Insofar as the Confiteors are concerned, permit me to cite Father Wathen's book "The Great Sacrilege":

Now, instead of first the priest, then the people making their confession of sinfulness to God, the Blessed Mary ever Virgin, the great St. Michael, the Apostles, and all the other saints in Heaven, the emphasis has deftly shifted. And I assure you this was not done merely for the sake of efficiency. If you know anything about the "theology" of the "New Religion," you perceive how the true nature of sin has been subtly recast. (As I said before, reflect how your children understand these things. Or, what would be better, quiz them a bit.) The brevity serves to diminish the importance of the idea of sin altogether. But it is the repetition of the phrase, "you, my brothers and sisters," which must be noted. For, in the "New Religion" the evil of sin abides in its offensiveness to one’s fellow man. And, to finish the thought, if an act does not hurt him, it is not sinful at all; if it helps him, it is virtue.

First, Father Wathen is not in communion with the Catholic Church, so actually, his opinion carries absolutely no weight at all. As Brother Alexis Bugnolo noted in his critique of Father Wathen.

"It should be known that Fr. Wathen, though once a Roman Catholic priest, is no longer. The Order he claims to belong to was suppressed nearly 200 years ago, AND THE BRANCH TO WHICH FR. WATHEN BELONGS WAS SUSTAINED BY LAYMEN BELONGING TO PROTESTANT ORGANIZATIONS AND RUSSIAN ORTHODOX LAYMEN. IT IS ENTIRELY BOGUS AND FRAUDULENT. Fr. Wathen therefore has no faculties to hear confession or confect any sacrament. Any confession he hears is therefore invalid, as are his marriages. All the masses he says are sacrileges, offered as they are without Episcopal mandate. Likewise are all the sacraments he confesses. "The Great Sacrilege" is therefore not the Novus Ordo Mass--though it does have its problems--but rather the author of the book by that title." [Response to Fr. James Wathen]

You might as well ask a real Catholic what John Calvin’s position is on the issue. Wathen's schismatic order has been supported by Protestants in the past. Yet our opponents utilize him!! In any case, any time you see Father Wathen’s name, realize that this person is not in communion with the Holy Catholic Church. This is no concern to our Schismatic-praising opponents. Next, there is a critique of his work by Shawn in our present work of appendix 2 and 3 at:  http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/appendix2.htmland http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/appendix3.html.

Also, the idea that we are ignoring sin ignores the fact that the very first words that we use are "I confess my sins to God". What part of ‘I confess my sins to God’ don’t you understand? that we only sin against God is a Protestant idea. They are the ones who hold that sin is just between me and God. Catholicism on the other hand believes, as Paul does, that sins effect the whole body. This individualism spouted by Wathen shows a total misunderstanding of Catholic theology. The Revised Missal reflects the fact that when we sin, we sin against not only God, but also our brothers and sisters in Christ. Remember, 7 of the 10 commandments are sins that we did against other people. Why shouldn't we confess that we have sinned against other people? Just as there is a mystical body of Christ, which makes Saints intercession efficacious for us, and the whole body is effected in a positive way, the sins we commit hurts the entire body. It is Protestantism that denies that Saints intercession is effective. In the same way, whatever sins we commit, also effects the entire body in a negative way. This reflects Catholic theology to the core.

Another fact is that here is where we say in the vernacular that we ourselves have sinned. It is one thing to have an altar boy say for you that you have sinned in a language that very few people understand. Pre-Vatican II, there were many places that did not even have missals that would show this (that here is where we confess our sins). A benefit of having it in the vernacular is that here we are acknowledging our sins, and here we ask for others and the Saints to pray for us. This is an advantage of having it in the vernacular. One has to acknowledge and think of his sins for here and now, instead of just saying words that they don't understand in the first place, unless one happens to have a missal, and happens to only read along at the same time.

Next is the Introit, the Kyrie, and the Gloria. 

If this is really a mis-translation, hopefully it will be corrected when the new translation does come about as expected, as approved from Rome (hopefully coming soon). In any case there are absolutely no theological ramifications from this translation in any sense. Of course, from the beginning of time, both in the West and the East, the language of the Mass, was originally in the vernacular. As Shawn has pointed out in his treatise, when the change was made to Latin in the 4th century, that was the vernacular language.

While an argument could be made that the elimination of the Introit Prayer preceding the Gloria was not a good idea, it can also be argued that the Entrance Antiphon in essence takes the place of the Introit albeit being recited earlier in the Mass than the Introit was. The Pauline Rite Kyrie and Gloria cut down on some repetition while maintaining the substance of both prayers intact. Not that repetition is bad per se but it can lend itself to a mechanical "going through the motions" tendency and be an unintended source of distraction for those who have shorter attention spans.

As it is, this is the same reason used by protestants against the Rosary, and other Catholic practices. And is also the reason used by protestants for not having a set form of service, for many protestants also consider the Novus Ordo to be nothing but repetition. The reason that there are three invocations for the mercy of God the Father, three invocations of God the Son, and three invocations of God the Holy Ghost, is simply because, in this case, the number three represents the Most Holy Trinity.

If the formulators of the Novus Ordo Missae really wanted to cut down on repetition, they could have just had three invocations for mercy. Or possibly even just one, "God have mercy." This would have cut down repetition, and given the Priest more time for whatever else he has to do - such as playing golf.
 

Just because you have lots of repetition, does not make it 'more Catholic' than not. There is nothing more beneficial, to having repetition just for the purpose of repetition, as you seem to imply. As you say, the Pauline Rite Mass could have just three invocations for mercy, reflecting the invocations for the Holy Trinity. In fact they do.

In fact the more than necessary repetition in the Tridentine Mass is often what resulted in the Priest mumbling and doing things quickly so in fact it made it easier to get to the golf game if they so desired. If people don't understand the language anyway, isn't it easier to mumble one's way through? In any case, the request for the Lord's mercy is retained in the Revised Missal.

Brevity in spots for the sake of maintaining focus on the object (worshipping God) cannot be said to be a bad (or "invalid")

As it is, taking shortcuts with prayers can indeed be "said to be bad," the elimination of prayers and shortening of prayers which give Honor and Glory to God, can indeed be considered non-productive and wrong. As Traditional Catholics, we do not consider the Kyrie to be the reason for the invalidity of the Mass, there are far bigger problems with the Novus Ordo Missae, such as mis-translations - as we have already pointed out further up - and others of even greater importance - such as heresy. Although we do admit that the elimination of these prayers, and the shortening of these prayers, is indeed a bad step in the wrong direction.
 

Repetition for the sake of Repetition in no way gives more Glory or Honor to God.The essence, as is easily demonstrated is maintained. ‘Pope’ Hammer’s Declarations of Heresy do not make a thing heretical. It is the Magisterium of the Catholic Church that makes declarations on what is, and is not heretical. ‘Pope’ Lefebvre or ‘Pope’ Hammer's declarations makes no difference to Catholics on what is, and is not heretical. I wonder who I should believe, as a Catholic. 'Pope' Hammer or Pope Paul VI and Pope John Paul II. As a Catholic, who should I believe? Hmmm.

feature anymore than repetition of a prayer is necessarily "vain" or an exercise in Pharisaical "external" emphasis with a lack of proper internal intention. Claiming that either method is "wrong" is demonstrating an arbitrary exercise in personal private judgment.

This is an interesting statement coming from Shawn, especially since the point where we began this examination of the Novus Ordo and the Traditional Mass all we have heard is his private preferences. I find it hypocritical that he should base all his arguments, so far, in this section, upon private preference, and then attack Traditional Catholics for supposedly making use of "private judgment."
 

The difference between you and Shawn's exercise of private judgment is the difference between night and day. Catholicism does not mean that one Catholic can never exercise private judgment. There is quite a freedom in Catholicism which gives a wide latitude of views on some things. For example, on the issue of Predestination there are two schools of thought, the Molinist and the Thomist. The problem with private judgment in the way that you are using, in the manner of Martin Luther, is that your private judgment contradicts that of the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. The Magisterium has declared that the Liturgy is valid and is not heretical. Shawn has given a personal preference but he in no way said that the Liturgy is heretical. You are the one contradicting the Magisterium through your use of private judgment. No true Catholic can declare a teaching of the Magisterium that is in place by God's power (Mt. 16:18, Mt. 28:20) is teaching heresy. Any one who so declares it to be, acts like Martin Luther and Archbishop Lefebvre. You are the one acting that way, not Shawn 

Above is yet another example of a mis-translation. The Latin Version of the Novus Ordo Missae has "Credo" at the beginning of the Creed, which is not "we believe," but "I believe" - in the singular - with the emphasis on a personal profession of Faith. Whereas, the Novus Ordo mis-translation has it in the plural, making it less personal, and more community oriented, at the expense of an accurate translation. The same error appears also in the second sentence, where the words - as translated from the Latin by ICEL - appear as follows: "We believe in one Lord Jesus Christ..." The Latin does not have "We believe...." but is the same as in the Traditional Mass, which has it "And in one Lord Jesus Christ..." Yet again, in order to make the Novus Ordo more community oriented, they compromised the accuracy of the translation.

Furthermore, the words "Through him all things were made," have been changed from the Latin version. The Latin, yet again, has it the same as in the Traditional Mass "per quem omnia facta sunt," which is translated "by Whom all things were made." Yet again, the accuracy of the translation was compromised.

Yet another mistranslation from the Latin can be found in the words "by the power of the Holy Spirit he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary..." These words, as given in the Latin version of the Novus Ordo Missae, are the same as in the Traditional Mass, which has it as follows: "and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary..." Yet again we see the Translators of the Novus Ordo Missae adding and subtracting words. Without even going into the remainder of the Creed, it’s quite obvious that the translators made a hatchet job out of it. This is evidence in favor of the use of Latin exclusively in the Liturgy.
 

There is nothing in what he cited that shows any doctrinal compromises. For example, 'he became born of the virgin Mary'. What is the incarnation about? Hello there! It is about Jesus being 'born.' In any case I wonder how many people in the congregation know the Latin and can make the distinctions that our opponents just made? The tradition of the Church for the creed, was that the creed is repeated in the vernacular. That is the most ancient tradition. 

The Tridentine Creed has the genuflection whereas the Pauline Rite Creed replaces it with an optional reverent bow (arguments about the latter or former being more "proper" are purely subjective).

As Father Michael Mueller says concerning this point in the Creed:

Personally, I enjoy bowing at this point. However, the fact that one does not bow does not mean that they are not adoring Our Lord. The Eastern rites do not have people kneel down or bow at this specific point. Are you labeling them as heretics for 'blurring the hope' in Jesus crucified? The charge is ridiculous.

Basically, the Novus Ordo Missae makes it optional for the person to "venerate the mysteries of the Incarnation, and to adore God made man." If one just so happens to feel like venerating God on some Sunday morning, God can make do with an optional head bow - He really doesn’t deserve anything more in the Novus Ordo Missae. After all, didn’t we know that the Mass is now a communal thing?
 

The attitude shown in these remarks show a total disregard for the people who worship at the authorized Mass of Pope Paul VI. The condescending attitude from people who imagine that everything would be hunky dory if we just 'kept the Tridentine Mass' is ridiculous!!! As if everybody would just lock stock and barrel kneel reverently at this point, 'only if we had the Tridentine Mass.' We see our opponents showing a profound ignorance of the times we live in. Modernism has effected the disrespect, not the institution of the Pauline Mass. Having people go through motions does not mean that all of a sudden the modernists would show respect. All the ones who were born and bred on the Tridentine Mass are the ones, like Father Curran, and all the others who wanted the Catholic Church teaching on Contraception, for example, to be overturned. Do you think that the people who rebelled would all be reverent during the Liturgy? The rebellion against authority and the lack of reverence is a byproduct of modernism, not the 'Pauline' Mass.

The Tridentine Rite has just the priest saying the Nicene Creed while the Pauline Rite version of the Credo is verbally smoother and is said by both the priest and the people simultaneously.

In the Traditional Rite the Nicene Creed is also said by both the people and the Priest simultaneously, except that the Priest is the one who recites it verbally - we follow along in our missals. Secondly, in order to make the "Pauline Rite version" "verbally smoother," accuracy suffered dearly. Not a fair trade in my opinion.
 

Hmmm. How can it be ‘said’ in the Tridentine Mass if you don’t say anything? That must be schismatic talk? So in schismatic terms, ‘saying’ and ‘reciting’ actually means to ‘read along silently?’ BTW, this admission shows that an earlier charge is absolutely bogus. What is the big issue of saying, ‘Well, the translation is bad, because we say ‘we’ instead of ‘I’, when the fact is, in the Tridentine Mass, according to our opponents own admission, one says absolutely nothing at all. What has more of an impact? One saying what one believes, or letting somebody else say it for you? And what we say, we don’t really understand Latin in any case.

I do think this is a good idea because it gets the people more involved in the liturgy. One thing I prefer with the Tridentine High Masses to the Low Masses is that the choir (and by extension the faithful) can sing the responses whereas in the normal Low Mass it is just the priest and the servers. This aspect of the Pauline Rite Mass is a good addition as I see it.

Here we see Shawn expressing his personal agreement with the fact that the Novus Ordo Missae is more communal oriented than the Traditional Mass. It places much more emphasis on the people, and raises them to a level far beyond that of the Traditional Mass - while, at the same time, decreasing the amount of honor and respect shown to God by the introduction of such things as an "optional head bow," and "optional adoration of God," and so forth.
 

The fact that the people are more involved in the Mass (which is an ancient Tradition) and speak in a language that they understand is denigrated by ‘Pope’ Hammer. Again, this is reflecting ancient tradition where people were involved in the Mass in the language of the vernacular. St. Pius X recognized the 'communal' aspect of the Mass, when in a 1903 Motu Proprio he related that he wanted "more active participation in the most sacred mysteries and in the public and solemn prayers of the Church."[1] Oh. Pope St. Pius X must be a ‘Catholic’ heretic.

Summary Thus Far:

Thus far, the Tridentine and the Pauline Rite retain much of the same form and features while the Tridentine has more repetition and in spots possibly more reverence (at least externally).The Pauline Rite is a sleeker liturgy thus far and while in some spots this is arguably better (Confiteor, Kyrie, Gloria, Nicene Creed),

We have examined all these things and the supposed charges of ‘heresies’, or a tendency towards heresies, have been found wanting. The Tridentine Rite gave an impression of an absolution that can only be given in a confessional. These guys think having repetition, just for the sake of having repetition automatically means ‘more reverence’. It does no such thing (see Matthew 6:7-8).

in other areas it is arguably not so good (i.e. Removal of Psalm 42 at the intro, more signs of the cross and genuflections). To some this could signify greater reverence but to others it could signify a Pharisaical "going through the motions" type of redundancy. In my opinion the Tridentine Rite could do away with some of the crosses, genuflections, and bows while the Pauline Rite could add a few more of each.

In the first place, we see above Shawn suggesting that certain acts of reverence towards God, and towards the Saints, and so forth, should be excluded and "done away with." In other words, Shawn wishes to decrease the amount of reverence shown towards God in the liturgy.

In the second place, we see him suggesting that the Novus Ordo needs more crosses, genuflections, and bows. While this is certainly true, it would be very interesting here to take note of the signs of respect and reverence shown towards God were eliminated in the Novus Ordo - which even Shawn admits is lacking in this area. To cite The Great Sacrilege:

Also banned, by my reckoning, are twenty-five Signs of the Cross, twelve genuflections, and many lesser acts of reverence 1) to the tabernacle (which is often gone also), 2) to the crucifix (likewise), 3) to the Sacred Species, and 4)at the pronunciation of the Names of Christ and the Blessed Virgin Mary and the Saints. These acts of reverence include bows of the head, elevation of the eyes, kisses of the altar stone and its relics, turnings toward the tabernacle and the crucifix, and the subdued tone of the voice. Abrogated also is the "ritual of the hands" whereby the celebrant by various positioning and gestures signifies the thought of the prayers he is reciting. It would be possible to write an essay on the consequences of such a suppression as this alone.

In fact what we see done in the Pauline Liturgy, (in eliminating many repetitious things) very reflective of what the Tridentine Mass did itself. Of course in the Roman Rite itself, the language in the first few centuries was Greek, as Shawn has proved elsewhere. However, the point that I want to show that directly relates to the alleged ‘point’ by our opponents. The allegation is that because the Pauline Rite eliminated some repetitious prayers and motions, it showed less reverence for God. Well, that is exactly what happened when the Roman Rite turned to the Latin Language from the Greek Language in the 3rd and 4th centuries. As Adrian Fortescue in the Catholic Encyclopedia writes:

But then again, I am not in charge of the liturgy and that is a good thing since I am sure there would be people from both camps unhappy with doing the Liturgy Shawn-style.

After admitting that the Novus Ordo is lacking reverence towards God, and after stating that the Traditional Mass is a bit excessive in the reverence it shows towards God, Shawn here attempts to play the middle ground. Sort of an "Oh, well. I can’t fix this, the Novus Ordo’s fine the way it is" type of position.
 

Boy. Schismatics know how to twist. All Shawn said was that to do a little more signs towards God would not be bad in the Pauline Rite. Although the intent of these signs may in the Tridentine Mass very well have been to show reverence to God, in many cases, these were things done by rote in the Tridentine Mass by both priests and the people. 

[---snip, snip, continued repetitions---]

As it is, there is no such thing as the "Canon of the Pauline Rite." What the Novus Ordo Missae has are four Eucharistic Prayers, and it is entirely up to the Priest as to which one he will use. Hence, some priests may use Eucharistic Prayer form number one, while others may use Eucharistic Prayers two, three, or four. By showing that there might be some references to the "sacrificial nature" of the Mass in the conservative Eucharistic Prayer Form Number One, really doesn’t prove a thing. Especially since it is up to the Priest as to which one he is going to use. Furthermore, just because the word "sacrifice" appears twice in the Novus Ordo, does not establish that it is offering up the Body Blood Soul and Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ.
 

You are ignoring the clear wording and implications of the Sacrifice of the Mass. The Pauline Rite truly does offer up the Body Blood Soul, and divinity, with three out of four Eucharistic prayers explicit on sacrificial terminology. In any case, the validity of the Rite has never been dependent on how explicit the sacrificial terminology is.

The Mass continues with the Offertory, the Lavabo and the Secret. 

As it is, we readily admit that the above-cited portion of the Novus Ordo does not, of itself, make the Novus Ordo invalid. But, unfortunately, it does not clearly establish the Sacrificial nature of the Novus Ordo, and that it is not simply a protestant meal service.

What part of "May the Lord receive this sacrifice at thy hands, to the praise and glory of His name, to our own benefit, and to that of the Church" don’t you understand?" In what Protestant ‘meal service’ does it say this? By the way, what is so horrible and Protestant about celebrating a meal? Eating the Body and Blood of Christ is both a meal and a sacrifice, as Shawn demonstrated.
 

The Ottaviani Intervention charges that the offering of the host and the offering of the chalice in the Novus Ordo Missae "alters the nature of the sacrificial offering by turning it into a type of exchange of gifts between God and man. Man brings the bread, and God turns it into 'the spiritual drink.' ... The expressions 'bread of life' and 'spiritual drink,' of course, are utterly vague and could mean anything. Once again we come up against the same basic equivocation: According to the new definition of the Mass [in the General Instruction], Christ is only spiritually present among His own; here bread and wine are only spiritually ? and not substantially ? changed"
 

The term ‘bread of life’ comes from John 6:48, directly from the Bible which points to the Flesh and Blood of Christ. It is not ambiguous at all. As to the Mass being equivocal, Pope Paul VI said in an address to a General Audience:

12. The unity of the Lord’s Supper, of the Sacrifice on the cross of the re-presentation and the renewal of both in the Mass, is inviolably affirmed and celebrated in the new rite just as they were in the old. The Mass is and remains the memorial of Christ’s Last Supper. At that Supper the Lord changed the bread and wine into His Body and His Blood, and instituted the Sacrifice of the New Testament. He willed that the Sacrifice should be identically renewed by the power of His Priesthood, conferred on the Apostles. Only the manner is different, namely, and unbloody and sacramental manner; and it is offered in perennial memory of Himself, until His final return. [3]
 
 

Every time you see them link to the ‘Ottaviani Intervention’, one must keep this in mind.

Cardinal Ottaviani gave comments on the final version of the Pauline Mass AFTER IT WAS OFFICIALLY PROMULGATED. Pope Paul VI gave two general audiences in regards to the Pauline Mass. Cardinal Ottaviani responded to this by writing:

"I have REJOICED PROFOUNDLY to read the Discourse by the Holy Father on the question of the new Ordo Missae, and ESPECIALLY THE DOCTRINAL PRECISIONS CONTAINED IN HIS DISCOURSES at the public Audiences of November 19 and 26, after which I believe, NO ONE CAN ANY LONGER BE GENUINELY SCANDALIZED. As for the rest, a prudent and intelligent catechesis must be undertaken to solve some legitimate perplexities which the text is capable of arousing. In this sense I wish your ‘Doctrinal Note’ [on the Pauline Rite Mass] and the activity of the Militia Sanctae Mariae WIDE DIFFUSION AND SUCCESS." [4]
 
 

Cardinal Ottaviani published later yet another very relevant public statement in which he said:

"The Beauty of the Church is equally resplendent in the variety of the liturgical rites which enrich her divine cult-when they are legitimate and conform to the faith. Precisely the LEGITIMACY OF THEIR ORIGIN PROTECTS AND GUARDS THEM AGAINST INFILTRATION OF ERRORS. . . .The PURITY AND UNITY OF THE FAITH is in this manner also UPHELD BY THE SUPREME MAGISTERIUM OF THE POPE THROUGH THE LITURGICAL LAWS." [5]
 
 

Michael Davies points out in his book Pope Paul’s New Mass the fact that "Obviously, panis vitae and potus spiritualis could be interpreted in an orthodox sense, as can all the prayers of the Novus Ordo Missae. The difference between the old and new Offertory rites is that the former could only be interpreted in an unequivocally Catholic sense and the new is not simply open to a Protestant interpretation but such an interpretation seems by far the more reasonable." (4)

These two prayers are thoroughly ambiguous, as the Ottaviani Intervention and Michael Davies pointed out. They can be interpreted in an orthodox sense, but are also open to a protestant interpretation. Two completely separate interpretations can be applied to these two prayers. Hence, these cannot be used to prove the sacrificial nature of the Novus Ordo, for they have proven nothing - it’s all a matter of how you feel like understanding them today.

The new version of the Lavabo does not clearly designate the sacrificial nature of the Mass, as the old one did. It merely makes some obscure reference to some washing away of sin and cleansing from iniquity. This certainly doesn’t state - as the Traditional one did - that what is being offered up is Christ.
 

It is not our problem how Protestants misinterpret things. Nor is it our problem when Schismatics who are proximate to heresy misinterpret things.

The Orate fratres almost didn’t make it into the Novus Ordo Missae, as the theologians in charge of the overhaul had been, for the most part, in favor of its suppression. Though, as it is, it’s references to "sacrifice" does not necessarily imply that Christ is the One being sacrificed. As Michael Davies in the aforementioned book (Pope Paul’s New Mass) very accurately pointed out "in an Offertory rite which contains no reference to the Divine Victim, even the Orate fratres can be interpreted as referring to the self-offering of the congregation, symbolized by the bread and wine. As the Protestant theologian Dr. D. F. Wells has noted, the Mass can now be seen as the occasion when the congregation offer themselves rather than Christ: ‘The old teaching is not denied; it has merely been pushed into the background.’ The new Offertory rite certainly goes a long way towards proving this point."

There is no unambiguous statement in the new "Liturgy of the Eucharist" and "preparation of the gifts," which clearly states the Mass’s Sacrificial nature, unlike in the Traditional Mass. In fact, what is being offered in the new "Offertory rite" is nothing more than bread and wine, fruit of the vine, and the work of human hands - period. Which is all the "Offertory" claims to be offering... nothing more.
 

I guess our opponents would criticize the 2nd Century Liturgy as being 'too protestant' because besides using the horrible word 'president', they also saw that what was being offered (preconsecration) was bread and wine. There is no record of any liturgies with apostolic tradition in the first few centuries of any of the specific prayers that replicated the Tridentine Rite. Of course one offers the bread and wine, preconsecration. However, it is not bread and wine that is sacrificed. Once the consecration takes place, the bread and wine offered becomes the Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ. The moment of consecration is when the sacrifice becomes effective. As St. Justin Martyr writes:

Having ended the prayers, we salute one another with a kiss.(3) There is then brought to the president of the brethren(4) bread and a cup of wine mixed with water; and he taking them, gives praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and offers thanks at considerable length for our being counted worthy to receive these things at His hand.[7]

.

The charge that Davies made about there being little to no reference to Sacrifice is clearly refuted by the allusions to the Sacrificial victim, Jesus Christ. We will see this when we get to the prayers of the Sacrifice.
 

Nothing in the changes made to the Mass in the Revised Missal is structurally altered at all. Many Tridentine supporters would claim that truncating the washing of the fingers (removing Psalm 25 from that section and replacing it with a simple plea for cleanliness) was tampering with "tradition" but initially the washing of the fingers was a necessity (due to the bread used getting on the fingers of the priest). Eventually it became more of a symbolic part of Mass when the need to wash fingers was no longer there. The "Secret" is synonymous with the "Prayer Over the Gifts."

If Shawn knew anything about matter, he would know that the need for the washing of the fingers still exists. For example, if one were to brush one’s finger over a table-top, particles of the table will stick to one’s fingers, and vice versa. Hence, it is an attempt to keep the Host - which will soon become the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity, of Our Lord Jesus Christ - from contact with the profane. The lack of any such attempt in the Novus Ordo Missae is certainly telling. As Michael Davies' booklet "A Short History of the Roman Mass" states:

The Lavabo or washing of hands is an evident example. In all rites the celebrant washes his hands before handling the offerings, an obvious precaution and sign of respect. St. Thomas Aquinas remarked: "We are not accustomed to handle any precious things save with clean hands; so it seems indecent that one should approach so great a sacrament with hands soiled." The washing of the hands almost inevitably came to be understood as a symbol of cleansing the soul, as is the case with all ritual washing in any religion. There were originally no particular prayers mandated for the washing of hands, but it was natural that the priests should say prayers for purity at that moment, and that eventually such prayers should find their way into the liturgical books. What prayer could be more appropriate than Psalm 25, Lavabo inter innocentes manus meas? All ritual grew naturally out of these purely practical actions, just as vestments evolved out of ordinary dress. The only really ritual actions we find in the first two centuries are certain postures, kneeling or standing for prayer, and such ceremonies as the kiss of peace, all of which were inherited from the Jews.

Furthermore, the elimination of the prayers at the foot of the Altar is most certainly a structural change, as are the addition of four optional "Eucharistic Prayers" to the Liturgy. Hence, Shawn shows that either 1) he doesn't know what the word "structure" means, 2) he's ignorant on this point, or 3) his goal is to misrepresent the Truth. Any of the three is enough to disqualify Shawn from writing an article on this subject. Insofar as which of these is the case with Shawn, we leave this up to the reader to decide.
 

This is hypocritical meandering by these folks that show that 1) They are hypocrites 2) they don't know what the word "structure" means, 3) they're ignorant on this point, or 4) their goal is to misrepresent the Truth. Any of the four are enough to disqualify our opponents from writing. Insofar as which of these is the case with our opponents, we leave this up to the reader to decide.
 

1) Ok, I guess when the Tridentine Rite began, when all these Tridentine prayers were added, centuries after Our Lord instituted the Eucharist, there was a Structural Change. The change made by the Tridentine Rite, after centuries of other changes, was much more of a 'structural' change than that of the Pauline Rite. It would be hypocritical to say 'well, here is a Structural change' when there was a change in this aspect of the Mass, and then say 'well this is not a Structural Change' when these prayers were added well after Our Lord ascended to Heaven. It is as though, the Apostles when celebrating Mass, washed their hands at this specific point in time. Of course there was no such thing, or a hint anywhere in the first centuries of the Mass, that at this specific point, it was done the Tridentine way.

2) Shawn meant that the essence of the Mass is the same, including the theology behind the opening prayers, Creed, and all the other things up to this point. In fact, the Structure of the Pauline Rite Mass is the same as the Mass offered by Our Lord, as was the Tridentine Rite. The essence is kept, even if in some peripheral matters there are changes, even many substantial changes. However, the Structure is the same. That is obviously what Shawn meant. Options 3 and 4 are really something to consider here.

The Mass continues with the preface. 

Unfortunately, I think that a difference of 60 different preface prayers is a noticeable difference.

That is much less than the changes in the Masses that were originally based on Apostolic Tradition. As the Catholic Encyclopedia says:

WITH REGARD TO THE FIRST QUESTION IT MUST BE SAID THAT AN APOSTOLIC LITURGY IN THE SENSE OF AN ARRANGEMENT OF PRAYERS AND CEREMONIES, LIKE OUR PRESENT RITUAL OF THE MASS, DID NOT EXIST. For some time the Eucharistic Service was in many details fluid and variable.[8]
 
 

That is the same Protestant argument against the Catholic view of justification: You Catholics don’t give glory to God because you say that God doesn’t declare us righteous, but he "makes us Righteous. You are giving too much glory to man and denigrating Christ’s work on the Cross." This Protestant argument against the Catholic view of justification is just as shortsighted as your critique of this prayer. Part of what we give thanks to God is exactly what Christ did for us on the Cross and how he made us righteous. We are not mere worms that have to be covered up with an ‘alien’ righteousness imputed to us. God makes us righteous. Catholic theology clearly points to justification as giving more glory to God when we show that he makes us righteous and his graces are applied to us. Any look at the Council of Trent on justification clearly shows that. This also impacts on this issue here.

In the same way, it does give greater, not less glory to God when we show what he has done for us in our lives. Below is the part that so offends our opponents:

Through his cross and resurrection, he freed us from sin and death and called us to the glory that has made us a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people set apart. Everywhere we proclaim your mighty works for you have called us out of darkness into your own wonderful light.

This is what so offends our opponents. What does the Bible, the most ancient tradition, have to say on the matter? That Pope Peter, he must be a ‘Catholic’ heretic (1 Pet. 2:4-9):

for you have tasted the kindness of the Lord. 4 Come to him, to that living stone, rejected by men but in God's sight chosen and precious; 5 and like living stones be yourselves built into a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. 6 For it stands in scripture: "Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone, a cornerstone chosen and precious, and he who believes in him will not be put to shame." 7 To you therefore who believe, he is precious, but for those who do not believe, "The very stone which the builders rejected has become the head of the corner," 8 and "A stone that will make men stumble, a rock that will make them fall"; for they stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do. 9 But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God's own people, that you may declare the wonderful deeds of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. 10 Once you were no people but now you are God's people; once you had not received mercy but now you have received mercy.
 
 

There is a greater variety of Preface prayers which I believe is a good thing because it keep the liturgy more "vibrant" to some extent which is a necessary quality much as the diversity of Eucharistic Prayers (which we will get to shortly) accomplishes the same purpose.

Catholics do not attend Mass in order to be entertained. We attend Mass to worship God, hence whether or not it is "exciting" or "entertaining" (as one of the definitions for the word "vibrant" states) should not be one of our considerations. We’re not Pentecostals. Our Mass is not built upon emotion, or upon personal feelings. Our Mass is built solely on the worship of God, and not on how it makes us feel to be there. Granted, as Catholics, that does not mean that we shouldn’t enjoy worshipping God - but our primary end should be the worship of God, not the enjoyment of personal experiences which might take place while trying to worship God. As stated above, we do not go to Mass to be entertained, we go there to worship God. Hence, whether or not the Divine Liturgy is "vibrant" or not is irrelevant and is not, as stated above, a consideration.
 

It is not about being entertained. It is about the wonders that God has done. I guess our opponents would have stopped David from writing the Psalms. "You have too much a variety of Psalms that praise God. You are too Protestant. Just give us One Psalm. We know better than you how to worship. That is enough. We aren’t here to be entertained!!!" In doing the Psalms that our opponents would have liked, we would miss about 149 Psalms.

---snip from a very confused Gerry Matatics bashing the Mass with his personal opinion- which has no relevance to the issue---

By giving a variety of canons does not destroy unity at all. In fact the diversity of prayers is only a small portion of the diversity that was allowed in ancient Liturgical Traditions. There was not one set canon in the Churches based on Apostolic Tradition but many different canons, with more fluidity. This does not ‘destroy unity.’ Diversity of prayers does not destroy God’s honor, but allows diverse ways to pray to God and thank him for his goodness. Those prayers were still efficacious.

In the second place, in "Eucharistic Prayer Form Number Two" 70% of the Canon has been deleted and changed. As Father Wathen stated in his "The Great Sacrilege"":

Counting conservatively and conceding for the sake of the argument that "Eucharistic Prayer, Form Number One" is the "Roman Canon," when it is replaced by one of the other "Eucharistic Prayers," a grand total of thirty-five prayers, or seventy per cent, are thereby discarded from the Ordinary of the Traditional Mass. Seven-tenths of the prayers of the Mass are gone! Nor is this to mention the many brief versicles and responses with which the True Mass abounds - summarily dropped in the "New Mass."

---snip a few quotes about how there should never be a change for the Mass by Davies, Wathen, etc---

Back to more quotes that don’t prove much if anything, but here there is an attempt to prove another point that we shall examine:

Hence, we see that the Novus Ordoite Reformers have sacrificed "the most precious treasure in the heritage of the Latin Church," apart from the Gospels. While the subject may have been too sacred for the pen of Cardinal Wiseman, while the ground upon which he tread was holy, even to the point where the shoes must be taken off the feet of him who will venture thereon, it was obviously quite the contrary to the Novus Ordoite Reformers. Father Louis Bouyer had the following to say:

"The Roman Canon, such as it is today, goes back to St. Gregory the Great. Neither in East nor West is there any Eucharistic prayer remaining in use today that can boast of such antiquity. For the Roman Church to throw it overboard would be tantamount, in the eyes not only of the Orthodox, but also of the Anglicans and even Protestants having still to some extent a sense of tradition, to a denial of all claim any more to be the true Catholic Church."

If one takes into account of the decisive evolution in the Eucharistic liturgy of the Catholic Church, of the option of substituting other Eucharistic prayers for the Canon of the Mass, of the expunging of the idea that the Mass is a sacrifice, and of the possibility of receiving Communion under both kinds, then there is no further justification for the Reformed Churches’ forbidding their members to assist at the Eucharist in a Catholic Church.

".... the Canon, so free of every error [Canon 6] that it contains nothing which is not redolent of greatest holiness and piety and which does not lift the minds of its offerers to God. For it is made up both of the words of the Lord Himself, and of the traditions of the Apostles, as well as the pious institutions of saintly Pontiffs." (11)

Next, we must deal with our opponent’s idea that the Council of Trent decreed that the Roman canon alone was the one that had no errors, and therefore the idea that it was the Roman canon which could never be touched. Let us look at the whole context from which the Council of Trent made the reference. What is implied from our opponents’ citation is that here the Council of Trent is referencing only the Roman canon, and this is only speaking in reference to this specific canon. Thus, the error free canon only applies to the Tridentine Mass established and the Roman canon. Thus, it does not apply to any future canons, or even other canons except the Roman rite established by Quo Primum, The "Tridentine" rite.

The first thing that shows that our opponents attempts is an erroneous and even foolish way of looking at it is just noticing the date of Quo Primum as opposed to the date of this decree. For them to say that this canon is error free only applies to the Roman canon is belied just by that very fact. How is that? Well, by just looking at the dates involved. Quo Primum, issued by Pope Pius V, was issued in 1570. Here it suppressed most Western rites, except those that were more than 200 years old. However, the fact that it attempted to suppress these Western rites shows indeed that there were many different liturgies and canons going on at the same time. Pope St. Pius V recognized at the time there were many rites, and he suppressed them in 1570. However, what is the date of the Tridentine decree which said that there was no error in the canon? 1571, after the attempt was made to suppress all the other Western rites and the Tridentine Rite was imposed on all others? No. The 22nd Session, which made this decree was made on September 17, 1562. Thus, there were many different rites and canons going on at the same time, even in the Western rites at the same time, as the decree of 1562 is referencing. So the fact is that the Tridentine Rite was not even formally established at the time, let alone that being the only canon that this decree is referencing. It is absolutely impossible for our opponents to say that this canon applies only to the Roman canon, as Quo Primum had not even been promulgated. Look at the Chapters in the following Trent decree and see if you see anything at all about it speaking about only the Roman canon that was established and imposed only 8 years down the road.

CHAPTER IV On the Canon of the Mass. And whereas it beseemeth, that holy things be administered in a holy manner, and of all holy things this sacrifice is the most holy; to the end that it might be worthily and reverently offered and received, the Catholic Church instituted, many years ago, the sacred Canon, so pure from every error, that nothing is contained therein which does not in the highest degree savour of a certain holiness and piety, and raise up unto God the minds of those that offer. For it is composed, out of the very words of the Lord, the traditions of the apostles, and the pious institutions also of holy pontiffs.

CHAPTER V.

On the solemn ceremonies of the Sacrifice of the Mass. And whereas such is the nature of man, that, without external helps, he cannot easily be raised to the meditation of divine things; therefore has holy Mother Church instituted certain rites, to wit that certain things be pronounced in the mass in a low, and others in a louder, tone. She has likewise employed ceremonies, such as mystic benedictions, lights, incense, vestments, and many other things of this kind, derived from an apostolic discipline and tradition, whereby both the majesty of so great a sacrifice might be recommended, and the minds of the faithful be excited, by those visible signs of religion and piety, to the contemplation of those most sublime things which are hidden in this sacrifice. [10]

If one says that this does apply to future canons and that is how it applies to the Tridentine canon, then it must also apply to the Pauline Rite. There is thus no way around this point, and our opponents attempts to say error abounds in the Pauline Rite canon becomes an exercise of self-refuting futility and their whole exercise in showing supposed ‘errors’ in the Pauline Mass is bogus. It matters not, that one is 8 years down the road and the other is about 400 years down the road. The four prayers draw heavily from varying traditions that have always been accepted by the Catholic Church..

Next, we know that what Quo Primum established was a New Rite, not just merely an exact replica of ‘ancient tradition’. How do I know this? By looking at the words of Pope St. Pius V. After imposing the Rite on others in the Western Rite, Pope St. Pius V writes that what he is imposing is a NEW RITE:

This new rite alone is to be used unless approval of the practice of saying Mass differently was given at the very time of the institution and confirmation of the church by Apostolic See at least 200 years ago, or unless there has prevailed a custom of a similar kind which has been continuously followed for a period of not less than 200 years, in which most cases We in no wise rescind their above-mentioned prerogative or custom. However, if this Missal, which we have seen fit to publish, be more agreeable to these latter, We grant them permission to celebrate Mass according to its rite, provided they have the consent of their bishop or prelate or of their whole Chapter, everything else to the contrary notwithstanding. [11]

And yet Shawn didn’t feel that it was "vibrant enough." And the "Reformers," obviously thought the same thing - hence, the "Words of the Lord Himself," "the traditions of the apostles," and "the pious institutions of saint Pontiffs," which are contained in the Canon which is "so free of every error that it contains nothing which is not redolent of greatest holiness and piety and which does not lift the minds of its offerers to God," must be discarded in whole or in part, in order to preserve the "vibrantness" of the Mass.
 

Shawn's main point was not merely that the Tridentine Rite wasn't vibrant enough, but the Pauline Rite changes were more reflective of the diversity allowed in the ancient Traditions of the Catholic Church. Again, your attempting to make that canon only apply to the after the Council Tridentine Rite doesn't cut it.

The following is a very good example of the reverence with which the Holy Canon of the Mass was held in the Church during the 1800's:

"So careful is the Church to prevent innovations from entering into this part of the Mass (the Canon) that she forbids any one to meddle with it under pain of incurring her most sever censures. She will not even permit a correction to be made to it for fear of destroying its antiquity. We shall mention a few cases in point. It is a well-known fact that the Canon terminates at the ‘Pater Noster’; yet we find the word Canon printed in every missal form the first prayer, or ‘Te igitur,’ to the end of the Gospel of St. John. This is evidently a printer’s blunder; but because it is of a very ancient date the Church has allowed it to stand, and printers to the Holy See are strictly forbidden to change it in printing new missals. A still more striking instance is the following: As far back as the year 1815, when devotion to St. Joseph, spouse of the Blessed Virgin and foster-father of our Divine Lord, was making rapid headway, the Sacred Congregation of Rites was earnestly besought to grant permission to add the name of this venerable patriarch to this part of the Mass, one of the reasons assigned for making the request being that many persons had a particular devotion to him. The request was not granted, the reply to the petition being negative; and this was dominated a response urbis et orbis - that is, one binding in Rome and everywhere else." 12

Of course Father O'Brien has been shown elsewhere (in Shawn's response) to be inaccurate in his statements. But for the heck of it, let us take his words at face value. In any case, all of the modernism that has so hurt the Catholic Church in recent years flourished under the Tridentine Rite Mass. Not only did Trent acknowledge that it could change rites according to circumstances, and the anti-modernists Pope St. Pius X as well as Pope Pius XII saw the need to make changes to the Rite itself, but modernism flourished under the Tridentine Rite. The Tridentine Rite certainly put absolutely no stop to the modernism that has so hurt the Catholic church. So this romanticism shown by quoting a 19th century item by a discredited author shows no cognizance of the fact that since it absolutely put no stop to the modernism that flourished in the 1800s, and it certainly flourished throughout most of the 20th century in the Latin Rite, the idea that "If you left the Tridentine Rite alone, we would have no liturgical problems" is bogus.

After the "consecration" in Eucharistic Prayer there appears the "memento" of the dead, which begins thus:

"Remember our brothers and sisters who have gone to their rest in the hope of rising again; bring them and all the departed into the light of your presence."

Ok. We get these fellows, of all people, making 'papal declaration' on what constitutes heresy. Sure, if there was a prayer saying, "We deny hell, and Oh Lord, take people out of hell and get them into heaven" that would indeed reflect heresy. But is that in fact what this prayer says? Ultra-Traditionalists that I have run into normally do not have a problem with the Fatima prayer. In the Fatima Prayer it says "Lead All Souls into heaven, especially for those most in need of thy mercy." The prayer is for all souls (which obviously includes the dead), just as the prayer that the Mass is for all the departed, I have not normally run into an Ultra-Traditionalist site that condemns this prayer as heretical.

The Church in fact has never infallibly declared any one individual to be in hell. Of course the Church has affirmed that hell does exist and people do inhabit it, but has never identified specifically people, even including Judas and Hitler. We can indeed pray for 'all the departed' just as the Fatima prayer does, because the Church's prayers are efficacious. However, nowhere is a there a hint in the prayer that we are asking God to deliver people from hell to get into heaven. This is foolish speculation trying to impugn the Church in any way to try to say, "See the Church now teaches those in hell can now go to heaven!". We can pray for all exactly because we do not know who specifically is in hell. This is reading into prayers anything that you can find that you might impugn the Mass. Of course the Church continues to ratify that hell exists and that those who are in hell will never get to heaven. Of course our opponents 'infallibly' declare that unless you are a Feeneyite, you can't get to heaven. They decide based on the idea that unless you are a Feeneyite you go to hell anyway, so what is the use of praying for NonFeeneyites?

Insofar as the sacrificial nature of the above "Eucharistic Prayer Number 2" goes, permit me to take a few moments and examine the prayers which Shawn has emphasized as if they were clear-cut examples of the "sacrificial nature" of the Novus Ordo Missae.

The first prayer emphasized above by Shawn is the "Quam Oblationem," which is as follows (with Shawn’s emphasis retained completely intact):

The official text (according to the 1973 Sacramentary, and the Latin version) includes the words "for us," which, in turn, implies that it’s only the "Body and Blood of Christ" "for us," it’s not in actuality the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity, of Christ.
 

The Ultra-Trads love to make mountains out of molehills. They are trying to find something heretical that doesn't even begin to be heretical. First he gives it as though there are tons of variations that change from parish to parish. He gives us one version that differs oh so slightly from the one that Shawn gives and says, "See, that is heretical and boy, we need to go back to Latin!!" Let us see what kind of mountain they built this time.

Even giving them the worst translation that they harp on, What part of "Let your Spirit come upon these gifts to make them holy, so that they may become for us the body (+) and blood of our Lord, Jesus Christ" don't they understand? Well, the first thing to note is that of course since we Catholics are the ones who partake of the precious Body and Blood, and those who are not Catholic do not partake of the Body and Blood of our Lord, they can not partake of this!!! Thus, who is the Body and Blood for? We who partake of it. Thus, the word 'us'. What is so hard to understand about that!!! How in the world does it go from "It becomes the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ" to, "It is Not the Body and Blood of Our Lord"? Oh brother.

The next prayer emphasized by Shawn is the Consecration of the host. To provide the prayer (yet again with Shawn’s emphasis completely intact):

THE CONSECRATION OF THE HOST

Priest: Before he was given up to death, (Phil 2:8) a death he freely accepted, (John 10:17-18) he took bread and gave you thanks. He broke the bread, gave it to his disciples, and said: TAKE THIS ALL OF YOU, AND EAT IT: THIS IS MY BODY WHICH WILL BE GIVEN UP FOR YOU. (Luke 22:19)

Of course the Priest is really another Christ at that point. That is Catholic Theology. He is reciting words as 'another Christ'. That is what makes the bread and wine really become the Body and Blood of Christ!!

About there being no proclamation about what will happen at the Consecration, it is amazing that this fellow says that!! There is no reason for the Priest to repeat what he just said he would do. The idea that the Priest does not tell us what the Priest intends to do is belied by the fact of what they quoted when they tried to attack the Mass! Remember, the Priest just said: Let your Spirit come upon these gifts to make them holy, so that they may become for us the Body (+) and Blood of our Lord, Jesus Christ"!. Again, what part of that don't you understand? I know you fellows like repetition for the sake of repetition but this is ridiculous!!!

In reference to Sacrifice, the implications are clearly there in the Words of Our Lord, but there are places elsewhere where Sacrifice is mentioned and clearly implied.

The next prayer given by Shawn is the Consecration for the wine. To cite it:

Priest: When supper was ended, he took the cup. Again he gave thanks and praise, gave the cup to his disciples, and said: TAKE THIS, ALL OF YOU, AND DRINK FROM IT: THIS IS THE CUP OF MY BLOOD, THE BLOOD OF THE NEW AND EVERLASTING COVENANT. IT WILL BE SHED FOR YOU AND FOR ALL SO THAT SINS MAY BE FORGIVEN. DO THIS IS MEMORY OF ME. (Matt. 26:27-28)

Matthew 26:27 [DR] And taking the chalice, he gave thanks, and gave to them, saying: Drink ye all of this.

Matthew 26:28 [DR] For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins.

"The additional words 'for you and for many', are taken, some from Matthew, some from Luke, but were joined together by the Catholic Church under the guidance of the Spirit of God… When He (Christ) added, 'and for many', He wished to be understood to mean the remainder of the elect from among the Jews or Gentiles. With reason, therefore, were the words 'for all' not used, as in this place the fruits of the Passion alone are spoken of, and to the elect only did this Passion bring the fruit of salvation."13

Who, the day before He suffered, took bread into His Holy and venerable hands, and having lifted up His eyes to heaven, to Thee, God, His Almighty Father, giving thanks to Thee, blessed it +, broke it, and gave it to His disciples, saying: Take and eat ye all of this:

For this is My Body.
In like manner, after He had supped, taking also into His holy and venerable hands this goodly chalice, again giving thanks to Thee, He blessed it +, and gave it to His disciples, saying: Take and drink ye all of this:

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.
 
 

The above citation also makes it quite clear why the words "for all" cannot be used in the Consecration formula. Hence, the Consecration formula for the Novus Ordo Missae can have two meanings.

It is quite a stretch to take from the above citation that for in order for there to be a valid Consecration, "For Many" must be a part of the consecration. The above citation makes absolutely no mention of this. If that was the case, then the Catholic Church would be a pile of contradictions, starting here. There are tons of Liturgies that have always been accepted in the Catholic Church, from the beginning of the Church, where the words "For Many" were never used. Will these Schismatic anti-papal popes pronounce that all those consecrations where "For Many" was not used were invalid? That all those Catholics were committing idolatry and only partook of bread and wine, when they partook of hosts that were consecrated without the use of the words "For Many". The citation says that the Catholic Church is the one that is under the guidance of the Holy Spirit in giving us the form. Nowhere does it say, or even hint that The Consecration is only valid if you use "For Many" instead of "For All", or that if you don’t use "For Many" the consecration is invalid. The Catechism of Trent of course wants to emphasize here the efficacy of the cross, not the sufficiency of Christ’s sacrifice. Now true, in the Pauline Liturgy, there is a shift now in focus which differs from Trent. However, the main point is that Trent does not say anywhere that if "For All" is used it is not valid, or even that for a valid consecration "For Many", or "Remission of Sins" or "Mystery of Faith" (clear additions to the words of Our Lord) must be used.

In the first place, universal salvation - that the fruits of the Passion are applicable to everyone, a heresy.

This is the most common ignorant Ultra-Traditionalist charge. Absolutely nowhere here in this consecration where the words "For All" are translated is there any indication at all that this is talking about universal salvation. Absolutely nowhere. This is pure silliness. The only place where I hear this charge is from Ultra-Traditionalists bent on attacking the Mass.

In the second place, the sufficiency of Christ’s Sacrifice - that Christ died for all. Either way, we see a change in theology in the very core and center of the Holy Sacrifice - even at the expense of the Words of Our Lord Himself -, the Consecration itself. The innovators have trampled even their own Second Vatican Council in order to bring this change about. To cite the Second Vatican Council:
 

Again, we have seen that the Tridentine Rite clearly adds words to what Our Lord said, and the Catechism of the Council of Trent says that!! So how that attacks the credibility of the Pauline Mass but not the Tridentine Mass I have no idea whatsoever.

Here I want to deal with the issue of their attacks on Vatican II. BTW, the first thing that these dissident schismatics can do to retain credibility among Catholics is, instead of linking to an attack on Vatican II, they would actually link to the documents of Vatican II itself. Of course they link only to direct attacks on the Magisterium in reference to Vatican II. The 2nd Vatican Council is for all Catholics, just as Trent is. Their rebellion against the Church is shown by their links. While they pretend to ‘hold to Trent" while attacking Vatican II, these people are doing exactly what Cardinal Ratzinger warns against:

It is impossible (‘for a Catholic’) to take a position for Vatican II but against Trent or Vatican I. Whoever accepts Vatican II, as it has clearly expressed and understood itself, at the same time accepts the whole binding tradition of the Catholic Church, particularly also the two previous councils. And that also applies to the so-called ‘progressivism", at least in its extreme forms. Second: It is likewise impossible to decide in favor of Trent and Vatican I, but against Vatican II. Whoever denies Vatican II denies the authority that upholds the other two councils and thereby detaches them from their foundation. And this applies to the so-called ‘traditionalism’, also in its extreme forms." [12]

To defend the true tradition of the Church today means to defend the Council. It is also our fault if we have at times provided a pretext (to the ‘right’ and left’ alike) to view Vatican II as a ‘break’ and abandonment of the tradition. There is, instead a continuity that allows neither a return to the past nor a flight forward, neither anachronistic longings nor unjustified impatience. We must remain faithful to the today of the Church, not the yesterday or tomorrow. And this today of the Church is the documents of Vatican II, without reservations that amputate them and without arbitrariness that distorts them."  [13]
 
 

In order that the Christian people may more certainly derive an abundance of graces from the sacred liturgy, holy Mother Church desires to undertake with great care a general restoration of the liturgy itself. For the liturgy is made up of unchangeable elements divinely instituted, and of elements subject to change. (14)

In the second place, I would like to point out to the reader yet another change in the theology behind the Consecration formula. The Traditional Consecration states that the Sacrifice is being offered up for the "remission of sins," while the Consecration formula give above states that the Sacrifice is being offered up for the "forgiveness of sins."
 

Ok. What is the charge here? The Old Translation has it as remission of sins. The new translation is forgiveness. Let us see what is the difference. Is Forgiveness an antonym or homonym?. Our opponents apparently think they have totally different meanings that oppose each other. Vines dictionary of Old and New Testament words gives us a definition of words. Here the subject in question is forgiveness or remission - Nouns

In the Biblical language, Forgiveness is used as a noun it is used: aphesis It is used of the remission of sins, and translated "forgiveness in Mark 3:29; Eph. 1:7; Col. 1:14 and in the KJV of Acts 5:31; 13:38; 26:18, in each of which the RV has "remission."

Remissionaphesis ‘a dismissal, release" , is used of the forgiveness of sins and translated "remission" in Matt. 26:28; Mark 1:4; Luke 1:77; 3:3; 24:47; Acts 2:38; 5:31 (KJV, forgiveness"); 10:43; 13:38, RV (forgiveness") [14]

[1] James Likoudis and Kenneth Whitehead, The Pope, The Council and the Mass, The Christopher Publishing House, W. Hanover, Massachusetts, 1981, p. 75, Text in The Pope Speaks, Vol. 5, No. 2, Spring, 1959, pages 223 ff.

[2] Catholic Encyclopedia: Excerpts from the subject "Liturgy" authored by Adrian Fortescue,

[3] Pope, The Council and the Mass, Appendix 2, p. 240, quoting from "The Mass is the Same", Address of Pope Paul VI to a General Audience, November 19, 1969.

[4] Pope, The Council and the Mass, p. 128.

[5] ibid., p. 129, ‘Letter from his eminence Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani to Dom Gerard Lafond, O.S.B., in Documentation Catholique, ‘#67, 1970, pp. 215-216 and 343)

[6] I confirmed with the author, James Likoudis, of The Pope, The Council and the Mass, the veracity of this. He says he stand unalterably with the proof provided in his book, and provided the name mentioned above of the French Publisher who also confirmed the Cardinal’s support for the Mass.

[7] St. Justin Martyr, First Apology, Chap. LXV, Anti-Nicene Fathers, Vol. I, Chap LXV, p. 185, available at http://www.ewtn.com/library/PATRISTC/APOLOGY1.HTM

[8] Catholic Encyclopedia: Excerpt from the subject "Liturgy of The Mass" authored by Adrian Fortescue, 1913

[9] ibid.

[10] Council of Trent, Session 13, Chapters V and VI

[11] Pope St. Pius V, Quo Primum, 49. Available at http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P5QUOPRI.HTM

[12] Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger with Vittorio Messori, The Ratzinger Report, Ignatius Press, San Francisco. 1985, pp. 28-29.

[13] ibid., p. 31.

[14] Vines’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words Thomas Nelson, Inc Publishers
 

©2000, "Detection and Overthrow of the 'Traditionalist Catholics' Falsely So-Called" (Part 2, Section 2), written by Matt1618. This text may be downloaded or printed out for private reading, but it may not be uploaded to another Internet site or published, electronically or otherwise, without express written permission from the author.

Page created by: Matt1618. 
Send email with questions or comments on this writing to Matt1618 matt16182@yahoo.com