In the third place, the Consecration formula for the wine in the Novus Ordo Missae contains a lie. Yes, you heard correctly. A lie. The reader may well ask "What lie is that?" and I have no problem with answering this question. The Consecration formula for the Novus Ordo Missae attributes the following words to Christ Himself:

"Take this all of you, and drink form 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 in memory of me."

Matthew 26:27-28 And taking the chalice, he gave thanks, and gave to them, saying: Drink ye all of this. For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins.

(Consecration of the Host)
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 Consecration formula for the wine in the Novus Ordo Missae contains a lie. Yes, you heard correctly. A lie. The reader may well ask "What lie is that?" and I have no problem with answering this question. The Consecration formula for the Novus Ordo Missae attributes the following words to Christ Himself:"---

These guys are really stuck on this issue aren’t they? I have to repeat my demolition of their argument, I guess. Ok, the reason they give that the Pauline Rite Mass is a lie is because it says in its English Translation Consecration, it uses the word ‘all’. Since Jesus did not use the word ‘for all’ the Pauline Mass is a lie. Not only will I show that the translation of the words used in the consecration ‘for all’ is indeed a legitimate translation, but the fact is that these opponents either don’t know what they are talking about or they are hypocritical liars. Why in the world do I say that? Well, the above Tridentine translation shows this. Notice that in the consecration of both the bread and wine the Tridentine consecration formula explicitly says that these words are the words of Jesus. Yet what are the words that we see? The issue of for many or for all is actually secondary to this charge. The charge is that the Pauline Rite Mass adds the word "For All" and attributes that to Jesus. The same holds true for the Tridentine Mass. However, if you look at Matthew, Mark, Luke or Paul’s rendition in 1 Corinthians, absolutely nowhere is the term ‘Mystery of Faith" used. This is not even a question of a translation, which can be legitimately debated. So which is worse? Thus, if the Pauline Rite is a lie (when the only question concerned is whether it is legitimate to translate it "For All or For Many"), how much more is the Tridentine Rite a lie when the words "Mystery of Faith" (or any translation of it) were clearly not spoken by Jesus?

Actually, I don’t consider either of the Masses a lie, as the words do not have to be an exact repeat of Christ’s words, in order to be valid, as there have been numerous consecrations at numerous different rites, and they were all approved by the Church as valid. Nowhere did Jesus say "In order for this to be valid, you must say it in this exact formula of words." However, for those folks who insist on calling the Pauline Rite a lie because they feel that the words are not exactly the same as Jesus Christ’s words, they have dug their own graves with hypocrisy by ignoring the fact the words ‘Mystery of Faith’ was absolutely never a part of Christ’s words. They by their own criteria have rendered the Tridentine Rite a lie. The Church, thankfully does not operate by our opponent’s criteria, and both the Tridentine Rite and the Pauline Rite are valid and true Masses.

The theology behind them is the exact same as that in the Traditional Mass. Whereas, in the Novus Ordo Missae, they have changed both the theology behind the Words of Christ, and the Words of Christ Himself, contrary to the wishes and directions of Pope Paul VI in the very Apostolic Constitution. from which they derive their legitimacy - as we shall see further on. Are these the actions of people who are 1) faithful to the Traditions of the Church, 2) faithful to the Teachings and Words of Christ, and 3) obedient to the Pope? Obviously not.

Lastly, I would like to point out the fact that the Consecration formula for the wine - as given by Shawn - is a mistranslation from the Latin. According to the 1973 "Sacramentary," the Latin of the Consecration is as follows:

hic est enim calix Sanguinis mei novi et aeterni testamenti, qui pro vobis et pro multiseffundeturin remissionem peccatorum.

Hence, officially, the Consecration formula must contain the words "and for many," and not "for all," that last words in the Consecration are "for the remission of sins," not "for the forgiveness of sins." The fact that this is still the official position, is verified by the following citation from the Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum of Pope Paul VI, which is used by the Reformers - and their comrades - to justify this hatchet job of the Traditional Mass:

For pastoral reasons, however, and to facilitate concelebration, we have directed that the words of the Lord be identical in each form of the canon. Thus, in each eucharistic prayer, we wish that the words be as follows: .... over the chalice: Accipite et bibite ex eo omnes: Hic est enim calix Sanguinis mei novi et aeterni testamenti, qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum. Hoc facite in meam commemorationem.

Therefore, any attack on the validity of the Novus Ordo Missae is not an attack upon the Papacy, for Pope Paul VI himself officially "directed" that the Consecration formula for the wine remain the same - with the exception of the words "mysterium fidei" - as is found in the Traditional Mass. Hence, the English translation of the Novus Ordo - as given above and defended by Shawn - is in direct contradiction to the "directions" and "wishes" of His Holiness, Pope Paul VI. This, in turn, means that the Consecration formula cannot - by any stretch of the imagination - be considered to be covered by any form of papal infallibility, and an attack upon the new form is not, in and of itself, an attack upon any direction or order of the Pope - whereas the English version is in direct disobedience to the directions and wishes of Pope Paul VI.

Next, who is doing a hatchet job of what? Besides doing a hatchet job on Pope Paul VI intentions on the issue of "For Many" or "For All", we already have seen some hatcheting on your side when you make a big thing about supposed differences between ‘remission of sins’ and ‘forgiveness of sins’ when the meaning is the same.

The Latin version of the Pauline Rite Mass does have this translation, so I don’t know how this is a repudiation of Pope Paul VI. The gall of someone trashing his Holiness Pope Paul VI all the while bashing him as a heretic on the one hand, while at the same time pretending to defend him by saying "Oh, you mistranslated the Latin, aren’t you guys terrible" (when Pope Paul VI directly ruled otherwise). Remember, ‘remission’ of sins and ‘forgiveness’ of sins are synonymous. Next, we need to go to the "For Many" and "For All" issue on the translation aspect of this issue.

Pope has in fact ruled on the issue of "For Many" and "For All". Here is what Pope Paul VI ruled on the translation issue, on whether ‘for all’ is a legitimate translation, in 1970: A question on this issue was brought up to the Holy See, in 1970, while Pope Paul was still in office:

In certain vernacular versions of the text for consecrating wine, the words pro multis are translated thus: English, for all; Spanish, por todos, Italian, per tutti. Query:

a. Is there a sufficient reason for introducing this variant and if so, what is it?

b. Is the pertinent traditional teaching in the Catechism of the Council of Trent to be considered superseded?

c. Are all other versions of the Biblical passage in question to be regarded as less accurate?

d. Did something inaccurate and needing correction or emendation in fact slip in when the approval was given for such a version?

Reply: The variant involved is fully justified:

a. According to exegetes the Aramaic word translated in Latin by pro multis has as its meaning "for all"; the many for whom Christ died is without limit; it is equivalent to saying "Christ has died for all." The words of Saint Augustine are apposite: "See what he gave and you will discover what he bought. The price is Christ’s Blood. What is it worth but the whole world? What, but all peoples? Those who say either that the price is so small that it has purchased only Africans are ungrateful for the price they cost; those who say that they are so important that has been given for them alone are proud" [Enarr. in Ps. 95, 5].

b. The teaching of the Catechism (Trent’s Catechism) is in no way superseded: the distinction that Christ’s death is sufficient for all but efficacious for many remains valid.

c. In the approval of this vernacular variant in the liturgical text nothing inaccurate has slipped in that requires correction or emendation. [1]
 
 

In fact, in many cases the use of many, and for all, in the Bible are interchangeable. For example, in Rom. 5:15, Paul writes: For if many died through one man's trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift in the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many.

If Christ died only for many, and could not mean all, we would have Scripture contradicting Trent, which as faithful Catholics understand, is not possible. The Church teaches as dogma that original sin effects all, not many. Not only does Scripture not contradict Trent, Paul also uses the word for all in the very same section Paul wrote in Romans 5:12:

Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned.

The words in the way they are used by Paul are interchangeable. As Kenneth Whithead and James Likoudis relate:

Orthodox Biblical scholars have explained the apparent discrepancy, by pointing out that Hebrew and Aramaic words for "many," familiar to the Apostles, had a common meaning of "the all who are many" or an "undefined multitude." In other words the Bible on occasion uses the words many and all interchangeably. That is to say, the expression "for man" has a Semitic meaning that is equivalent in some cases to "for all men." The original Hebrew or Aramaic words came into the Greek New Testament simply as polloi, which in turn was perhaps somewhat simplistically translated into the Latin "multis" rather than "omnibus." In our day, there has been a greater awareness of the various meanings of all the words involved - and of the Semitic nuances underlying them. The Church has accordingly found no contradiction in doctrine in approving "for all men" in English - or "per tutti" in Italian - as a valid translation of the Latin "pro multis." Some scripture scholars believe "for all men" might even be a more faithful translation of the Holy Scriptures. [2]
 
 

The word which we translate as ‘many’ stresses the sense of a great number and does not exclude anyone...Jesus certainly makes this fullness of salvation his own and it is the whole of mankind of the end of space and time that he includes in this ‘many’ for whom he was going to give his life as a ‘ransom’" (Mt. 20:28; Mk. 10:45). [3]

The Semitic phrase ‘for many’ stands for a totality and not for a multitude in contrast to the whole. Hence it indicates the universality of Christ’s redemptive work. [4]

In fact, our opponents have someone (Mike Malone) who has written articles that they have linked to from their own web-pages, and is a ‘real’ Catholic according to them, i.e., Feeneyite, (unlike Pope John Paul II, Pope John Paul II, Pope Pius XII, etc. who are heretic ‘Catholics’), in an email that John Loughnan received, when writing of the issue ‘for all’:

In fact, this translation, although Scripturally inaccurate, may well be considered an approximation of the actual words of Consecration as given to us by the Evangelist St. Luke: "This is the chalice, the new testament in My blood, which shall be shed for you" (22:20). The final word of this formula (you) is in the plural, and might more accurately be translated "for you all" (especially if you are from San Antonio, Texas!) ~ precisely as St. Jerome rendered it in his Vulgate, the solitary translation of Holy Writ ever authorized by the Catholic Church in her entire history. Nevertheless, the best codices of Scripture demonstrate that it is not the formulary Our Lord Jesus Christ actually recited at the Last Supper, despite the fact that it clearly suffices for a valid confection of the Sacrament according to the most common and traditional theology, including that of St. Thomas Aquinas (Summa Theologica III, Q.78, Art 2, 4). The prolific St. Alphonsus Maria observes that there was once even a Consecration of the Host in the ancient Catholic Coptic Mass ~ brought by the Evangelist St. Mark to Egypt ~ which rendered the words of the transubstantiation of the host: "This is the Body"(!) It seems, therefore, that the Catholic Church has always supplied the proper understanding of the various thoughts expressed in our poor human idiom, even in her most sacrosanct ceremony. As the ancient dictum puts it: "Ecclesia Supplicet" ~ The Church supplies. Not even the venerable Tridentine Rite, codified by Pope St. Pius V in 1570, is capable of escaping this judgment, considering that its own Catechism was called upon to explain, at length and in detail, why its Mass continues to call "bread" what has already been transubstantiated into the Body of Jesus Christ. In the liturgies of virtually every Rite, therefore, a genuinely Catholic understanding must necessarily be supplied in certain instances, in order that misconstructions be curtailed and any affected ambiguity be overcome. [5]

Our opponents argue that it is absolutely necessary for a valid consecration to have the translation, "For Many" and "For All" thus invalidate the consecration. Is this a fact? We just saw that an ally of our opponents has admitted that it is a legitimate translation and it certainly doesn’t effect the consecration. But, hey, UltraTrads argue with each other all the time (Since they reject the authority of the Magisterium they become their own Popes or at least followers of other ‘Popes’ like Archbishop Lefebvre), so I am sure that they will argue that "Here, this Fellow UltraTrad is wrong."

Have all the valid consecrations in the past included the phrase "For Many"? Again, their argument falls by the wayside. What is the Eucharistic Prayer of the ancient St. Hippolytus?

Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you. And likewise also the cup, saying: This is my blood, which is shed for you. As often as you perform this, you perform my memorial.

Hence, officially, the Consecration formula must contain the words "and for many," and not "for all," that last words in the Consecration are "for the remission of sins," not "for the forgiveness of sins."

Of course no Church Fathers at the time condemned this supposed corruption, which was the Liturgy of St. Hippolytus. They should have been outraged, according to our opponents, that this Liturgy did not use the phrase, "For Many" or "For the Remission of Sins". Let us assume that all the Fathers were asleep and the ‘Pope’ Hammers of the time were just looking the other way, and didn’t quite catch it. Surely, all the other Liturgies used the phrase "For Many" and "The Remission of Sins", right? Remember, according to our opponents they must say those things in order for those consecrations to be valid. Maybe it was just a fluke with the St. Hippolytus canon.

Unfortunately for our opponents they are wrong again. Many Liturgies did not use the consecratory formula that our opponents said that must be used in order for there to be a valid consecration.

Here are a couple of Old Liturgies finds of recent history of Egyptian liturgies. The Sacramentary of Serapion, written about 353-356 AD by Serapion, Bishop of Thmuis, a colleague of both St. Athanasius, and of St. Anthony gives us an ancient liturgical text, and following that a Deir Balizeh manuscript that goes back to the third century:

We have offered also the cup, the likeness of the blood, because the Lord Jesus Christ, taking a cup after supper, said to his disciples, ‘Take ye, drink, this is the new covenant, which is my blood, which is being shed for you for remission of sins.’"

Likewise after supper he took the cup, and when he had blessed it and had drunk, he gave it to them saying, Take, drink all of it. This is my blood which is being shed for you unto remission of sins." [6]
 
 

And likewise also the cup giving thanks, he blessed it, and hallowed it, and gave it to his disciples, and said unto them, Take, drink, this is my blood (pointing and bowing profoundly), which is shed for you for the remission of sins."

Take, drink this cup: my blood it is, which is shed for you for the remission of sin.

A study done by Dom Leclerq finds that there have been no fewer than 89 variations in the formulas for consecration in the history of the Church. Of these variations there are a number where not only the phrase "for many' but other words of the "Tridentine' form of the consecration are not to be found.

Scholars studying the Eastern rites can point to many anaphoras, or Eucharistic prayers, which do not include the "for many." The "For many" is included in the contemporary liturgy of almost all of the Eastern rites or churches today (except the Ethiopian); but the fact that it has not always and everywhere been included in rites whose validity the Catholic Church has never questioned or doubted, amply demonstrates that it is not essential for validity. And whether it is essential has been precisely the question we are concerned with there. [7]
 
 

Hence, officially, the Consecration formula must contain the words "and for many," and not "for all," that last words in the Consecration are "for the remission of sins," not "for the forgiveness of sins."

Dr. Ludwig Ott, in the authoritative Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, gives us the true Catholic view on the matter:

The words of institution demonstrate, at least with a high degree of probability, that at the Last Supper Jesus effected the transmutation by the words: "This is My Body," "This is My Blood," and not by a mere act of will, or by the blessing or thanksgiving, as many theologians, notably of the early period of Scholasticism, for example Innocent III (De sacro altaris mysterio IV 6) assumed. According to the mandate of Christ: "Do this in commemoration of Me," The Church must similarly complete the consecration, as did Christ, by the words of consecration.[8]
 
 

The old Christian tradition teaches that Christ consecrated with the words of institution. Tertullian remarks: "He took bread...and made it into His Body, by speaking: "This is my Body" (Adv. Marcionem IV 40). As far as the consecration effected by the Church is concerned, the Fathers ascribed this either to the whole prayer of thanksgiving, which is contained in the narrative of the institution, or expressly to the words of institution. According to St. Justin, the consecration occurred "by words of prayer stemming from Him =Christ)" (Apol. II 66). According to St. Irenaeus, the bread assumes the "invocation of God" or "the Word of God" and thereby becomes the Eucharist (Adv. Haer. IV 18, 5: V 2, 3). According to Origen the bread, which is offered "with thanksgiving and prayer" becomes "through the prayer" the Body of Christ (C. Celsum VIII 33); the Eucharistic nourishment is sanctified" by God’s words and prayer" (In Matt. comm. 11, 14). St. Ambrose, Ps.-Eusebius of Emesa, St. John Chrysostem expressly teach that the transmutation is effected by the words of institution of Christ. St. Ambrose explains: "The words of Christ complete therefore this Sacrament" (De sacr. IV 4, 14). St. John Chrysostem says: "The priest stands there and sets up the outward sign, while speaking these words; but the power and the grace are of God. ‘This is My Body’ he says. These words transmute the gifts" (De proditione Judas hom. 1, 6). St. John of Damascus mention both the words of institution and the Epiclesis (De fide orth. IV 13).[9]

"In this Sacrament something is present by force of conversion, and something by natural concomitance. By force of conversion there is present that which is the immediate term into which conversion is made. Such under the species of bread is the Body of Christ, into which the substance of bread is converted by the words, This is my body. Such again under the species of wine is the Blood of Christ, when it is said, This is the chalice of my blood." [10]

Thus, it is not the Consecration done at a Pauline Rite Mass that is invalid, it is the arguments of the opponents that are invalid.

Directly after the consecration for the wine, the Novus Ordo Missae contains several "memorial acclamations" directly following the words "Let us proclaim the mystery of faith." To cite the Ottaviani Intervention on this:

The priest now pronounces the formulas for Consecration as part of an historical narrative, rather than as Christ's representative issuing the affirmative judgment "This is My Body." Furthermore, the people's Memorial Acclamation which immediately follows the Consecration--"Your holy death, we proclaim, O Lord...until you come"--introduces the same ambiguity about the Real Presence under the guise of an allusion to the Last Judgment. Without so much as a pause, the people proclaim their expectation of Christ at the end of time, just at the moment when He is *substantially present* on the altar--as if Christ's real coming will occur only at the end of time, rather than there on the altar itself. The second optional Memorial Acclamation brings this out even more strongly:

"When we eat this bread and drink this cup, we proclaim your death, Lord Jesus, until you come in glory."

The juxtaposition of entirely different realities--immolation and eating, the Real Presence and Christ's Second Coming--brings ambiguity to a new height.

"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.

Second, the idea that this is merely a historical narrative, is destroyed by the fact that he had just prayed that the bread and wine will become the Body and Blood. It is apparent to all that right here, the prayer he says, will make the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ.

Third, this argument shows the totally Unscriptural views of our opponents. Paul probably wrote the first consecration in scripture, 1 Cor. 11:23-26: "For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, 'This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.' In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, 'This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.' For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes"

St. Paul is already in trouble with these guys and is probably a ‘Catholic’ heretic because he doesn’t use the words "Mystery of Faith", "For Many", or "Remission of sins" So he is 0 for 3 with these guys. But on top of that our opponents must argue that St. Paul is exceedingly ambiguous because he seems to use the Pauline Rite acclamation, and boy he gets confused and ambiguous!!! How dare he not know our opponents’ pronouncements!!!

Fourth, besides that, in looking through some of the early Liturgies, I see for example, that in the Divine Liturgy of St. James, we get exactly the juxtapostion that our opponents complained about:

In like manner, after supper, He took the cup, and having mixed wine and water, lifting up His eyes to heaven and presenting it to Thee, His God and Father, He gave thanks, and hallowed and blessed it, and filled it with the Holy Spirit, and gave it to us His disciples, saying, Drink ye all of it; this is my blood of the new testament shed for you and many, and distributed for the remission of sins.]

The People: Amen

The Priest: This do in remembrance of me; for as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show forth the Lord’s death, and confess His resurrection, till He come.

The Deacons say: We believe and confess:

The People: We show forth Thy death, O Lord, and confess Thy resurrection.

The Priest: XXXI. Remembering, therefore, His life-giving sufferings, His saving cross, His death and his burial, and resurrection from the dead on the third day, and his ascension into heaven, and sitting at the right hand of Thee our God and Father, and His second glorious and awful appearing, when He shall come with glory to judge the quick and the dead, and render to every one according to His works; even we sinful men, offer unto Thee, O Lord, this dread and bloodless sacrifice, praying that Thou wilt not deal with us after our sins, nor reward us according to our iniquities:... [11]
 
 

The next section which Shawn emphasized is as follows:

Priest: IN MEMORY OF HIS DEATH AND RESURRECTION, WE OFFER YOU, FATHER, THIS LIFE-GIVING BREAD, THIS SAVING CUP. (John 6:51) We thank you for counting us worthy to stand in your presence and serve you.

As was stated above, the terms "bread of life" and "spiritual drink" were very ambiguous. The same goes with these terms. The term "life-giving bread" does not have to refer to the Body and Blood of Christ, and the same goes with the term "saving cup." They could be taken 1) in a symbolic sense, 2) in a material sense, and 3) in a Catholic sense. And there’s a one in three chance that someone will get it right. But even if they chose this particular prayer, it’s still quite obvious that it’s not a clear-cut statement of the sacrificial nature of the Mass.
 

I don't think Shawn is 'padding' at all. The other Eucharistic prayers have in fact clearer Sacrificial language. In fact, the other prayers are even more explicit in Sacrificial language, so the padding charge is ridiculous. Well, as the Priest holds up the Body and Blood of Christ, and he says things like 'Life-giving Bread' and 'Saving Cup', what in the world do you think he is talking about? He is not talking allegory, or talking about some figure. The specific item that the Priest is holding up, just happen to be what he is talking about, which is the Body and Blood of Christ. No one in Catholic theology thinks that ‘Life-giving Bread’ or the ‘Saving Cup’ could actually only be ‘bread’ or ‘wine’. How anyone can mistake that I don't understand. Unless the person who is critiquing is really just looking for another illegitimate reason to criticize a duly authorized Mass.

Priest: MAY ALL OF US WHO SHARE IN THE BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST BE BROUGHT TOGETHER IN UNITY BY THE HOLY SPIRIT. (1 Cor.10:17) Lord, remember your Church throughout the world; make us grow in love together with N. our Pope N. our bishop, and all the clergy.

Hence we see that the statements brought forth by Shawn as clearly stating the "sacrificial nature" of the Novus Ordo Missae are not, in fact, as clear-cut as he would have us believe.
 

1) Again, ‘Lifegiving Bread’ and ‘Saving Cup’ can only be referring to the Lifegiving Eucharist, unless one just wants to act confused for the sake of false arguments. 2) There is no mention that I saw in the Tridentine Prayer of "The Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ’ either. 3) Here is the full fledged, most ancient canon that we have, the Eucharistic Prayer of St. Hippolytus, as linked to by our opponents. Let us see how much sacrificial language there is in comparison to the Pauline Rite prayer 2:

We give you thanks, O God through your beloved Servant Jesus Christ, whom at the end of time you did send to us a Savior and Redeemer and the Messenger of your counsel Who is your Word, inseparable from you; through whom you did make all things and in whom you are well pleased. Whom you did send from heaven into the womb of the Virgin, and who, dwelling within her, was made flesh, and was manifested as your Son, being born of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin. Who, fulfilling your will, and winning for himself a holy people, spread out his hands when he came to suffer, that by his death he might set free them who believed on you.

Who, when he was betrayed to his willing death, that he might bring to naught death, and break the bond of the devil, and tread hell under foot, and give light to the righteous and set up a boundary post, and manifest his resurrection, taking bread and giving thanks to you said:

Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you. And likewise also the cup, saying: This is my blood, which is shed for you. As often as you perform this, you perform my memorial.

Having in memory, therefore, his death and resurrection, we offer to you the bread and the cup, yielding you thanks, because you have counted us worthy to stand before you and to minister to you. And we pray you that you would send your Holy Spirit upon the offering of your holy church; that you, gathering them into one, would grant to all your saints who partake to be filled with the Holy Spirit, that their faith may be confirmed in truth, that we may praise and glorify you.

Through your Servant Jesus Christ, through whom be to you glory and honor, with the Holy Spirit in the holy church, both now and always and world without end. Amen.

Furthermore, if this is an "explicit reference" to the sacrificial nature of the Novus Ordo Missae, then we must hold that the Anglican Liturgy (which doesn't believe in the True Presence, or the True Sacrificial Nature of the Mass) also contains "explicit references" to the sacrifice. For example, in the 1552 "Book of Common Prayer" the following prayer is to be found:

O God our heavenly father, which of thy tender mercy didst give thine only son Jesus Christ, to suffer death upon the cross for our redemption, who made there (by his oblation once offered) a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction, for the sins of the whole world, and did institute, and in his holy Gospel command us to continue, a perpetual memory of that his precious death, until his coming again: Hear us (O merciful father) we beseech thee; and grant that we, receiving these thy creatures of bread and wine, according to thy son our Savior Jesus Christ's holy institution, in remembrance of his death and passion, may be partakers of his most blessed body and blood:

Dear beloved, forasmuch as our duty is to render to Almighty God our heavenly father most hearty thanks, for that he hath given his Son our savior Jesus Christ, not only to die for us, but also to be our spiritual food and sustenance, as it is declared unto us, as well by God's word as by the holy Sacraments of his blessed body and blood, the which being so comfortable to them which receive it worthily, and so dangerous to them that will presume to receive it unworthily: ......

References to the Body and Blood of Our Lord are not explicit references to the True Presence, or the Sacrificial Nature of the Holy Mass. The Anglicans themselves make frequent use of the words "body" and "blood" in reference to their "sacraments," but they do not believe in the True Presence, nor do they believe in the Sacrifice of the Mass. Hence we see that a mere reference to the "Body and Blood of Christ" is not proof of anything, but is a very ambiguous phrase.

25 In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me." 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. 27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord.

Remember again, that in the Eucharist Prayer #2 the Eucharist is called the life-giving bread, and saving cup. What the priest holds up, he explains, does such things as gives life and saves us. That is the True Presence of Christ that emphasizes both the Sacrifice and True Presence. It gives grace. The phrase ‘saving cup’ and ‘life-giving’ bread is not found in the Anglican prayer you just gave.

Shawn continues.

I see nothing illicit, doubtfully valid, sacrilegeously valid, or even invalid about this canon whatsoever. We can talk matter and form of Consecration of course (and I will discuss that in the next section) but I see no way that the canon does not emphasize the sacrifice of the Mass except perhaps that it is not as explicit as the Tridentine Rite Canon (or indeed the other 3 Eucharistic Prayers of the Pauline Rite Mass).

We’re happy to see that Shawn admits that the Traditional Canon is far more explicit insofar as the Sacrificial nature of the Mass goes, than the Novus Ordoite "Eucharistic Prayers." But insofar as illicit, doubtfully valid, or sacrilegiously valid, is concerned, this can certainly be implied in the above "Eucharistic Prayer." As we have seen with the "consecration," it doesn’t even have the same meaning as the Words spoken by Christ, nor is it in accordance with the wishes and directions of Pope Paul VI. It doesn’t even match the official Latin version of the Novus Ordo. It is a truncated "consecration."
 

You have proven absolutely nothing, and this earlier charge of a lie, comes back to boomerang back upon you. The words in the Tridentine Mass certainly are not the words of Christ and the Tridentine Mass clearly adds words that were not Christ’s, and the translation "For All" in the Pauline Rite Mass is a legitimate translation. The variations in the formula of consecration have been numerous, yet none of those consecrations are called into doubt except by heretically-inclined people who approve of blatant schism. In fact, none of the consecrations in questions have the exact same form of Jesus’ words. Yet the Catholic ones are all valid. The gall of someone to put in quotes "consecration" and "Eucharistic Prayer", as though they are not really, and for these folks to pretend to be Catholics is disgusting.

It would not hurt to mention here that the Tridentine Canon is still used in substantial form as Eucharistic Prayer #1 of the Pauline Rite. In this prayer, the offering made is referred to as a sacrifice 4 times explicitly and arguably 2 more times implicitly (will "traditionalists" claim that the Tridentine Canon is not "sacrificial" in nature???).

As it is, the Traditional Canon and "Eucharistic Prayer Form Number One" are not "substantially the same." For those who wish to see a comparison of the two, there is an online version available at the Catholic Liturgical Library.

In the "Liturgy of the Eucharist", just before the "Eucharistic Prayer" (and this part is common to all N.O. "Masses"), the prayer "Blessed are you Lord God of all Creation...." begins. Here is the text of the prayer, with the appropriate sections in bold print:
 

Notice that he fails to address Shawn’s point that the offering that is made is referred to as a sacrifice four times!!! Why doesn’t he show us canon 1 directly? Let us see if there is "no explicit sacrificial language in canon 1". I leave the link in there because I don’t mind at all the comparison between Canon 1 of the Pauline Mass and the Tridentine canon. Notice that he must run to the preparatory prayers, and try to claim heresy without addressing Shawn’s facts. I will here actually give the Eucharistic prayer directly from the site they referred us to. Remember, there is either supposed to be no sacrificial language or little if any, or ambiguous. I do edit out the final prayers and doxology.

We come to you, Father, with praise and thanksgiving, through Jesus Christ your Son. Through him we ask you to accept and bless + these gifts we offer you in sacrifice. We offer them for your holy catholic Church, watch over it, Lord, and guide it; grant it peace and unity throughout the world. We offer them for N. our Pope, for N. our bishop, and for all who hold and teach the catholic faith that comes from the apostles.

(For the Living)

Remember, Lord, your people, especially those for whom we now pray, N. and N. Remember all of us gathered here before you. You know how firmly we believe in you and dedicate ourselves to you. We offer you this sacrifice of praise for ourselves and those who are dear to us. We pray to you, our living and true God, for our well-being and redemption.

(Invocation of the Saints)

In union with the whole Church we honor Mary, the ever-virgin mother of Jesus Christ our Lord and God. We honor Joseph, her husband, the apostles and martyrs Peter and Paul, Andrew, (James, John, Thomas, James, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Simon and Jude; we honor Linus, Cletus, Clement, Sixtus, Cornelius, Cyprian, Lawrence, Chrysogonus, John and Paul, Cosmas and Damian) and all the saints. May their merits and prayers gain us your constant help and protection. (Through Christ our Lord. Amen.)

Prayers at Consecration

(Oblation of the Victim of God)

Father accept this offering from your whole family.Grant us your peace in this life, save us from final damnation, and count us among those you have chosen.(Through Christ our Lord. Amen.) Bless and approve our offering; make it acceptable to you, an offering in spirit and in truth. Let it become for us the body and blood of Jesus Christ, your only Son, our Lord. (Through Christ our Lord. Amen.)

(The Communion Narrative)

The day before he suffered he took bread in his sacred hands and looking up to heaven, to you, his almighty Father, he gave you thanks and praise. 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.
When supper was ended, he took the cup. Again he gave you 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 in memory of me.

(The Mystery of Faith) Let us proclaim the mystery of faith:

A.Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again.
B.Dying you destroyed our death, rising you restored our life. Lord Jesus, come in glory.
C.When we eat this bread and drink this cup, we proclaim your death, Lord Jesus, until you come in glory.
D.Lord, by your cross and resurrection you have set us free. You are the savior of the world.

Prayers after Consecration

(To Offer the Victim) Father, we celebrate the memory of Christ, your Son. We, your people and your ministers, recall his passion, his resurrection from the dead, and his ascension into glory; and from the many gifts you have given us we offer you, God of glory and majesty, this holy and perfect sacrifice: the bread of life and the cup of eternal salvation.

(To Ask God to Accept Our Offering) Look with favor on these offerings and accept them as once you accepted the gifts of your servant Abel, the sacrifice of Abraham, our father in faith, and the bread and wine offered by your priest Melchisedech.

(For Blessings) Almighty God, we pray that your angel may take this sacrifice to your altar in heaven. Then, as we receive from this altar the sacred body and blood of your Son, + let us be filled with every grace and blessing. (Through Christ our Lord. Amen.)
 
 

Now, onto the critiques of the preparatory prayer and the supposed heresy.

"Blessed are you, Lord, God of all creation. Through your goodness we have this bread to offer, which earth has given and human hands have made. It will become for us the bread of life."

"Blessed are you, Lord, God of all creation. Through your goodness we have this wine to offer, fruit of the vine and work of human hands. It will become for us our spiritual drink."

"We come to you, Father, with praise and thanksgiving, through Jesus Christ your Son. Through him we ask you to accept and bless these gifts (i.e., the bread and wine) we offer you in sacrifice."

Eucharistic prayer I attempts to offer to God vegetables, not a living sacrifice. We remind the reader of Cain’s "sacrifice" to God in Genesis: Abel offered to God a lamb, and it was acceptable. Cain tried to offer to God vegetables as well; he tried to give Him "fruit of the earth... fruit of the vine", and God rejected his sacrifice as unworthy.

We ask the reader to, if he doesn’t already believe us concerning Eucharistic Prayer I and it’s offering to God bread and wine and not the Body and Blood of Christ, to obtain a Novus Ordo missalette and read it for himself. Eucharistic Prayer I undoubtedly contains heresy.
 

Notice that while trying to show that Eucharist Prayer I is heretical, they don’t even quote from the Eucharistic prayer itself, which clearly shows that it is Jesus who is the bread of life and cup of salvation that is offered in Sacrifice, not bread and wine. I had to do it for you, and what it clearly shows that it is Jesus himself who is offered in sacrifice, and it is this sacrifice that the priest asks the angels to carry to heaven. Of course, our opponents have to ignore the Eucharist prayers, and are reduced to editing preparatory prayers , (and throw in his comments that what is being offered in sacrifice is bread and wine) when the preparatory text itself does not say it. And they complain about the Church adding words!!! Yes, first we have bread and wine. We do in fact offer bread and wine, but this is not what is being offered in sacrifice!!! Of course Catholics do have this thing called ‘Transubstantiation’. It means first we have bread and wine. Then after the consecration it becomes the Body and Blood of Christ. That is when the sacrifice takes place: at the moment of consecration. However, before that point, we do have nothing but bread and wine. We do have nothing but that before the consecration. Of course we don’t have Christ yet to be offered because the Consecration hasn’t taken place yet!!! This is preparatory prayers, remember? And as he quoted in the preparatory prayer, what happens? They become for us the bread of life and cup of salvation!!! That is when the sacrifice is made present. Only then. Thus, it shows that there is a transformation that takes place. This is indeed what is then offered in sacrifice, which the Eucharistic prayer, which our opponents ignored, CLEARLY SHOWS!!! It becomes for us the Body and Blood of Christ. The Eucharist Prayer itself shows what is being offered is Jesus, who is the bread of life.

Eucharistic Prayer #3 is a truncated version of Prayer #1 (the Tridentine Canon) and mentions the Eucharist as a sacrificial offering explicitly twice, implicitly as a "perfect offering" twice, and Our Lord as the "victim" being offered once: how is this not "sacrificial" in nature???).

So what? Even if it does supposedly refer to a "sacrificial offering" twice, how often does it undermine that teaching? As was shown above, "Eucharistic Prayer Form Number One" is offering bread and wine to God - not the Body and Blood Soul and Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ.
 

As shown above, you showed no such thing that what is offered in Sacrifice to God is bread. Yes, if the Catholic Church stated that what is offered in sacrifice was bread and wine, it would be heretical. However, as we showed quite clearly what was offered in sacrifice was the body and blood of Christ. BTW, checking out the Tridentine Eucharistic prayer (Notice I do not denigrate the Tridentine Prayer by putting the term Eucharistic in quotes, because it is a real, efficacious Prayer), we see that nowhere at all is there a mention of a renewal of the Sacrifice of Jesus' Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity. So the earlier attack on the Pauline Rite because it doesn't use the phrase 'Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity' is absolutely senseless as the Tridentine Rite doesn't use the phrase either. Eucharistic Prayer III says:

We offer you in thanksgiving THIS HOLY AND LIVING SACRIFICE. Look with favor on your Church's offering, and see the Victim, whose death has reconciled us to your self.....Lord, may this sacrifice, which has made our peace with you, advance the peace and salvation of all the world.

Eucharistic Prayer IV says:

 
Father , we now celebrate this memorial of our redemption. We recall Christ’s death, his descent among the dead, his resurrection, and his ascension to your right hand; and looking foward to his coming in glory, We offer you his body and blood, THE ACCEPTABLE SACRIFICE which brings salvation to the whole world.

Lord, look upon this sacrifice which you have given to your Church; and by your Holy Spirit, gather all who share this one bread and one cup into the one body of Christ, a living sacrifice of praise.

Lord, remember those for whom we offer this sacrifice...

Getting back to Eucharistic Prayer #2 (the one detailed above) there are still 4 implicit references to the Real Presence and the sacrificial overtones are hardly lacking even if they are not as explicit as in the Tridentine Rite or indeed the other 3 Eucharistic Prayers of the Pauline Rite (this will be touched on in a bit later on).

As the dictionary defines the term "implicit": "implied, rather than expressly stated." (Random House College Dictionary, p. 667) The same dictionary defines the term "implied" as follows: "involved, indicated, or suggested by implying;" (ibid). Hence, what we have is four "suggestions" of the True Presence. As it is, this might very well explain two things. In the first place, why "Eucharistic Prayer Form Number Two" is the most commonly used "Eucharistic Prayer" here in the United States. In the second place, why it is that 70% of Catholics nowadays don’t even believe in the True Presence (1992 Gallop Poll). If the True Presence was as explicit in the Novus Ordo Missae as Shawn seems to think, then why is it that 70% of "Catholics" in the United States today - who attend the Novus Ordo Missae (hopefully) at least once a month - don’t believe in it?
 

First of all, your attack on the sacrifice not being explicit enough will make you want to again condemn earlier liturgies where likewise the Sacrifice is only implicit. Again, do you want to condemn the earliest full Liturgy that we have on hand as invalid? I repeat my earlier quotation of the St. Hippolytus canon. I know you don’t like it, because 1) It does not use the word ‘For Many’. 2) It does not use the words Mystery of Faith in the consecration; 3) It does not use the words ‘Remission of sins’. I know the Hammer triplets don’t like it, but I don’t like to tell those who are reading this, that the most ancient Liturgy we have (and closest to the time of Jesus) on hand is invalid, and the Church does not impugn this Liturgy as you do. However, the Sacrificial mentions in the Liturgy here is also only implicit. Again, here it is, from the Web Site that you gave us:

We give you thanks, O God through your beloved Servant Jesus Christ, whom at the end of time you did send to us a Savior and Redeemer and the Messenger of your counsel Who is your Word, inseparable from you; through whom you did make all things and in whom you are well pleased. Whom you did send from heaven into the womb of the Virgin, and who, dwelling within her, was made flesh, and was manifested as your Son, being born of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin. Who, fulfilling your will, and winning for himself a holy people, spread out his hands when he came to suffer, that by his death he might set free them who believed on you.

Who, when he was betrayed to his willing death, that he might bring to naught death, and break the bond of the devil, and tread hell under foot, and give light to the righteous and set up a boundary post, and manifest his resurrection, taking bread and giving thanks to you said:

Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you. And likewise also the cup, saying: This is my blood, which is shed for you. As often as you perform this, you perform my memorial.

Having in memory, therefore, his death and resurrection, we offer to you the bread and the cup, yielding you thanks, because you have counted us worthy to stand before you and to minister to you. And we pray you that you would send your Holy Spirit upon the offering of your holy church; that you, gathering them into one, would grant to all your saints who partake to be filled with the Holy Spirit, that their faith may be confirmed in truth, that we may praise and glorify you.

Through your Servant Jesus Christ, through whom be to you glory and honor, with the Holy Spirit in the holy church, both now and always and world without end. Amen.

I guess we have ‘proof’ for our opponents by Gallop Polls? The fact is, that when the poll is actually taken, actually about 2/3 actually believe in the True Presence of Christ. Some believed in Consubstantiation, which clearly identified Jesus as truly present in the Eucharist, but is indeed inaccurate for a Catholic. Yes, only 30% quizzed knew that it was Transubstantiation, but if there was a poll of Pre-Vatican II Catholics how many would know the difference between accidents and substance and would be able to identify the meaning of the term ‘Transubstantiation"? It is indeed a low number who correctly identify the Eucharistic meaning, but I suspect that it wouldn’t have been 100% Transubstantiation identification by Catholics before Vatican II.

To blame the lack of belief of Catholics on Prayer #2 is shortsighted and again hypocritical. Why do I say hypocritical? Because, if we are to go by the criteria of the Prayer # 2 causing unbelief then we can easily blame the Tridentine Mass for all the apostasy of the Faith that ensued after the Tridentine Reform. If they are to be consistent, they must blame the wholesale apostasy from the Catholic Faith and the rapid growth of Protestantism on the Council of Trent and the Tridentine Mass (such as they blame Vatican II and the Reform of the Mass for this problem). They are hypocritical if they blame the Pauline Rite and Vatican II, for the lack of belief problems, but instead laud the Tridentine Rite when the lack of belief in the Eucharist that followed skyrocketed. As a historian who studied the issue of apostasy from the faith After the Council of Trent writes:

The apostasy from the Catholic Church in the sixteenth century was followed in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries by wholesale apostasy from Christianity itself.[12]

Some rubrics are switched in order but if that is an illicit or invalidating feature then we have been without a licit or valid Mass since at least the 3rd century if not earlier (Eucharistic Prayer #2 being based on a 3^rd century canon I might add.

In the first place, we agree, the "switching" of rubrics does not invalidate the Mass, but it can become an implicit denial of the True Presence. The number of rubrics and practices expressing Faith in the Real Presence which have been suppressed in the Novus Ordo Missae is really quite telling. To cite the Ottaviani Intervention :
 

Again, to cite Cardinal Ottaviani on the issue of the purity of the Pauline Rite:

"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 Novus Ordo] and the activity of the Militia Sanctae Mariae WIDE DIFFUSION AND SUCCESS." [13]

 "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."[14]
 

Genuflections. No more than three remain for the priest, and (with certain exceptions) one for the faithful at the moment of the Consecration.

Purification of the priest’s fingers over the chalice.

Preserving the priest’s fingers from all profance contact after the Consecratoin.

Purification of sacred vessels, which need not be done immediately nor made on the corporal.

Protecting the contents of the chalice with a pall.

Gilding for the interior of sacred vessels.

Solemn consecration for movable altars.

Consecrated stones and relics of the saints in the movable altar or on the "table" when Mass is celebrated outside a sacred place. (The latter leads straight to "eucharistic dinners" in private homes.)

Three cloths on the altar - reduced to one.

Thanksgiving for the Eucharist made kneeling, now replaced by the grotesque practice of the priest and people sitting to make their thanksgiving - a logical enough accompaniment to receiving Communion standing.

All the ancient prescriptions observed in the case of a host which fell, which are now reduced to a single, nearly sarcastic direction: "It is to be picked up reverently."

All these suppressions only emphasize how outrageously faith in the dogma of the Real Presence is implicitly repudiated. 16

For people attacking the Pauline Rite by speaking about how horrible it was to suppress some rubrics is again, hypocritical to say the least. Remember, the Tridentine rite suppressed many a rubric and words when it imposed itself on other Rites. I repeat an earlier citation from the Catholic Encyclopedia:

No doubt the use of Latin was a factor in the Roman tendency to shorten the prayers, leave out whatever seemed redundant in formulas, and abridge the whole service. Latin is naturally terse, compared with the rhetorical abundance of Greek. This difference is one of the most obvious distinctions between the Roman and the Eastern Rites. [15]

As we have noted, the Catholic Encyclopedia noted, we have seen that when the Roman Rite was instituted, it did away with many rubrics that were repetitive. This is following along with the fact that in the Leonine Sacramentary, as we have seen, had 270 Prefaces ‘suppressed’ when it showed many reverential expressions toward God. The ‘Pope’ Hammers of the time must have had a fit, when the Leonine Sacramentaries had 270 Prefaces reduced to one. On some of the issues of rubrics, was it necessarily good that all was taken away? Not necessarily so, but to charge that eliminating rubrics imply a denial of the Body and Blood of Christ is to charge that when the Latin Mass eliminated all the Greek rubrics which undoubtedly honored God also, also implicitly denied the Body and Blood of Christ. Are you going to be consistent? I doubt it. Consistency continues to eliminate your arguments.

On one or two of the specifics.: The charge that

Thanksgiving for the Eucharist made kneeling, now replaced by the grotesque practice of the priest and people sitting to make their thanksgiving - a logical enough accompaniment to receiving Communion standing.
 

Well, at most of the parishes that I have been to, most people do indeed kneel after Communion. However, to charge that it is a grotesque practice of not kneeling after communion is to charge the Eastern Churches, whose Tradition is Apostolic, as grotesque. They likewise do not kneel after the Consecration. Receiving Communion standing is also an ancient Tradition, and does in no way imply a repudiation of belief in the Body and Blood of Christ. Otherwise, for the first 15 centuries there was a repudiation of belief in Christ as the people did not have kneelers back then, as Shawn has pointed out to you. Were Christians for the first 15 centuries 'grotesque' because they didn't have kneelers back then? Our opponents arguments are indeed insulting. The fact that the Eastern Churches do not have these specific rubrics does not mean that they thus imply a repudiation of belief in Christ’s True Presence.

Concerning the "Rite of Peace" in the Novus Ordo Missae, permit us to provide a lengthy citation from the May/June 1998 issue of RealCatholicism on the matter:

What is the Peace of Christ?
According to Fr. James Wathen, O.S.J., "His peace resides in the heart of the man who adheres to Him through the theological virtues of faith, hope and charity. Peace is the fruit of such a relationship. Peace among men... is the unity and harmony which exists among those who share this relationship with Christ." 17 The Eucharist is what he terms "both the cause and the perfect symbol" of union in Christ.

The Rite of Peace in the Mass
There is an indication by Justin Martyr of a liturgical greeting used in the 2nd century Church. (A vestige of the kiss of peace remains in the Tridentine Solemn High Mass.) Arguing from ancient practice, the rite has been introduced in the New Mass, wherein, shortly after the Our Father, all present are instructed to "offer one another a sign of Christ's peace." Generally this means that the people turn from the newly consecrated Christ on the altar and greet as many fellow participants as possible; usually the priest himself turns his back on the altar and shakes hands with those in the immediate vicinity.

Restoration of ancient practice?
Although the argument advanced by liturgical reformers is that the Rite of Peace represents a restoration of ancient practice, it is a partial and selective restoration. In the early Church, the Mass proper was attended only by believers; Catechumens had already been dismissed before the Kiss of Peace was given. While the Kiss of Peace was shared by all present, all present could be presumed to be believers in a state of grace.

Should everyone participate?
Fr. James Wathen also maintains that "It is plainly contrary to all reason for anyone and everyone to be permitted, even encouraged, to take part in such a ceremony. The peace of Christ cannot exist between His friends and those who, for whatever reason, refuse to accept His total sovereignty over them." It is therefore highly improper for the rite, in the New Mass, to include all present without regard for their condition of soul and their relationship to the Church. If the Eucharist is both the "cause and the perfect symbol" of union in Christ, what is said symbolically by the inclusion in the rite of the 70% of Roman Catholics who reject the doctrine of transubstantiation? Of those who dissent from Church teaching on matters of sexual morality, and consequently persist in a state of mortal sin?

According to Canon Law, in fact, those who are not in good standing in the Church may not participate in her liturgical functions -- they are to attend only. Fr. Wathen continues, "For the Rite of Peace, this injunction should also cover those who, though not excommunicated, are known to be living in sin. Since they are obviously rejecting the peace of Christ by their way of life, this should go without saying... It was for just such reasons... that the kiss of peace ceased to be given among the lay people in the traditional liturgy. Rather than violate the truth and the spirit of the ceremony on the one hand, and rather than be forced to exclude particular individuals on the other, it was found necessary so to abbreviate it."

The Cult of Man
Fr. Wathen states that "this rite does not unite one with his neighbor in the Eucharistic Christ; it pits his neighbor against Christ. It says in effect that those present are failing in love if, during the most precious and solemn moments when Jesus of Nazareth is passing by, they do not turn away from Him and fuss over their brothers and sisters. This rite makes it an obligation, a strict duty of charity, to turn away from Christ and devote oneself to the greeting and salutation of his fellows." Fr. Wathen also considers the universal nature of the rite a form of sensitivity training, wherein we are "seduced into saying and doing things which implicitly, sometimes very explicitly, go counter to [our] own personal beliefs, clear knowledge and natural inclinations."

Fr. Frederick Miller wrote that "for some the Mass is now understood as an opportunity in which one may experience community, fraternization and vague feelings of togetherness to the exclusion of transcendental values." (Frederick L. Miller, Homiletic & Pastoral Review, July 1977) Michael Davies has characterized much of what transpires at contemporary liturgies as "the cult of man" -- behavior based upon a humanistic theology that exalts humanity and neglects its Creator. It is man whom the priest now faces, and often man's glory that is extolled in the newer hymns. (Michael Davies, Liturgical Revolution: Pope Paul's New Mass, Kansas City, 1980, Chapter VII.)

As Shawn quoted in his treatise, on the issue of the Priest facing the people. From the Addendum that Shawn wrote that these folks failed to address, he quotes from "The Mass Of The Western Rites" written by the Right Reverend Dom Fernand Cabrol in 1934:

Today, as the altar usually has a table and a tabernacle, the priest when standing before it turns his back to the people; so that when he greets them with "Dominus vobiscum" he is obliged to turn round. The Bishop would be hidden on his "cathedra" at the back of the apse, and could hardly follow the ceremonies, therefore his throne, as well as the stalls of the clergy, have been moved to places before the altar. BUT IF WE WISH TO UNDERSTAND THE ANCIENT POSITIONS, it will help us to remember that AT THAT TIME THE ALTAR WAS A "TABLE" (HENCE ITS NAME OF "MENSA") OF WOOD OR STONE, forming either a solid block or else raised on four feet, BUT IN ANY CASE WITHOUT A TABERNACLE; SO THAT THE OFFICIATING PRIEST WOULD FACE TOWARDS THE PEOPLE, AS HE DOES TO-DAY AT "SAN CLEMENTE." In our own churches, of course, he officiates on the other side of the altar; the Gospel side being the left and that of the Epistle the right. As we explain elsewhere, another consideration has brought about these changes: the practice of turning in prayer towards the East, the region of that light which is the image of Christ, Who Himself came from the East. THE QUESTION OF THE ORIENTATION OF CHURCHES WAS AN IMPORTANT ONE IN CHRISTIAN ARCHITECTURE FROM THE FOURTH-TWELFTH CENTURIES. [16]

Well now!!! Mass said facing towards the people on a table-altar is the "ancient position" and all of this 8 to 20 centuries before Vatican II!!! Taking into account that the Masses were in private homes before the 4th century (when worshipping in Churches began becoming prevalent) and that the architecture of the ancient churches up to the 12th century was to accommodate Masses said facing the people, what does this do to the following two major objections of "traditionalists" to the Pauline Rite of Mass:

That Masses said facing the people on a table-altar are "not sacrifices" but are meals.
That Masses said facing the people represent an "inward horizontal self-worship of man" verses Masses facing away from the people manifesting a "true outward vertical worship of God."

Well gentle reader, these commonly espoused "traditionalist" canards are now officially killed and buried forever as legitimate objections against the Pauline Rite of Mass.
 
 

based upon a humanistic theology that exalts humanity and neglects its Creator.

Either you categorize the Church of the 1st 7 to 12 centuries as a bunch of people full of themselves wishing to denigrate the dignity of Jesus, instead of honoring him, and non-Christian humanists, or you and Davies give up your argument. Of course consistency is not something that we can usually expect from our opponents.

---snip out the rest of the Mass, as there is no more commentary from our opponents denigrating the Pauline Rite Mass. They save the rest for the next section---

[1] Notitiae 6(1970) 39-40, no 28, Documents on the Liturgy (Collegeville, Minnesota Liturgical Press, 1983), as cited in Akin, James, Mass Confusion, Catholic Answers, Inc., San Diego, Ca., pp. 120-121.

[2] The Pope, The Council and the Mass, ibid., p. 101

[3] ibid., p. 101, quoting "Benoit, Pierre, O.P., "The Accounts of the Institution and What they Imply " in The Eucharist in the New Testament: A Symposium, Helicon Press, Baltimore and Dublin, 1964, page 80.

[4] ibid., p. 101, quoting Kilmartin, Edward J., S.J., "The Sacrificial Meal of the New Covenant," in Paulist Press Doctrinal Pamphlet series, 1965, page 4.

[5] Email forwarded to me by F. John Loughnan, whose author is Mike Malone, July 2, 2000.

[6] The Pope, The Council, and the Mass, p, 111, quoting from Kucharek, Casimir, The Byzantine Slavic Liturgy of St. John Chrysostem, Alleluia Press, Allendale, New Jersey, 1971, pages 97-98.

[7] The Pope, The Council and the Mass, pp. 109, 111.

[8] Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Tan Books and Publishers, Inc., Rockford, Il. , 1974, p. 393.

[9] ibid., p. 393.

[10] St. Thomas Aquinas: Summa Contra Gentiles _ Book IV Section 63 (circa AD 1260)

[11] Philip Schapf, Anti Nicene Fathers, vol.7, op. cit., The Divine Liturgy of James, op cit., p. 547.

[12] The Pope, The Council and the Mass, , p. 157, citing John Laux, Church History, Benziger Brothers, 1945, p. 517

[13] ibid., pp. 109, 111

[14] ibid., pp. 109, 111

[15] Catholic Encyclopedia: Excerpts from the subject "Liturgy" authored by Adrian Fortescue, 1913

[16] Right Reverend Dom Fernand Cabrol, The Mass Of The Western Rites, 1934, http://www.ewtn.com/library/LITURGY/MASS.TXT"

©2000, "Detection and Overthrow of the 'Traditionalist Catholics' Falsely So-Called" (Part 2, Section 3), 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