New Mass
or
Protestant Service?
Since 1969, the Catholic
Church has been bound by Church law to use the new rite of Mass approved by the
In the Apostolic
Constitution - Missale Romanum,
Paul is alleged to have made it the law for the new form of celebrating Mass to
be used. There are there three ways the
law commanding the Latin Mass could be done away. One is by repealing it. The other, derogation, is partly abolishing
it by modifying it. The last is by
abrogation, replacing existing legislation with new.
Not far from the end, he
declares that he and the commission give the force of law to what he has set
forth concerning the new
It seems that in his
Apostolic Constitution, the only thing Paul could have done to make the new
mass legal was derogation. The last line
says that they order the prescriptions in the document to go into effect on November
30 that year. The derogation would mean
then that the law of Pius V was still in force and the Latin Mass couldn’t be
banned or done away with and used alongside the New Mass. Yet the pope and the
But was the derogation
valid? It could be argued that the
derogation was invalid because he just says we order which may or may not mean
that this is a command with full legal force.
A law that is not enacted right is not binding for you can’t be sure if
it is a law. Nothing then in the
Apostolic Constitutions carries the force of law. Also, he did not say what was happening to
the previous law. Was the new law
temporary? Was the old law to be kept
alongside the new one? The order is not
explicit on this so it was not legally binding or was not a law. Read Society of St Pius X,
The law of the Church says
that only good laws are truly legal. If
the new Mass is evil or heretical or harmfully ambiguous then the pope broke
the law and made a fake law.
The Constitution says that
the new Mass is in keeping with the wish of Vatican II (in its document, Sacrosanctum Concilum) to make
the Mass express what it means better.
It says this wish is to be agreed with.
But we cannot agree with this statement from Vatican II and agree with
the new Mass which is ambiguous and abandons much Catholic dogma. This makes the Constitution invalid for it
makes a law and then unmakes it. It is
devoid of any legal power. Another proof
of this is that the Constitution claims that the substance of the Mass is to be
kept though it commands a new rite of Mass that can be recited by a heretic who
denies that the bread and wine literally become Jesus
and that he is sacrificed for sins in the
Read the Society of St Pius X article proving that there is nothing in current Catholic Canon Law or since Vatican II that makes it illegal for a priest to celebrate the Tridentine Mass without his bishop's permission.
Top Canon Lawyers of the
Nothing in the pope’s decree does away with the old Mass. Read it www.communigate.co.uk/ne/tradition/page9.phtml.
A more serious problem is that the pope’s decree only says about the changes to the words of consecration that are to be enforced and what the three new Eucharistic prayers are to be but doesn’t say who must use this new revised Mass which means that it is not legally binding. You can’t make valid or real laws unless you make it clear who these laws are binding on.
Disobedience to Paul VI would
certainly be permissible legally and morally when he didn’t even know his own
mind. He was like a liberal who changed
his mind all the time. In such cases the
true Catholic would have to obey him only in so far as his rules were legal and
fitted the outlook required of the Church by tradition, tradition being
considered a form of the word of God in addition to the Bible.
Here are the abominations
of the new
The bread and wine are
offered to God at the offertory. The
prayers make this clear. In the old Mass,
the bread and wine are symbols of Jesus and are used to offer him but the bread
and wine are not literally offered.
Christians are not allowed to offer anything other than Jesus and what
he does in them (Hebrews 10:11, 12, 18).
One of the responses made
after the alleged turning of the bread and wine into God tells Jesus that when
we eat this bread and drink this cup we proclaim his death. This implies that what went before was
symbolism.
Eucharistic Prayer II asks
God that the bread and wine will become for us the body and blood of
Christ. This for us appears in the Roman
Canon, of the Tridentine Mass as in the new one, when
much the same prayer is made. In a Mass
that is not clear about transubstantiation such as the new one it can be taken as
a denial of the doctrine. Protestants
hold that the bread and wine are to or for us the body and blood of Jesus, i.e.
symbolically. The Latin Mass made
transubstantiation clear so the same cannot be said of the
for us in it.
Some heretics hold that the
bread and wine don’t become the body and blood of Jesus until the worthy person
is about to eat and drink. The unworthy only get bread and wine. This new Mass is
perfect for them.
The Prayer offers the
saving bread and cup to God when they are supposed to be the resurrected Jesus. It is
nonsense to do this if Jesus is really present.
It makes more sense to offer his sacrifice instead of his resurrected
body.
The Prayer praises God for
making the congregation worthy to stand before him and serve him. Read Luke 18 on the parable of the Pharisee
and the publican which condemns people who do that. This denies the Catholic doctrine that man
cannot deserve salvation and grace. This
is the Pelagian heresy so cherished by Modernists and
Liberals.
Eucharistic Prayer III, says that all creation gives God praise. This implies that all are God’s friends and
will be saved. Presumably, sinners are
only venial sinners.
The Prayer is careful not
to make it clear that the sacrifice of Jesus is present and is the sacrifice
that is offered to God. God is asked to
accept the offering and then to see the victim who has put us right with him by
dying. It is like saying, “Accept this
offering of thanksgiving but see the other sacrifice, the one that Jesus made.”
The preface of Eucharistic
Prayer IV says that God leads all men to Heaven which denies the doctrine of
Hell and if God wanted to lead all to Heaven he would have kept Jesus on this
planet longer.
The account of salvation
history in it seems to say that Jesus came only to save us from physical death. Orthodox Roman Catholicism says that his main
purpose was to save us from spiritual death, the condition of not being friends
with God.
Again, after the
consecration, the body and blood are offered.
This may mean the body and blood on the cross not the altar which is
orthodox enough.
The prayer does not
mention the notion of the Mass being the sacrifice of Christ. It asks for the Church to become a sacrifice
of praise and then it offers a sacrifice to God for it which must be the same
one. If the sacrifice of Jesus is
present then it is rude to concentrate on offering a lesser one. The prayer seems to be against the notion of
the Mass and
The prayer says that the
faith of the dead is known to God alone which denies the Roman doctrine that
the saints and the angels know what is inside us which infers that they cannot
pray for our intentions.
The prayer ends with
saying that we will sing to God forever with every creature which once more
challenges the dogma of eternal punishing.
Before taking communion,
the celebrant puts a piece of the host in the chalice and asks that this
mingling of the body and blood of Jesus Christ may bring eternal life to those
who receive it a prayer that was only introduced in the new rite. This is a strange prayer that can only mean
that you cannot receive Jesus unless you take both kinds. This denies that Jesus is really present for
where the body is the blood will be and affirms the Protestant heresy that
communion under one kind is no use.
Thanks to that prayer, when the priest gives the
host saying, “The Body of Christ”, he means that the body of Jesus becomes
present at that point but not necessarily that the bread is the body.
The New Order of Mass embodies
heresy and its ambiguity itself is heresy for the Church is supposed to be
clear and well grounded in the truth. It
is not Catholic.
The Catholic Church has drawn
up three Eucharistic prayers just for children and very young people.
The notion of the Mass
being the sacrifice of the cross is not clearly mentioned.
In the first prayer, God
is asked to care for everybody who is sick or in sorrow. “Remember everyone who is suffering from pain
or sorrow.” But God cannot help
everybody if some deserve what they suffer.
The God of this Mass is a God who does not punish and so does not
seriously condemn sin. In that case, the
notion of Jesus paying for our sins would be nonsense.
There are two Eucharistic
Prayers for Reconciliation. One of them
is the most unCatholic of
the Eucharistic Prayers.
It is the Eucharistic
Prayer for Reconciliation II.
It’s first error is the theme of humanistic benefit captured
perfectly in this quote, “Your Spirit is at work when understanding puts an end
to strife, when hatred is quenched by mercy and vengeance gives way to
forgiveness. For this we should never
cease to thank and praise you”. It is
for the more important things that one should be eternally grateful for. God claims to be the most important thing in
our lives so it is reconciliation with him that we must be forever thankful for
and not reconciliation with one another.
The prayer conflicts with Christ’s command to love God with all one’s
strength. It is man-centred and not
God-centred. A Mass celebrated by a
priest who is inclined that way is invalid.
He does not have the proper intention to celebrate the Mass right. He may intend to give grace but grace that
misleads.
This Eucharistic Prayer is
unique because of instead of asking God to make the gifts become the body and
blood of Jesus it simply says, “We ask you to sanctify these gifts by the power
of your Spirit, as we now fulfil your Son’s command”. It is prayed, “Fill us with his Spirit
through our sharing in this meal”. This
Eucharist is a meal. If it is a
sacrifice with the same value as
The sacrifice offered is
the “sacrifice of reconciliation”. This
gift has been given to us.
Reconciliation is offered not the offering Jesus made on the cross.
Prayers for the dead are
completely dropped from this canon.
There are no prayers to the saints.
The prayer can be recited
by a Protestant who regards the Catholic Church and the pope as brethren in
Christ.
The New Mass is
heresy. Even if only one of its rites is
heresy the whole thing is heresy when you are obliged to use the whole liturgy
as if it were a whole. By using one of
the Masses you are saying that it is all authorised and in concord with the
designs of the Holy Spirit.
The Church used to teach
that it is wrong to attend the Masses of heretics and schismatics
except for a grave reason. Today, the
pope and his Church are schismatics for they have
left the Catholic Church by way of automatic excommunication. To attend their Masses is to encourage their
turpitude. One would have more respect
for the Mass by staying in the house and reading a good Catholic book and
praying. God says he gives graces to
compensate those who cannot go to
In 1984, the Church, or
rather the Congregation for Divine Worship, permitted the celebration of the
Latin Mass under strict conditions. Such
a Mass is called the indult Mass. To
celebrate it a priest had to have permission.
This means the Church is saying that it is not right to celebrate it freely
though it is. To celebrate under such
circumstances is to understand that it is an exception which is evil. To celebrate it is to recognise the New Mass. The new law is a bait to lure traditionalists
into the errors of the pope’s new religion which makes it wrong for them to
support it.
Apologetics and Catholic
Doctrine, Book 2, Most Rev M Sheehan DD, MH Gill
& Son,
Apologetics for the
Pulpit, Aloysius Roche, Burns Oates & Washbourne
Ltd,
Born-Again Catholics and
the Mass, William C Standridge Independent Faith
Catholicism and
Fundamentalism, Karl Keating, Ignatius Press,
Confession of a Roman
Catholic, Paul Whitcomb, TAN,
Critiques of God, Edited
by Peter A Angeles (Religion and Reason Section),
Prometheus Books,
Documents of the Christian
Church, edited by Henry Bettenson, Oxford University
Press,
Eucharist, Centre of
Christian Life, Rod Kissinger SJ, Liguori
Publications,
Fifty Years in the Church
of Rome, Fr Charles Chiniquy, Chick Publications,
Is Jesus Really Present in
the Eucharist? Michael Evans, Catholic Truth Society,
Handbook to the
Controversy with
Living in Christ, A Dreze SJ,
Geoffrey Chapman, London-Melbourne, 1969
Martin Luther, Richard
Marius, Belknap Press of
Radio Replies, Vol 2, Frs
Rumble and Carty, Radio Replies Press,
Roman Catholic Claims,
Charles Gore, MA, Longmans, Green & Co,
Salvation, The Bible and Roman Catholicism, William Webster, Banner of
Truth,
Secrets of Romanism,
Joseph Zaccello, Loizeaux
Brothers,
The Catechism of the
Catholic Church, Veritas,
The Early Church, Henry
Chadwick, Pelican, Middlesex, 1987
The Mass, Sacrifice and
Sacrament, William F Dunphy, CSSR,
Liguori Publications,
The Primitive Faith and
Roman Catholic Developments, Rev John A Gregg, APCK,
The Student’s Catholic
Doctrine, Rev Charles Hart BA, Burns & Oates,
This is My Body, This is My Blood, Bob and Penny Lord, Journeys of
Faith,
Why Does God…? Domenico Grasso SJ, St Pauls, Bucks, 1970
The Web
Transubstantiation, Is it
a True Doctrine?
http://www.geocities.com/christian_apologist2001/
BIBLE QUOTATIONS FROM:
The Amplified Bible
Friday, 07 December 2007