are not in themselves a dogmatic definition."12
Paul VI did not and could not change the Roman Rite of the Mass.
Ambiguous, Wishful Thinking; Binding No One
It is not necessary to examine all four of the Eucharistic prayers
in the New Mass. However, let's look at Eucharistic Prayer #3:
The following words are addressed to the Lord: "From age to
age you gather a people to yourself, in order that from East and
West a perfect offering may be made to the glory of your Name."13
This phrase makes it clear that it is the people, rather than the
priest, who are the indispensable element in the celebration.
In the Encyclical Mediator Dei, Pope Pius XII condemned the
statement that "the eucharistic sacrifice" is an authentic concelebration
of the priest as well as of the people present.
The People Supercede the Priest as the Indispensable Element
The purpose of the True Mass is the praise and adoration of Almighty
God through the Sacrifice of Christ, who is the invisible priest and victim.
The difference between the New Mass and the True Mass is the difference
between Cain and Abel. We are told: "The Lord had respect
to Abel and to his offerings. But to Cain and his offerings, He had
no respect" (Gen. 4:3-5). At the beginning of human history,
the two brothers set the pattern of true and false religious observance
for all time. One was an immolation in expiation of sin, the other
merely a friendly exchange of gifts between man and God. One was
acceptable, the other was not.14
It has been said that in countries, such as Poland, the Communist Party
uses their "inspectors of religion," to keep under surveillance
those priests who say the True Mass, but they leave alone those who say
the New Mass.15
Biblical Prefigurement of True and False Worship
"Archbishop Bugnini was a consultant in the Sacred Congregation
of the Propagation of the Faith, and in the Sacred Congregation of Holy
Rites. He was also the chairman of the Concilium which drafted
the Novus Ordo Missae. Archbishop Annibale Bugnini was
a freemason, initiated into the Masonic Lodge on April 23, 1963 (Masonic
Register of Italy dated 1976). Monsignor Bugnini was removed
from his office in the Vatican when it became public that he was a Mason.
And instead of being publicly reproved, or required to renounce his Masonic
membership, he was appointed Papal Nuncio to Iran."16
The president of this Concilium was Cardinal Lecaro, a man whom
Cardinal Bacci called, "Luther resurrected."17
When we discuss the New Mass we must consider the authors. Whereas
Paul VI was formally and juridically responsible, it was actually composed
by the Concilium, which consisted of some 200 individuals, many
of whom had functioned as periti ("expert theologians")
during Vatican Council II. The Concilium was helped by six
Protestant 'observers' (ministers) who played a huge part in developing
the New Mass. ". . . Paul VI publicly thanked them for their
assistance in re-editing in a new manner liturgical texts ... so that the
lex orandi (the law of prayer) conformed better with the lex
credendi (the law of belief)."18
You need a new liturgy for a new religion. The New Mass is the new
law of non-Catholic belief.
Freemasonry Wields the Axe to the Root
Jean Guitton (an intimate friend of Paul VI) wrote: "The
intention of Pope Paul VI with regard to what is commonly called the Mass,
was to reform the Catholic Liturgy in such a way that it should almost
coincide with the Protestant liturgy. There was with Pope Paul VI
an ecumenical intention to remove, or, at least to correct, or, at least
to relax, what was too Catholic in the traditional sense in the Mass and,
I repeat, to get the Catholic Mass closer to the Calvinist mass."19
Attempting the Destruction of the Roman Rite
Judging the Novus Ordo Missae (New Mass) in itself, in its official
Latin form, Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci wrote to Paul VI on Sept.
25, 1969: "The Novus Ordo represents, both as a whole
and in its details, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of
the Mass as it was formulated in Session 22 of the Council of Trent."20
Of the 12 Offertory prayers in the Traditional Rite, only two are
retained in the New Mass.21 And
of interest is the fact that the deleted prayers are the same ones that
Luther and Cranmer eliminated. Why did they eliminate them?
Because, as Luther said, the "smacked of Sacrifice . . . the abomination
called the offertory, and from this point on almost everything stinks of
oblation."22 The Offertory and
Consecration are the very heart of the True Mass.
Tearing the Heart Out of The Roman Rite
Martin Luther said, "The Mass is not a sacrifice ...
call it Benediction, Eucharist, the Lord's Table, the Lord's Supper, Memory
of the Lord or whatever you like, just so long as you do not dirty it with
the name of a Sacrifice."23 16th
century Protestant reformer, Thomas Cranmer said: "The use
of an altar is to make sacrifice upon; the use of a table to serve men
to eat upon."24 When you line
up the New Mass with the Anglican schismatic Book of Common Prayer (1549),
they are almost identical; in fact, the Book of Common Prayer is more reverent
than the New Mass.
Anything But A Sacrifice
Christopher Monchton informs us that in the English version of the
New Mass there are over 400 mistranslations from the Latin.25
Almost 100 percent of the new Masses around the world are said in the vernacular.
Just changing the Mass into vernacular is, in itself, condemned.
Session 12, Canon 9 of the Council of Trent says: "If anyone
says ... that the Mass should be said in vernacular only, let him be anathema."26
Constitution, "Auctorem Fidei," August 28, 1794,
Pope Pius VI (1775-1799) The Suitable Order to Be Observed in Worship #33.
The Law of Prayer Establishes the Law of Belief
In the Novus Ordo Requiem Masses (the Mass for the Dead), the word
"Soul" is not mentioned even once.29
Paul VI said on May 24, 1976: "The New Ordo has been promulgated
to replace the old after mature deliberation and in order to fulfill
the Council's decisions."30 Canon
6 of the Council of Trent says: "If anyone says that there are
errors in the Canon of the Mass and that therefore it should be abrogated:
let him be anathema."31
Back at the Council of Trent, in Session 22, the Council Fathers realized
that the Mass was being attacked, and they basically said, "Let's
make sure the Mass remains intact." After the Council, Quo
Primum forever defined the liturgical morals - the Mass Liturgies,
both Eastern and Roman.
The proposition of the Synod condemns the following in regard to the
Mass: "by recalling it (the Liturgy) to a greater simplicity
of Rites, by expressing it in the vernacular language, by uttering
it in a loud voice." These changes were condemned by Pope Pius
VI as "rash, offensive to pious ears, insulting to the Church, favorable
to the charges of heretics against it."27
The New Mass is Pleasing to Protestant and Jew Alike In the offertory
of the New Mass the priest says precisely the same words as those which
are used in the Jewish sater service. These are the words:
"Blessed art thou, O Lord God of all creation. For through your
goodness we have this bread to offer, fruit of the earth and work of human
hands it will become for us the bread of life. This wine to offer,
fruit of the vine and work of human hands it will become for us our spiritual
drink."28 It's frightening to think
that the offertory of the New Mass is taken word for word from the sater
meal of the Jewish holiday of Passover. In the New Mass the Priest
offers bread and wine; however, in the True Mass, the Priest offers the
Immaculate Victim. It is a blasphemy to offer God bread and wine.
St. Pope Pius V said dogmatically and infallibly in Quo Primum
that: "It shall be unlawful henceforth and forever throughout
the Christian world to sing or to read Masses according to any formula
other than this Missal published by us."
The Decree of Quo Primum was irrevocable, and Pope St. Pius
V went on further to state in Quo Primum: "This present
Constitution can never be revoked or modified, but shall forever remain
valid and have the force of Law . . . And if, nevertheless, anyone would
ever dare attempt any action contrary to this Order of ours, handed down
for all times, let him know that he has incurred the wrath of Almighty
God, and the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul."32
(July 14, 1570)
But, can one Pope change what another Pope has done?
Binding Peter's Successors
In pastoral matters, yes; in matters of Faith, No! When we talk
about the Liturgy we are talking about the Faith. Quo Primum was
not a discipline. It dealt directly with Faith and morals. Faith
- Faith: What you must believe to be saved.
- Social Morals: How man behaves towards other men.
- Liturgical Morals: How man behaves towards God.
Liturgy is not arbitrary or dispensable. The Liturgy is the essence
of Catholic Faith. Wrath Foretold For Those Who Destroy the Immemorial
The Bull on witchcraft by Pope Innocent VIII demonstrates that
Quo Primum was infallible. The Bull's language is not nearly
as strong as Quo Primum, but ends with these words: "If
any man dare to go contrary to this command, which God forbid, let him
know that upon him will fall the wrath of Almighty God, and the Blessed
Apostles Peter and Paul." These are the exact words used in
Quo Primum at the end. In the introduction to the 1928 Catholic
Encyclopedia it says (speaking about Innocent VIII's Bull): "If
any man shall presume to go against the tenor let him know that therein
he will bring down the wrath of Almighty God and The Blessed Apostles Peter
and Paul." The commentary afterwards says: "Could
words weightier be found?"
Defining Truth and Binding the Faithful
The Encyclopedia goes on to say: "Are we then to class this
Bull in with the Bull Dogmatica Ineffabilis Deus where Pope Pius
IX proclaimed the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception? Such a position
is clearly tenable, but even if we do not insist that the Bull of Innocent
VIII is an infallible utterance, that it does not in set terms define a
Dogma, although it does set forth sure and certain truths, it must be
held to be a document of supreme and absolute authority, of dogmatic force."
Pope Pius XI said in his apostolic constitution "Divini
Cultus" on December 20, 1928, addressing the connection of
the Sacred Liturgy with the Church: "The Liturgy is an undoubtedly
sacred thing; for through it we are brought to God and are joined
with Him; we bear witness to our Faith . . . Hence a kind of intimate relationship
between Dogma and Sacred Liturgy, and likewise between Christian worship
and the sanctification of the people. Therefore, Pope Celestine
I proposed and expressed a Canon of Faith in the venerated formulas
of the Liturgy: "Let the Law of Supplication, (prayer) establish
the Law of Believing . . ."33
Anathemas Against the New Missal
7th Session, Canon 13 of the Council of Trent:
The correct Latin translation says: "If anyone says that
the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church, customarily used
in the solemn administration of the Sacraments, can be despised or
can be freely omitted by the ministers without sin, or can be changed
into other new rites by any pastor in the Church whomsoever, let him be
This canon states very clearly that the Pope, who is the first and
supreme pastor may never change any approved Rite of the Roman Catholic
Church. The Roman Rite was fixed forever by Pope St. Pius V in Quo
Primum. Paul VI tried to establish a whole new Roman Rite.
There is only one Roman Rite of the Mass; there cannot be two.
In the Profession of Faith in the Council of Trent, the following
was always professed by the priest begin ordained; he promises and vows:
"I also receive and admit the accepted and approved rites of
the Catholic Church in the solemn administration of all the aforesaid Sacraments."35
It is indisputable that according to the previous pronouncements of
the Church that the New Mass is illegal, and therefore cannot be celebrated
The issue of whether there is a valid consecration in the New Mass
is another question which we will now address.
The Requirements for Validity
In the decree to the Armenians in the Council of Florence, it
states the following: "All these Sacraments are dispensed in
three ways, namely, by things as the matter, by words as the form,
and by the person of the minister conferring the Sacrament with
the intention of doing as the Church does; if any of these is lacking
the Sacrament is not fulfilled."36
Minister, Intention, Matter, and Form
The four main things necessary for a valid celebration of the Holy
Sacrifice of the Mass:
- minister: The celebrant must be a validly ordained priest.
- intention: The celebrant must have the intention of confecting
- matter: The elements of the Mass must be wheaten bread
and grape wine, made without additives.
- form: The proper form (words) of consecration must be
used. According to the Council of Trent, these requirements cannot
be altered by anyone, not even the Church itself, since they were established
Is the New Mass Valid?
Let's first cover the issue as to whether the New Mass is valid by
reviewing the vernacular. In most every vernacular translation of
the New Mass, the words "many" have been changed to "all"
in the Consecration. This is not a minor change! It
will be argued that in the New Mass the priest says, "This is
My Body" which are the same words used in the Tridentine Mass and
so, if we use the right words for the Consecration of the Body, "This
is My Body," we have a Sacrament. They do not believe anything
else is required. Those who hold to this position ignore the defects
in the "form" of the New Mass (essential words needed to confect
the Sacrament). Furthermore, they ignore the fact that the words
in the form of the New Mass, while themselves essential to the form of
the Sacrament, do not constitute the complete form of the Sacrament.
Others will argue that both consecrations are not imperative to have a
valid Sacrament. This is also contrary to the teaching of the Church.
The proper intention necessary is an intention to confect not one, but
both Sacraments. This is essential for a valid celebration
of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
Both Consecrations are Necessary for a Valid Mass
St. Thomas Aquinas says: "As often as the Sacrifice is
offered, the consecration of both species is required, according to
the will and institution of Christ. For Christ at the Last Supper,
consecrating each (both) species, commanded: 'Do this in commemoration
of me' . . . the very notion of sacrifice . . . demands the consecration
of both species.37
De Defectibus is a long document written by Pope St.
Pius V which discusses certain defects which could arise in the celebration
of Mass. It is largely a point of reference so the celebration of
Mass would remain the same in all lands for all times. Defects were
described in detail so that priests would always say Mass in the same manner.
Quo Primum and De Defectibus emanated from the
Council of Trent. Both of these documents were found in the front
of all Altar Missals as an easy reference for priest offering the Holy
Mass. Quo Primum and De Defectibus were first included
in the Missale Romanum in 1572. They were deleted from the
ICEL (Committee on English in the Liturgy) version in 1969.
De Defectibus Chapter X, Part 3, prescribes that a
Mass interrupted after the Consecration of the Host (because of illness
or death of the celebrant) must be continued by another priest,
i.e., that the wine must be consecrated to complete and effect the Sacrifice.
In the 1917 Code, Canon 817 states: "It is unlawful
even in the case of necessity, to consecrate one species without
the other, or to consecrate both outside the Mass."
The complete form or words of Consecration needed for a valid Sacrament
were clearly stated in the Council of Florence.
The Council of Florence, in 1442, declared that the following
words must be used for a valid Consecration in the Mass: "Wherefore
the words of Consecration, which are the form of this Sacrament, are these:
'For this is My Body: For this is the Chalice of My Blood, of the new and
eternal testament, the mystery of faith: which shall be shed for you and
for many unto the remission of sins."38
Various Mass Rites: "For Many" or "For All"
". . . The Church hast traditionally recognized as valid -- some
76 different rites in various languages, many of which date back
to Apostolic times, not one however, has ever used "all"
in the form for the Consecration of the Wine."39
Even the Anglican Common Prayer Book of 1549 didn't change the word
"many to "all" in the consecration and it was still declared
by Pope Leo XIII to be invalid.
Little Words and Letters Can Mean a Lot
Some people may say that discarding or changing a word or words in
the Mass isn't a big deal. Church history has proven that little
words, even little letters, can mean alot.
The combats sustained by the Nicean Fathers against the Arians over
the definition of the dogma of the Incarnation are witness to the uncompromising
zeal for stating the truth without shade of alteration, gloss, or ambiguity
which the faith demand in a time of crisis. Major differences
could have been settled at that time by the addition of one single letter.
The problematic homoousios denoting "consubstantial" needed
only have been softened to homoiousios denoting "similar
Luke 16:17: "It is easier for heaven and earth to
pass, than one tittle of the Law to fall."
Matthew 5:18: "For Amen I say unto you, till heaven
and earth shall pass, one jot, or one tittle shall not pass of the Law,
till all be fulfilled."
Our Lord Jesus Christ did not use the word "all" in the upper
room in Matthew 26:26. He used the word "many." God
help the New Order priest who uses the words which are different from the
words that Jesus Christ used.
Jesus Christ, The Word of God has Spoken
The Church has always taught that the word "all", for very
specific reasons, is purposely not used in the Consecration!
St. Alphonsus tells us: "The words pro vobis et
pro multis (for you and for many) are used to distinguish the virtue
of the Blood of Christ from its fruits: for the blood of Our Savior is
of sufficient value to save all men but its fruits are applied only to
a certain number and not to all, and this is their own fault."41
Or, as the theologians say, this Precious Blood is sufficient to save all
men, but in reality it does not save all -- it saves only those who cooperate
with Grace. The Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist is not a Sacrament
for all men; it is a Sacrament for you and for many.
The Catechism by Decree of The Holy Council of Trent
teaches that the additional words "for you and for many, are taken,
some from St. Matthew, some from St. Luke, but were joined together by
the Catholic Church under the guidance of the Spirit of God . . . With
reason, therefore, were the words 'for all' not used, as in this place
the fruits of the passion are alone spoken of, and to the elect only did
His Passion bring the fruit of salvation."42
St. Thomas Aquinas expressed the same opinion in the Summa,
III, Q78, Art. 4, Reply to Objection 8. Pope Benedict XIV also expressed
this opinion in De Missae Sacrificio.
Perpetual Teaching of the Universal Church
Just for the reason that there is a doubtful Consecration in
the New Mass, Catholics are obliged to abstain from any participation
in such rites. Fr. Jone's Moral Theology, Chapter under the
Efficacy of the Sacraments Part IV #2, states under examples: "To
administer or receive a Sacrament invalidly is a much greater sin than
to administer or receive it unfruitfully."43
Pope Innocent XI, in a decree of the Holy Office, March 4, 1679,
condemned the idea that a person could follow a probable opinion
regarding the value of a sacrament and abandon the safer course.44
Pope Innocent XI condemned this thinking not once, but twice!
Doubtful Consecration; Must Not Participate
Errors of Michael of Molinos (Condemned in the decree of the Sacred
Office, August 28, 1687, and in the Constitutions "Coelestis Pastor,"
Nov. 20, 1687)45
11. It is not necessary to reflect upon doubts
whether one is proceeding rightly or not." (Condemned)46
"Condemned as heretical, suspect, erroneous, scandalous, blasphemous,
offensive to pious ears, rash, or relaxed Christian discipline, subversive,
and seditious respectively."47
Fr. Henry Davis says in his Moral and Pastoral Theology Vol.
2 p. 27: "In conferring the Sacrament, as also in the Consecration
in the Mass, it is never allowed to adopt a probable course of action
as to validity and to abandon the safer course. The contrary
was explicitly condemned by Pope Innocent XI (1676-1689); to do so would
be a grievous sin against religion, namely an act of irreverence towards
what Christ Our Lord has instituted."48
"It would be a grievous sin against Charity, as the recipient
would probably be deprived of the graces and effects of the Sacrament.
It would be a grievous sin against Justice, as the recipient has a right
to valid Sacraments. Matter and form must be certainly valid.
Hence, one may not follow a probable opinion and use either doubtful matter
or form. Acting otherwise, one commits a sacrilege."49
That is one reason why the New Mass is a sacrilege.
Pope Innocent XI
The New Mass is a sacrilege because it is a deliberate counterfeit
of the established Mass of the Roman Rite. The True Mass was given
a definite and unchangeable form by St. Pope Pius V so sacrilege could
be avoided and condemned.
St. Thomas Aquinas describes a sacrilege: "In
a sacrilege, we find a special type of deformation, namely the violation
of a sacred thing by treating it with irreverence." (Summa.
II Q. 99, Art. 2)
Sacrilege By Which He is Offended
What Part Does Truth Have With Error?
If the Novus Ordo Missae is not Catholic, then it
cannot satisfy one's Sunday obligation, and would be a grievous
sin to attend. St. Thomas Aquinas said: "Falsehood
in outward worship occurs on the part of the worshipper, and especially,
in common worship which is offered by minister impersonating the whole
Church. For even as he would be guilty of falsehood who would, in the name
of another person, proffer things that are not committed to him, so
too does man incur the guilt of falsehood who, on the part of the Church
gives worship to God contrary to the manner established by the Church or
Divine Authority, and according to the ecclesiastical custom.
Hence, St. Ambrose says: "He is unworthy who celebrates the
mystery otherwise than as Christ delivered it."50
Pope Innocent III, one of the greatest jurists, said:
"No one may depart from the universal customs of the Church."51
Saint Pope Pius X said in Pascendi Dominic Gregis:
"For Catholics nothing will remove the authority of the Second
Council of Nicea, where it condemns those who dare, after the impious
novelties of some kind or to endeavor by malice or craft to overthrow
anyone of the legitimate traditions of the Catholic Church."
The New Mass is strikingly similar to the service instituted by Cranmer
(the liturgist of Henry VIII) following the Protestant Reformation. Pope
St. Pius V told Catholics, at that time, that they were forbidden to attend
such services. In fact, many went to their death rather than go to
the churches where Cranmer's form of prayer was being said. If
true Catholics went to their death rather than attend a mass such as the
Novus Ordo, the response of the faithful today must be the same.
The English Martyrs' Blood Testifies Against the New Mass
A New Liturgy For A New Religion
You need a new liturgy for a new religion. Just because the originalNovus
Ordo Missae had a few similarities to the True Mass, that doesn't make
it Catholic. Consider the following description of the early Lutheran
service, as given by the great Jesuit scholar, Hartmann Grisar: "One
who entered the parish church at Wittenburg after Luther's 'victory' discovered
that the same vestments were used for divine service as before, and heard
the same old Latin hymns. The host was elevated and exhibited at
the consecration. In the eyes of the people it was the same Mass
as before, despite the fact that Luther omitted all the prayers which represented
the sacred function of the Sacrifice. The people were intentionally
kept in the dark on this point. 'We cannot draw the common people
away from the Sacrament, and it will probably be thus until the Gospel
is well understood,' said Luther. 'The rite of celebration of the Mass,'
he explained, is a 'purely external thing,' and he said further that 'the
damnable words referring to the Sacrifice could be omitted all the more
readily, since the ordinary Christian would not notice the omission and
hence there was no danger of scandal.'"52
The Morality of the New Mass
The Council of Trent, Canons on the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass,
Canon 3 says:
"If anyone says that the Sacrifice of the Mass is merely an
offering of praise and thanksgiving, or that it is a simple memorial of
the Sacrifice offered on the Cross, and that it should not be offered for
the living and the dead, for sins, punishments, satisfaction, and other
necessities: let him be anathema."53
The New Mass is only an offering of praise and thanksgiving.
At the New Mass anything can and does go. If the only church in town
happened to be a protestant church, a Catholic surely could not attend
services there. The same principle applies to the New Mass.
Since it is not a Catholic Mass, a Catholic has no business being there.
In fact, in most churches the New Mass would not even qualify to be a Protestant
service. Many New Masses have laughing, joking, clapping, singing,
dancing, hugging, kissing, flutes, guitars, charismatics calling up spirits,
homosexual priests, Eucharistic ministers, communion in the hand, immodest
dress, no dresses, no head coverings, no reverence, etc...
As the Antichrist will be so evil because he will claim to be the Real
Jesus and will not be, so the New Mass is evil because it claims to be
the Real Mass and is not. The New Mass is a deliberate counterfeit
of the True Mass, and a non-Catholic service. It is very clear that
according to the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church it would be a grievous
sin to attend the New Mass. This is why the New Mass is deadly.