Detection and Overthrow of
the ‘Traditionalist Catholics’
Falsely So-Called,
Part 3, Section 1
by Matt1618

The comments in dark blue are from Shawn's original treatise. The comments of our opponents are in red.

The two rites have a number of similarities to them primarily in structure and overall content. There are areas where the Pauline Mass is more truncated than the Tridentine Rite but there are also areas where the Tridentine Rite could be said to be redundant where the Pauline Rite is not.

As it is, there are very few similarities in structure. For example, the Traditional Mass does not have four "canons" as the Novus Ordo does, and in the Novus Ordo the Priest has the option of choosing which "Eucharistic Prayer" which he might prefer, and which best suites him and the all-important congregation.
Like Shawn didn’t know that there were four different canons? Like, wow, the Hammer triplets refuted him now because Shawn didn’t know there was four different canons!!! Wow, brilliant, maybe Shawn should delete his whole treatise because he never thought of the fact that there are four different canons in the Pauline Rite!!! It comes down to that type of argument for our opponents?

Unfortunately for the Hammer triplets, it is not that easy. Obviously Shawn knows that there are four canons. The structural similarity he refers to means that in both content and the way that the Mass is configured, they are similar. In fact, the reason that we can analyze the different parts of the Mass, side by side is because it is a similar structure. As each part follows along, we can analyze precisely because the parts are in the same order. You have for example the penitential rite (even if done in a different way) in a similar place in the Mass. You have the Eucharistic prayer after the Creed, that confects the true Flesh and Blood of Christ, even if it differs some in content. Despite the ranting and raving analysis by our opponents, when we actually analyzed the Mass itself in Part II, they utterly failed to show any Doctrinal heresies or anything even remotely approaching that. Of course there are different emphases in the Pauline Rite, that did away with alot of excess repetition, and emphasized things that we saw were completely in keeping with tradition.

Now, on to the issue of there being four prayers instead of one, and it supposedly leaves a totally freewheeling thing that destroys tradition, I must remind our opponents of the fact that having different canons is in fact restorative of Catholic Tradition. Our opponents arguing that just because there is more than one canon it destroys Catholic Tradition shows that they have absolutely no idea of Tradition on the issue.

As noted by Cipriano Vagaggini, all other Liturgies besides the Roman Liturgy had multiple canons, or anaphoras:

In the anaphora tradition of large liturgical groups, the Roman liturgy is almost alone in never having known the possibility of using simultaneously more than one anaphora... Of the Antiochan group of anaphoras: the West-Syrians have or have had about Seventy anaphora formulae; the East-Syrian three; the Byzantines two; the Armenians four. In the Egyptian group: the Copts have three; the Abyssinians seventeen. And note that in the Gallican and Palaeo-Hispanic traditions every part of the anaphora was variable except for the Quo pridie. The present Ambrosian tradition has a special canon for Holy Thursday and the vigil of Easter, besides the Roman canon. [1]
So we see throughout the history of the Church numerous Eucharist prayers were used in the various Churches. To say that there is some fluidity, and choice of canons destroys Tradition is absolutely ridiculous, as the numerous anaphoras mentioned above show. As documented in part 2, in the early Church, the rites were very fluid. After the ceremonies and rituals were later developed and established, there still existed and still exists, a large variety of canons as documented above. That the Pauline Rite ‘did away’ with the structure is no more true than all the other documented canons in the various other traditions did away with the structure of that which preceded that. Did they "Do away" with Tradition when they did so? No way.
To give yet another example, the Traditional Mass does not have 60 Prefaces as the Novus Ordo does. These certainly constitute major structural differences. The point is, the Priest can say Mass four times, and each time say a completely different one. A lot of structural continuity here, isn’t there?
Yet another example of no point at all. The fact that there can be as many as 60 Prefaces preceding the four different prayers is not anti-traditional at all. As the book titled "The Mass of the Western Rites" written by the Rt. Rev. Dom Fernand Cabrol indicates, there were a large amount of Prefaces:
THE PREFACE.--These, which were reduced to the number of ten in the Gregorian Sacramentary (there are 267 in the Leonine, and even then the Sacramentary was not complete!), suffered no change.[2]


Notice that Rev. Cabrol says that the Gregorian Sacramentary was reduced to the number of 10. In other words, the Traditional sacramentary had many more prefaces. In fact, the Leonine Sacramentary (inspired by Pope Leo) had 267 prefaces!!!! I wonder what the 'Pope' Hammers of the time thought back then!!!
Redundant? And who is Shawn to say that any portion of the Traditional Mass - which has been said lovingly and reverently by thousands of Priests, Popes, Saints, and other religious over the course of the centuries - is redundant? As it is, this very statement implies that the order of the Liturgy - as given to us by Pope St. Pius V - had been slapped together and filled with meaningless redundant phrases. How insulting to the Church for Shawn to make such a statement! How dare he say that those Popes, Saints, and so forth, who helped to form the Traditional Mass, who said the Traditional Mass, and who died for the Traditional Mass, did not know what they were doing? Basically, this is a charge of incompetence which is being leveled at over a thousand years of Traditional!
Well, as said in Part 2 of this response to you, the Catholic Church, as specifically shown at the Council of Trent, can make changes to the Liturgy in any way it sees fit, as long as it retains its essence. When we analyzed the Mass in part 2, the Pauline Mass definitely retained its essence. The Council of Trent, Session 21, Chapter 2 says:
The power of the Church as regards the dispensation of the Sacrament of the Eucharist. It furthermore declares, that this power has ever been in the Church, that, in the dispensation of the sacraments, their substance being untouched, (l) it may ordain,- or change, what things soever it may judge most expedient, for the profit of those who receive, or for the veneration of the said sacraments, according to the difference of circumstances, times, and places.[3]
As shown throughout Shawn's Treatise, and this response to your 'rebuttal' of Shawn's Treatise, it is obvious that the Pauline Rite Mass retains the essence. Changes were made throughout the ages to the Mass without there being any destruction of ‘Tradition’. In fact, as Adrian Fortescue in the Catholic Encyclopedia writes:
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. [4]
Just when Latin began to be the way Mass was celebrated in the 4th century, it eliminated many things redundant, and abridged the whole service. Did the Greek 'Pope' Hammers do the same whining that you are doing here? I am sure some may have said, "well, there is a reason we do everything, and how dare you change the rubrics! People died over the Mass as said in Greek with all these rubrics and how dare you change it!" Your very arguments that you are using against the Pauline Rite Mass, could have been used to prevent the establishment of the Latin Mass. Of course consistency is not something we have seen from your side.

I did not include in this comparison the prayers after Mass in the Tridentine Rite because they were added by Pope Leo XIII and were not a part of the original codified 1570 Missal of Pope St. Pius V. Also, I have bolded parts of the Pauline Rite that emphasize the sacrificial nature of the Mass showing explicitly that the claims that the Mass is "Protestantized" or that the Mass is not viewed as a sacrifice (the standard "traditionalist" claims about the Pauline Rite) are a bunch of malarkey. This tendency on the part of the SSPX (and "traditionalists" in general) to be woefully in error constantly will continue to manifest itself throughout this treatise.

The Prayers after Mass are not a part of the Mass, but are prayers that are said "after Mass." Hence the reason why they are called the "prayers after Mass." Hence, there would be no need at all to add them, either to Shawn’s treatise - or to claim that they were a modification of the 1570 Missal of Pope St. Pius V. But, of course, it is interesting to note that during the time period when our fellow Catholics in Russia and the East most needed our prayers and support (the 60's 70's and early 80's), the creators of the Novus Ordo Missae refused to add these prayers for the persecuted Church in Russia. But, then again, cases where the Conciliar Church has turned its back on those Catholics still remaining in Russia - and other Communist countries (such as China, where, even now in the year 2,000, Bishops and Priests are still held in jail and many have gone underground because of the fierce persecution being waged against Catholics over there in the Orient).
This charge is ridiculous to say the least. Did that mean that between the time of St. Pius V and Pope Leo XIII, the Church "turned its back" on the persecuted Catholic brethren because those specific prayers weren’t prayed? I guess that is what it means? During the prayers in every Mass, we pray for the whole Church, which includes those who are being persecuted. There is no evidence given in any way, shape or form, that the ‘Conciliar’ Church cares any less about those being persecuted, than that which preceded Vatican II. In fact, a former associate Pastor from the Church I go to, now heads up a Catholic organization that defends the Catholic Church in Russia. I saw no Schismatics on that organization list. How many Schismatics go out to defend those Catholics being persecuted?
Furthermore, it is interesting to point out that Shawn is, yet again, launching into personal attacks upon Traditional Catholics and their beliefs. Shawn has, also, not lost this opportunity to bash the Society of Saint Pius X.
Again, the schismatic approvers approve of the Schism by linking to schism. Remember, Shawn showed in detail how these folks were schismatic, in his treatise located here. Birds of a feather, flock together, I guess.

Does the slimmer liturgy remove any possible confusions that may have possibly resulted from the structure of the Tridentine Rite??? Yes there was at times a misunderstanding of the meaning of sacrifice. As Catholic apologist (and revert from Evangelical Protestantism) Matt1618 noted in an essay he wrote on the Pauline Rite:

The Tridentine decree gave an impression that the sacrifice of bread and wine came during the offertory.

As it is, Quo Primum of Pope St. Pius V didn’t even deal with this subject. And, so far as we know, the Council of Trent did not deal with the Offertory at all. So what "Tridentine decree" is Matt1618/Shawn referring to here?
My mistake, the Tridentine Rite, not the Tridentine Decree. Yes, the Tridentine Decree only mentioned that the Church has the power and can change the Mass as it sees fit as long as it retains its essence, which the Pauline Rite does. It is the Tridentine ‘Rite’ that could leave the impression so mentioned.

Actually there is only one sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Christ accomplished during the consecration of the elements. Many eminent liturgists even during the days of St. Pius V discussed a reform of the Roman Canon to eliminate a misunderstanding of the meaning of sacrifice.

I was asked by our opponents to provide a citation on this issue. I do not have a citation as of now. I will revise this section upon further study if necessary.

In other words, what Matt1618 is saying is that for the past 2,000 years all the Popes have been negligent in the fulfillment of their duty with regards to teaching and preventing misunderstandings from occurring within the official liturgical context - it’s a good thing for us that we had Pope Paul VI who came along and fixed it all..... it’s a good thing he removed all the references to Sacrifice, that way we wouldn’t get confused.
First, the offertory is not 2000 years old. Pope Peter did not use this specific offertory. This specific offertory was not mandated on the Western Rite until 1570. So your charge is about 1570 years off. Hasn’t the Church always clarified things when times make it necessary? The Church has always made clarifications when necessary that do not speak ill of their predecessors. The Church clarified the meaning of the Eucharist in 1215 at the General Council of Lateran IV for example. The Council of Trent went further on the issue of the Eucharist, and Vatican II also further taught on the Eucharist. Does that mean that prior to that times all the Popes were deficient in preventing misunderstandings? No, I do not attack the prior Popes for that. Do you attack all the Popes because they did not begin a real clarification on the Eucharist until 1215? But until that point were there not conflicting views of the Eucharist? Of course there were. The same is here in reference to the Offertory.

Next, as Shawn showed in his treatise, and as I rebutted your comments to that effect in Part 2, your smart-alecky comments about Pope Paul VI removing the concept of sacrifice from the Mass has been refuted. How dare you whine about me attacking past Popes (when neither Shawn or I did), when you offhandedly, jokingly attack Pope Paul VI for doing something that he never did? Both in Shawn’s original Treatise, and in our Rebuttal of your attack on the Mass, we show that in the Pauline Rite, the concept of Sacrifice continues to be maintained. In Three of the Four, it is maintained explicitly, and in the Fourth (Second Eucharistic Prayer), yes it is only implicit, but this does not affect its validity.

The Tridentine Mass could give an impression that the offering of bread and wine constituted the sacrifice of Christ when it said, for example "We offer unto Thee, O Lord, the Chalice of salvation." and "Receive O Holy father.. this immaculate host which I...offer Thee...,".

For Matt1618 to attack the Mass that has been in existence for nearly 2,000 years. Matt1618 does not seem to realize that by attacking this Mass, he is attacking everything the Church stands for. For the Mass is the life-blood of Catholicism. Saints have said this Mass. As it is, I have no respect for someone who attacks the traditions of my forefathers, and their forefathers, all the way back to the Apostles.
Get a grip. Saints and Popes have said lots of Masses over the years in many variations, while retaining its essence. The Apostles, in the Liturgies that they created, in fact, altered to some extent the very Mass that Jesus himself created. We can see that in the different Liturgies of apostolic origin. The Church has always had the power to change Masses, as it has since the time of the Apostles, although it has retained its essence, and varied quite a bit. The Apostles, sorry to say, did not celebrate the Latin Mass, let alone the Tridentine Mass. To say that the Apostles died over the Tridentine Mass is ridiculous. On the contrary, many of the Popes and Fathers that you claim to laud, had Masses in which there were such horrible things as people participating in the Mass, and many of the things that you see as 'Non-traditional' indeed are Traditional. In fact they were restored by the Pauline Rite Mass. I have no respect for anyone who denies history. I am only attacking your caricature of history.
This is the mass that thousands of Priests in our own century has died for, and Matt1618 has the gall to come out, 2,000 years after it’s institution, and attack the Mass that Trent said was perfect and without error.
Thousands of Priests and others throughout the 2000 years have died for the Catholic Faith. Many have attended many different Masses, and they were killed for their faith. I am not attacking the Mass any more than the Tridentine Rite "Attacked the Masses" of those who had died for their faith, who celebrated a different Liturgy than that of the Tridentine Rite. Many died in the Early Centuries who didn’t even have a Mass that came close to approximating the Tridentine Rite. You don’t mind attacking the People (Like St. Justin Martyr) who did not celebrate that specific Mass. Just because there can be improvements made, doesn’t mean the Tridentine Mass is being attacked, any more than the Tridentine Rite attacked the Masses that it replaced. I have dealt with your repeated argument that the canon only applies to the Tridentine Mass (in url 2). Since there were many Masses at the time, the Tridentine Mass was only imposed on the Western Church 9 years later, and when you look at the context, it is absolutely impossible to apply the error-free reference to only the Tridentine Mass.
As it is, Matt1618 should have read the Latin version before he started poking his nose around the English mistranslations. The Latin word which was translated as "host" is, in Latin, "hostia," which means "victim." In other words, what the Priest was saying was "Receive O Holy father... this immaculate VICTIM which I... offer Thee.....," hence, the Priest was not referring to the bread - which is in no way a "victim" - but, rather, to what the bread will become. The same goes with the wine, "the Chalice of salvation." Wine is not a "chalice of salvation," in and of itself. Yet again, the Priest is referring to what it will become, not what it was at that moment. Does this mean that we have just refuted all those theologians who were screaming and clamoring for the changing of the Roman Canon? It seems like it.
What is in front of the People right now before the consecration? Only bread and wine. This is done before the consecration. Of course before the consecration, it is only bread and wine. The Pauline Rite correctly notes that the Body and Blood of Christ is what it will become. So even if you are correct in the translation it only makes it more confusing. BTW, you just refuted yourself in what you said in a prior Url. You said in the prior url that when in the Pauline Mass it offers the saving cup and host, it means that the Pauline Mass offers bread in sacrifice. Now you claim that it does not. Which one is it? Either way you lose.

This caused some to think that this is when the sacrifice of Christ took place.

Caused who to think that that was when the sacrifice of Christ took place? I would appreciate it if Matt1618 could provide names, dates, and books.
Fair challenge. This will be revised upon so doing.

In actuality, the salvific sacrifice of Christ was on Calvary, and the sacrifice is perpetually renewed on the altar AT THE MOMENT OF CONSECRATION by a validly-ordained priest, and not before. The Council of Trent clearly teaches this (Council of Trent, Thirteenth Session, Decree on the Most Holy Eucharist) (Whitehead, 120).

Besides, if this Mass was "Protestantized" as many self-styled "traditionalists" claim, then why is it not used by any Protestant groups who emphasize the importance of liturgical worship (and also who believe in the Real Presence like the Anglicans and the Lutherans) who have liturgies of their own???

Regardless of whether or not they believe in the Real Presence, the point that must be made here is that neither the Anglicans, nor the Lutherans, believe in transubstantiation - which is the doctrine that the entire substance changes into the Body and Blood of Christ, not just the doctrine that the Body and Blood of Christ coexists with the bread and wine - nor do they believe that it is the Priest/minister that brings about this change. Hence we see that there are many major theological differences between Catholics and protestants on this issue. And yet, both the Anglicans and the Lutherans - contrary to what Shawn said above - make use of the Novus Ordo Missae , as we shall see presently.
You are right. Neither the Anglicans or the Lutherans believe as Catholics do, although belief in the substantial presence of Christ is clearly something that makes it closer to our view than other Protestants. However, the Catholic view, as affirmed by Pope Paul VI, and confirmed by his successors, have affirmed Transubstantiation, as the Pauline Rite Mass likewise affirms. It does not matter that they don’t think that a Priest is necessary to make the transformation. The real transformation does necessitate a Priest with valid orders, as affirmed by Pope Paul VI and 2000 years of Tradition. As we will see however, when you say that when some Protestants ‘make use’, of the Novus Ordo Missae, they use only a very selective part of it. Remember, there were Four Eucharistic Prayers, as you’ve complained incessantly about. I’ve noticed however, you give absolutely no consideration of Three out of Four of the Eucharistic Prayers. Because those ones are ‘Too Catholic’ for Protestants (and doesn't fit your agenda), you want to ignore them. This is disingenuous in your critique of the Pauline Mass. And there is much more to the Liturgy than the Eucharistic Prayer.

This is a topic that I never stopped to consider when parroting the notion that the Pauline Rite was "Protestantized" because if this was the case then how could anyone claim that it was at all "Protestantized" if the Protestant groups that use liturgical worship forms (even among those who actually believed in the Real Presence) refused to use it??? To once again quote Matt1618 on the matter:

As it is, even if the Protestants had not made use of the Novus Ordo Missae this would not be proof of its orthodoxy. The Lutherans don’t use the Anglican liturgy, just as the Anglicans don’t use the Lutheran. That does not mean that the Anglican liturgy is orthodox because the Lutherans won’t use it, nor does it mean that the Lutheran liturgy is orthodox because the Anglicans won’t use it. So, in the end, what does this prove? Nothing except they prefer their own prayers over the ones which were written by Archbishop Bugnini and six protestant ministers.
However, it is incumbent upon you to prove that very point since you are the ones making the charge that it is ‘Protestantized.’ As I’ve noted, what you attempt to prove relates to only one fourth of the Eucharistic prayers. You must ignore the fact that Three of the Eucharistic Prayers - Prayer One, Prayer Three, and Prayer Four, were never even considered by any Protestant group. The fact is that what we must consider, is that even if they did wholeheartedly adopt parts of the Mass, that is not our problem. They use our Bible, less seven books of course. But just because they borrow from our Bible doesn’t mean that we jettison the Bible. Many Protestant bodies use the Apostles and Nicene Creed that we have. That does not mean we jettison the Apostles or the Nicene Creed because Protestants borrow from them. The same holds for the Mass.

One thing that must be noted of the input of Protestant observers at Vatican II. You again lie and impugn the integrity of the Prayers of the Pauline Rite Mass. On July 4, 1976 the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship unequivocally declared:

The Protestant observers did not participate in the composition of the texts of the new Missal. [5]
Of course, your sources will quote third-hand sources to say otherwise, but by making this charge, you are calling the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship Liars. I will take the Catholic Church’s words over yours.

For those who say the Mass is Protestantized, there is one question to ask? Do you know of one Protestant church who celebrates the Pauline Rite Liturgy and any of the 4 Eucharistic prayers? No, the proof is in the pudding. No Protestant services recognize any of these distinctly Catholic doctrines. Max Thurian, a Calvinist monk at the time, wrote the following in reference to Protestantism and the Novus Ordo:

"Recently a Protestant commission was given the task of revising the prayers of the Last Supper. IT WAS PROPOSED THAT THEY ADOPT THE SECOND CATHOLIC EUCHARISTIC PRAYER (INSPIRED BY ST. HIPPOLYTUS). THAT PROPOSITION WAS REJECTED, BECAUSE THE COMMISSION CONSIDERED THAT THE DOCTRINE IMPLIED IN THAT PRAYER DID NOT CORRESPOND TO THE ACTUAL COMMON FAITH OF PROTESTANTS... THE INVOCATION OF THE SPIRIT ON THE BREAD AND WINE PRESUPPOSED TRANSUBSTANTIATION." (Max Thurian, Quoted in La Croix (Paris), June 15, 1977.) Notice that the second Eucharistic prayer was inspired by the ancient tradition of St. Hippolytus. Not only was there not a single non-Catholic who participated in the work of the post-conciliar Commission headed by Cardinal Lercaro of Bologna, there were no Protestants back in the 3rd Century, from which this Eucharistic prayer is based on. It is distinctively Catholic.

As it is, I would like to point out the very simple fact that, in the first place, the above citation does not state that the doctrine of transubstantiation was explicit in the prayer, only implicit. Furthermore, the very fact that it was considered for adoption by the protestant liturgical commission in question is quite telling and should certainly make one start wondering about the prayer. As Michael Davies says concerning this citation:
However, the attitude of the particular Protestant body to which Brother Thurian referred is by no means unanimous among the various denominations, as Chapter XII has already made clear. One Lutheran theologian, F. Schultz, commended the fact that the new Catholic Eucharistic Prayers exhibit "a structure which corresponds to the Lutheran Mass." Another Lutheran pastor states: "Thus in my Hamburg parish, for instance, we regularly use Eucharistic Prayer II, with the Lutheran form of the words of institution and omitting the prayer for the Pope. This procedure is sanctioned by the Orders for the Lord’s Supper which appeared in 1972."
We must remember that the Lutheran model in the first place (in the 1500s) was taken from the Catholic Mass present at the time. Thus, the original Lutheran services directly borrowed from the Tridentine Mass.

A Lutheran Minister who converted to Catholicism in the 1950’s shows how directly the Lutheran Service borrowed from the Tridentine Mass. The Structural similarities to the Tridentine Mass are numerous. This was done well before the Pauline Mass was instituted 15 years later. There are significant points concerning the Mass that I invite our opponents who so easily attack the Pauline Mass for similarities to the Lutheran service to note. The Lutheran service structure, perfectly reflects the Tridentine Mass. Look at what the Lutheran Pastor also noted about how Protestants viewed the Latin Mass and how it colored their view of Catholicism, writing in the Catholic publication Amen, "A Challenge" in 1954, p. 3:

As a Protestant clergyman I have run into the rather peculiar bit of truth that the average Lutheran will look upon the liturgy of the Mass in the Roman Catholic Church (The Tridentine Rite at the time) with complete disdain and abhorrence; he fails, at the same time, to realize that his own Order of Service is basically the same.
Lutheran liturgies have drawn from the liturgical thesaurus of Catholicism; but because of the language barrier, many of the clergy, and practically all of the laity, fail to realize this. Instead they condemn liturgical practices in the Roman Church which they themselves are observing, but in a vernacular language.
I believe, most sincerely, that one might make the rather categorical statement that Protestantism fears the vernacular movement in the Roman Church. With the rites in the vernacular, there will be for all of Protestantism to see, a body of faith and action which for so long they have condemned as mere Hexerei (witch-craft).
If Lutherans today could behold the Mass in the Roman Church (this during the Tridentine Rite), even partly English, as a form consisting of: introductory prayers, confession and absolution, Introit, Kyrie, Gloria in Excelsis, Collect, Epistle, Gospel (preceded by Gradual), Creed, Sermon, Preface (preceded by offertory prayers), Sanctus, Canon, Agnus Dei, post-communion, all of which make up the Lutheran Communion Service, then I believe most sincerely that the Lutherans of today would stop and re-evaluate the Reformation. [6]
Thus, the Latin Language used in the Catholic Church could make Protestants think that it was witchcraft. It was much easier to be avoided, condemned and dismissed. Since the Mass was conducted in a service that people could not understand, it was easy to condemn the Mass and label the Catholic Mass as witchcraft, which of course it was not. This was especially true as most Catholics who went to Mass did not understand Latin.

Besides that, and to the point on this issue that our opponents brought up, and in fact it is incontestable, the structure of the Lutheran Service perfectly reflects the Tridentine Mass. It is incontestable in fact, and so any charge of Lutherans borrowing from the Pauline Mass is laughable since the very structure of its service is modeled after the Tridentine Mass. As noted by the Lutheran Pastor, notice all the similarities in parts again: introductory prayers, confession and absolution, Introit, Kyrie, Gloria in Excelsis, Collect, Epistle, Gospel (preceded by Gradual), Creed, Sermon, Preface (preceded by offertory prayers), Sanctus, Canon, Agnus Dei, post-communion, all of which make up the Lutheran Communion Service, was directly borrowed from the Tridentine Mass, not the Pauline Mass. This argument truly backfires against yourselves.

Yes, the Lutheran made many errors theologically, but their structure was the Tridentine Rite. They borrowed from Catholics in the First Place, as we have seen. In addition, the very fact that in your original misanalysis (In Part 2) you were able to compare and contrast the prayers from the Tridentine Rite with that of the Pauline Rite, shows that the Structure of the Tridentine and Pauline Rites was the same, even if the content of the prayers differed some.

In any case, we must remember that the Second Eucharistic prayer is the shortest of all the Eucharistic Prayers. However, it is much longer than that which is found in the Bible. There is much more explicit Catholic theology found in the Second Eucharistic Prayer, than that which is given to the Apostles by Our Lord. Any reading of the New Testament and very early Liturgies one will see Sacrifice only implicitly referred to. If you charge the Second Eucharistic Prayer as being too Protestant, then by what means do you not say that what Our Lord instituted as "Protestant"? Take a look at the Original institution of the Eucharist which is found in our Bible and compare it to Eucharistic Prayer #2 and tell me which is more explicitly Catholic. You would render our Lord’s institution of the Eucharist as "too Protestant.", as he only implicitly refers to Sacrifice in his institution. This is blasphemous to say the least. On what grounds do you say that the Catholic Eucharist Prayer #2 is "Protestantized" while using the same criteria say that the Lord's actual institution of the Eucharist is not "Protestant."

Next, I sincerely doubt your source on the matter: Yes, the prayer which borrows heavily from the most ancient Liturgy that we have, is not as explicit in Catholic theology as the other three Eucharistic Prayers which no Protestant has even thought of borrowing from, (and which you totally ignore in this analysis, thus showing that you are hanging all your attack on the Pauline Rite Mass on only one out of the Four Prayers) thus by your own ignoring of them , vindicating the other three from the charge of "Protestantization". However, let us look at the whole Second Eucharistic prayer:

The Lord be with you.
And also with you.
Lift up your hearts.
We lift them up to the Lord.
Let us give thanks tot he Lord our God.
It is right to give Him thanks and praise.
Father, it is our duty and our salvation, always and everywhere to give You thanks through Your beloved Son, Jesus Christ. He is the Word through whom You made the universe, the Savior You sent to redeem us. By the power of the Holy Sprit He took flesh and was born of the Virgin Mary. For our sake He opened His arms on the cross; He put an end to death and revealed the resurrection. In this He fulfilled Your will and won for You a holy people.
Lord, you are holy indeed, the fountain of all holiness. 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.
Before he was given up to death, a death he freely accepted, he broke bread and gave you thanks. He took 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 men so that sins may be forgiven. Do this in memory of me.
Let us proclaim the mystery of faith. [Four options for response.]
In memory of His death and resurrection we offer You, Father, this life-giving bread, this saving cup. We thank You for counting us worthy to stand in Your presence and serve You.
May all of us who share in the body and blood of Christ be brought together in unity by the Holy Spirit.
Lord, remember Your Church throughout the world; make us grow in love, together with N. our Pope, N. our bishop, and all the clergy.
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. Have mercy on us all; make us worthy to share eternal life with Mary, the virgin Mother of God, with the apostles, and with all the saints who have done your will throughout the ages. May we praise you in union with them, and give you glory through your Son, Jesus Christ.
Through him, with him, in him, in the unity of the Holy Spirit, all glory and honor is yours, almighty Father, for ever and ever. Amen.
First, the very beginning greeting: "The Lord be with you" and the people responding is an ancient greeting found in many Apostolic Masses. No Protestants were around then. Also, we see the Eucharist called a "life-giving and saving cup". This is the very thing that you were earlier bragging that the Tridentine Mass had. The only difference is that in the Second Eucharistic Prayer it is put in the right place, after the words of consecration. It only gives grace after it is consecrated. Also, in how it differs from Lutheran theology, that though some Protestants will say that the Eucharist gives grace, they would never say that it gives grace towards salvation. They believe in Faith Alone. We don’t. This grace is a nice-byproduct for Lutherans, and helps in (in their view at least) sanctification, however it is not salvific. However, this Second Eucharistic Prayer says that this cup gives life towards salvation. That is clearly Catholic, not Lutheran theology. It is a means of salvation. Next, after we go over the words of consecration (which we have analyzed elsewhere) look at the prayer I bolded. Approximately 25% of the 2nd Eucharist Prayer is for prayers for the dead!!! How Lutheran is that? These Lutherans must be on their way to becoming Catholic if they can say prayers on behalf of dead people (which can only refer to people in Purgatory). Or these are weird Protestants to say the least. And again, this is much more explicitly Catholic theology than that which is found in the Words of Our Lord. Thus, your objections to the Second Eucharistic prayer as invalid because it is too Protestant would thus make the Eucharist instituted by Christ invalid as well.
Hence, we see that "Eucharistic Prayer Form Number Two" is used by protestants - with only two ommissions -, and this procedure has been officially sanctioned by the Lutheran church! Furthermore, we see that the structure of the Novus Ordo Missae "corresponds to the Lutheran Mass."
Remember, this charge about it being patterned after the Pauline Mass is laughable. We saw the structured borrowings centuries before came from the Tridentine, not the Pauline Mass. In addition, those two omissions when comparing the Lutheran and the Pauline Mass are very important. Also, I somehow think that there is a third omission that your sources forgot to mention is that approximately 25% of the 2nd Eucharistic Prayer consists of prayer for the dead which can only be for those in purgatory, which Lutherans do not believe in!!!! If you can document that the Lutheran body you are referring to has officially sanctioned belief in purgatory, and thus makes those prayers on behalf of dead people, as the 2nd Eucharistic Liturgy does, then it is definitely them following our beliefs, (which I seriously doubt) not us following after them. Can you document for us that Lutherans actually pray for the dead as is explicit in our Second Eucharistic prayer? If you can, then some of Protestantism has changed its theology on salvation to that of Catholicism. If you can not, then your whole argument and citations are bogus.
To provide yet another citation from Michael Davies on the subject of Protestants and the Novus Ordo Missae
….. an Anglican Observer on the Consilium, Dr. Jasper, played a leading part in the compilation of the Series III service. It is hardly surprising that another Anglican Mininister was able to write to the London Catholic Herald, stating:
Today’s liturgical study has brought our respective liturgies to a remarkable similarity, so that there is very little difference in the sacrificial phrasing of the prayer of oblation in the Series Three and that of Eucharistic Prayer II in the Missa Normativa. (The Catholic Herald, 27 December 1972)
Remember, we are only looking at one of Four Eucharistic prayers. Remember again, that the only model that the Lutheran Service had to go on at the time of its institution was that of the Tridentine Mass. It borrowed heavily from it in the first place, as we have documented. Also, the sacrificial language found in the Eucharistic Prayer #2 is more extensive than that found in the words of Our Lord. I repeat myself, that by attempting to invalidate Eucharistic Prayer #2, your use of the same criteria would blasphemously invalidate the Mass instituted by Jesus himself, as the sacrificial terminology is less explicit in the New Testament.
The Anglican Bishop of Southwark has stated on several occasions that he greatly admires the Novus Ordo Missae, uses it himself, and would like to see it generally available to Anglicans at least as an alternative. He has also "concelebrated" Mass with Catholic priests when traveling on the Continent! (The Catholic Herald, 15 December 1972)
Of course Anglican Ministers are not allowed to ‘concelebrate’ with Catholic Priests over the Sacrifice of the Mass. It is also not our fault that Anglicans and Lutherans do not understand the Sacrificial terminology used by Our Lord when he instituted the Eucharist. Protestants also do not understand that Jesus also ordained Priests at the time of this institution. That does not mean that we do not use his words.

Let us remember what Anglicans believe on the following issue. The statement which gives us their belief in the efficacy of prayers for the dead:

XXII. Of Purgatory.

The Romish Doctrine concerning Purgatory, Pardons, Worshipping and Adoration, as well of Images as of Relics, and also Invocation of Saints, is a fond thing, vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the Word of God.[7]
Now, are you saying that the Anglicans, who during their rebellion against Christ’s Church called prayers for the dead repugnant to the Word of God now can use the following prayer?
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. Have mercy on us all; make us worthy to share eternal life with Mary, the virgin Mother of God, with the apostles, and with all the saints who have done your will throughout the ages. May we praise you in union with them, and give you glory through your Son, Jesus Christ.
Despite your quotations, I would love to see that Anglicans have repudiated their attack on prayers for the dead and now actually pray them. Can you specifically document that? If so, it is Anglicans coming to Catholic beliefs, not the other way around. Also, what about the other Three Prayers that you have ignored, which explicitly refers to the Eucharistic sacrifice?
M. G. Siegvalt, a professor of dogmatic theology in the Protestant faculty at Strasbourg, testifies that: "…. nothing in the renewed Mass need really trouble the Evangelical Protestant." (Le Monde, 22 November 1969)
Jean Guitton, a close friend of Pope Paul and a lay observer at Vatican II, quoted a Protestant journal as praising the manner in which the new Eucharistic prayers had dropped "the false perspective of a sacrifice offered to God." (Le Croix, 10 December 1969) A French Protestant theologian wrote in 1970:
If one takes account of the decisive evolution in the Eucharistic liturgy of the Catholic Church, of the option of substituting other Eucharistic prayer for the Canon of the Mass, of the expunging (l’effacement) 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. (Le Monde, 10 September 1970)
Well, again in the Catholic Liturgy, including Eucharistic Prayer #2, we have prayers for the Dead. Do ‘Reformed’ folks believe in that? In Three of the Four Eucharistic prayers we have an explicit reference to the Sacrifice of the Mass as propitiatory. Yes, the Fourth one (Second Eucharistic Prayer) is only implicit, but of course you are focusing your attack on the whole Pauline Rite by focusing on only one Eucharistic prayer. Do ‘Reformed’ Protestants believe in the Sacrifice of the Eucharist as explicitly laid out in Three out of Four Eucharistic Prayers? No. In the Catholic Liturgy we still ask the Blessed Virgin and all the Saints to pray, intercede for us. Do ‘Reformed’ Protestants do so? The Catholic Liturgy again affirms that only a validly ordained Priest can celebrate Mass and make the Bread and Wine become the Body and Blood of Christ. Of course ‘Reformed’ Protestants don’t even believe in the Real Presence in a physical manner in any way, shape, or form. I challenge you to personally ask these "Reformed" Protestants who supposedly say that their Service is so close to ours, whether they believe that these things which are explicitly found in the Revised Missal fits their theology!! They obviously have overlooked some vital points, to say the least!!! I would love to see the balance of their remarks. I have a feeling, that just as you have taken Catholic words totally out of context to prove spurious points, that you have taken these words of Protestants out of context as well.
Writing in the February 1974 issue of Veritas, journal of the Anglican Association, the editor, Canon C. B. Armstrong, points out that Series III is intended not only to approximate to the Novus Ordo Missae but to be acceptable to Protestants of a far more Evangelical nature than the Church of England.
In form it approximates closely to the new Roman Mass, omitting a few doctrinal statements which would not be likely to find general acceptance in England. In matter it avoids being specific, as will be seen, on doctrines which would not be accepted by non-conformists…. its main objects seem to be (1) to keep outwardly in line with the liturgical reforms on the Continent, and (2) to conciliate the Free Churches of this country and overseas with the hope of producing a United Christian rite in a United Christian Church.
Notice that even in the statement when you are trying to prove that the Protestant Service matches the Pauline Rite, omits a few doctrinal statements! which wouldn’t find a general acceptance in England. Also, he is only combining parts of the Second Eucharistic Prayers with other prayers to accommodate other Protestant denominations. On Series III similarities again, it is based on only one out of Four Eucharistic prayers. Well, the fact that they omit even the things based on the Second Eucharistic Prayer shows that what they celebrate is Not the Revised Missal’s Liturgy!
Michael Davies further on in his book provides a very interesting citation from a protestant sect that declared that it’s members may attend the Novus Ordo Missae, and receive Communion at the Novus Ordo, something that they refused their members permission to do when the Traditional Mass was the one being said in all Latin Rite Churches. To again cite Michael Davies:
.... the Superior Consistory of the ultra-Protestant Church of the Confession of Augsburg of Alsace-Lorraine issued a Statement after its meeting in Strasbourg on 8 December 1973, in which it approved the reception of Holy Communion for its members in Catholic churches. (The Catholic Bishop of Strasbourg, in defiance of even the present liberal legislation, permits intercommunion and concelebration with Protestants, as was shown in Chapter X.)
The Statement reads:
We consider that in the present circumstances fidelity to the Gospel and to our tradition does not allow us to forbid the members of our Church to participate in a Catholic Eucharistic celebration.
However, we must act with great discernment and wisdom: the invitation of another Church should not be accepted unless we can personally recognize in its Eucharistic practice the celebration of the Supper such as the Lord instituted it. Given the present form of Eucharistic celebration in the Catholic Church, and by reason of the present convergence in theology, many obstacles which might have prevented a Protestant from participating in its Eucharistic celebration seem to be on the way to disappearing. It should be possible for a Protestant today to recognize in the Catholic Eucharistic celebration the Supper instituted by the Lord.
In particular it behooves us to watch the following points. The evangelical character of the celebration in which a Protestant could participate must be evident. We particularly insist upon communion under both kinds, not only in fidelity to the Gospel and to the Reformation, but because this practice, for us, is opposed to a certain appearance of clericalism. We attach great importance to the use of the new prayers with which we feel at home, and which have the advantage of giving a different interpretation to the theology of sacrifice than we were accustomed to attribute to Catholicism. These prayers invite us to recognize an Evangelical theology of sacrifice.
Among the points which it is worth underlining here is the fact that not only do these Protestants feel at home with the prayers of the Novus Ordo Missae, but they state explicitly that they consider that there has been a change in the Catholic theology of the Mass which brings it into line with evangelical teaching on the Lord’s Supper.
Ok. Showing that there are Catholic Priests that defiantly allow Protestants to take Communion is reflective of ‘defiance’, which shows that the Catholic Church does not allow that at all. Some of the things that I noted that you say, and the author says are Protestantizing, and infers are ‘accommodative' of Protestantism is actually only restorative of Catholic Tradition. The first item is that the Protestant says it is OK because in the Mass we offer the Body and Blood of Christ under the appearances of bread and wine. That seems to be a main point to this particular Protestant. However, offering Communion to people in the appearance of both bread and wine of course goes back to the time of the Apostles. This is a Catholic tradition of more than 1500 years before Trent changed it. The Eastern Tradition has always maintained communion in both kinds as well. This is not ‘Protestantizing' at all.

Let us look at the great St. Cyril of Jerusalem:

Then after thou has partaken of the Body of Christ, draw near also to the cup of his Blood; not stretching forth thine hands, but bending, and saying with an air of worship and reverence, Amen, hallow thyself by partaking also of the Blood of Christ. [8]
St. Cyril's quote reflects that at the time Communion was given in both kinds. The Church at the time apparently was not worried about Protestant type of misinterpretations. Receiving the Eucharist in both kinds of course reflects tradition that goes back to the apostles. Testimony to this effect goes way back. This just shows that the fact that the Eucharist is given in both kinds reflects Catholic tradition. The Protestant appears to appropriate the change to Catholicism bending to Evangelical theology, but that is the furthest from reality. The reception of the Eucharist is restoration of an apostolic tradition. Restoration of apostolic tradition is not 'caving' in to Protestantism.

Now, what is the reason that the Church gives for making the change of distributing the Eucharist in both forms? To cave in to Protestants? On the contrary. The General Instruction for the Revised Missal explains:

Moved by a spirit and pastoral concern, Vatican II was able to reevaluate the Tridentine norm on Communion under both kinds. No one today challenges the doctrinal principles on the completeness of Eucharistic Communion under the form of bread alone. The Council thus gave permission for the reception of Communion under both kinds on some occasions, because this more explicit form of the sacramental sign offers a special means of deepening the understanding of the mystery in which the faithful are taking part. [9]
It is obvious that at the time of Trent, Protestants were influencing Catholics that in order for the Eucharist to be properly celebrated, Communion had to be distributed in both forms: bread and wine. Trent rightfully taught(with support from Paul in 1 Cor. 11:27) that one receives the Body and Blood of Christ, whole and entire when one receives it under either species. Thus, the only reason why it was changed was due to Protestant misinformation on the matter. However, in retaining the proper teaching on the matter, 1500 years of Tradition was done away with when Communion was no longer to be received by Catholics in both ways. The Magisterium has now determined that in order to maintain the correct teaching, it is no longer necessary to give communion in only one form. The Magisterium has returned to the age-old tradition of distributing Communion in both ways.

The Church has decided that Protestant misinformation should no longer decide what manner of Communion we should receive the Body and Blood of Christ. Here, what the Protestant sees as us reverting to the Protestant teaching, is only the Catholic Church restoring the ancient and Apostolic tradition of Christians receiving Communion in both species.

The Second problem that we have is that the Protestant somehow think that if we give the Body and Blood in both forms, that does away with 'clericalism'. Thus, they somehow feel that when we receive communion under both species, that does away with the concept of the Ministerial Priesthood. Of course that is a ridiculous statement. The Eastern Church has always distributed Communion under the appearances of bread and wine, and they certainly maintained the necessity of a Ministerial Priesthood. The Latin Rite, until the change in Trent distributed Communion in both species without even the thought of denying the necessity of valid orders. The manner of distribution of Communion has absolutely nothing to do with that. It looks like our opponents are buying this Protestants misinformation just to slander the Pauline Rite.

The Third item that the Protestant mentioned, about there being no Catholic Sacrificial language I have shown in at least three of the Four Eucharistic prayers to be false (in Url 2). To recap just a few of the prayers:

Eucharistic Prayer #1 says:

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.
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.
(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.)
Eucharistic Prayer # 3 includes:
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.
Eucharistic Prayer # 4 includes:
We offer you his body and blood, THE ACCEPTABLE SACRIFICE which brings salvation to the whole world.
Now, in three out of four Eucharistic Prayers the sacrificial language is explicit. Now Protestants sometimes have a hard time in understanding explicit language, but it is not our problems that they can misunderstand things.

Yes, in the Second Eucharistic prayer, that is closer in some cases to the language used in Protestant Services. The word sacrifice is not used, but there are many implications. However, it is not our fault that Protestants don't see the Sacrificial implications in the prayer. I went over that prayer in url 2, in analysis, as did Shawn in his original Treatise to show the implications. If you disqualify this one as too Protestant, then you will disqualify others as well. By that scenario, the Eucharistic canon of St. Hippolytus (the most ancient Catholic canon, after the apostles, that we have on record) would be disqualified. Also, even worse, that would render the First Eucharistic Prayer of Our Lord Jesus Christ as invalid. Where is the clear, explicit Sacrificial language in the Eucharist as instituted by Our Lord that are not found in Eucharist Prayer #2?

To recite a statement by Matt1618:
For those who say the Mass is Protestantized, there is one question to ask? Do you know of one Protestant church who celebrates the Novus Ordo liturgy and any of the 4 Eucharistic prayers? No, the proof is in the pudding.
We agree, the proof is in the pudding. Fortunately, the proof is in our favor.
In sum, the proof is not in your favor. My question indeed was "Do you know of one Protestant Church that used these prayers?" Three of the prayers have never been even hinted at use by any of the Protestant organizations. Your sources have made use of only one out of the four Eucharistic prayers, and by focusing on one-fourth of the Eucharistic Prayers, you attempt to attack the whole Pauline Mass. What you have given is some Protestants who indeed do not use the full Second Eucharist prayer. The closest one you came up with had a different institution, and of course did not pray for the Pope. Besides that, I have seriously questioned whether they actually do use 25% of the Second Eucharistic Prayer. The prayers for the Dead (approximately 25% of the prayer) are an important part of that Second Eucharistic prayer. Unless you are arguing that Protestants in that denomination are actually praying for the dead! If they are, that is a wholesale change of Protestant theology to Catholic theology, not the other way around. It is Protestants Catholicizing, not the other way around. However, your sources do not actually affirm that Protestants are actually praying for the dead, an important aspect of the Second Eucharistic prayer.

The others that you cite do not say that actually use any of the Catholic Eucharistic prayers at their own services, but only that they have less objections to going to the Catholic Mass. This was based on the fact that the Eucharist is now sometimes given under the appearance of bread and wine, something that is not a Protestantizing, but a restoration of Catholic Tradition. As noted, the Protestant understanding that giving the Eucharist in both forms does away with 'clericalism' has absolutely no basis in doing so, as Christian tradition has never based the need for a Ministerial Priesthood, for example on the manner of distribution of the Eucharist. On the charge that Catholics ‘expunge’ sacrifice from the Eucharistic Prayers an important thing was noted: Three out of four prayers give explicit testimony to the Sacrifice in the Eucharist, we are given Protestant commendations only on one out of four prayers. The very 'Protestantization' of the Second Eucharist Prayer, where there is explicit reference for prayers for the dead, are much more explicitly Catholic than either the institution of the Eucharist as recorded by Our Lord Jesus Christ, or the oldest recorded canon, the canon of St. Hippolytus.

Is it not interesting that Eucharistic Prayer #2 (the one I used in the comparison) was based on the Canon of St. Hippolytus around 215 AD and the Calvinist monk Max Thurian who was an observer at Vatican II (and later on converted to the Church and was ordained a priest)

As it is, Thurian did later convert, and was certainly ordained a Priest. But it is interesting to note even though he did convert, shortly before his death he came out pretty strongly against the Novus Ordo Missae. Here we see that one of Shawn's key witnesses not only objected to "Eucharistic Prayer Form Number II" as a Calvinist, but later, after his conversion to Catholicism, as a Priest, he objected to the Novus Ordo Missae. For anyone who is interested in reading more on this, then we recommend that they read
Actually, if you read his comments, it is not so much that he is against the Pauline Rite Mass, but that there are abuses rampant. If we actually read your appendix 4, there are a few things to be noted. He obviously is not attacking the Pauline Rite Mass, per se, when he says there is a lack of participation. Hey!! All during this time you've been whining about too much participation!!! Well, in the Tridentine Rite there is very limited participation and there is much more participation in the Pauline Rite Mass. He says absolutely nothing about the Mass being Protestantized or anything of the sort. He does lament the positioning of some things, (which have been dealt with thoroughly by Shawn in his Treatise) but says absolutely nothing derogatory in the content of the Pauline Rite Mass. Of course Davies reads more into that than what Mr. Thurian actually said. Just as there were abuses in the Tridentine Rite which will be touched on, which would have been severely exacerbated, there are lamentably abuses that take place in the current age. The abuses would happen whether it was Tridentine or Pauline.
-Snip of another quote that deals with issues already dealt with-
In the September 1991 issue of 30 Days, Cardinal Silvio Oddi had the follow to say:
Years ago, the introduction of the Second Canon for the Eucharistic consecration had also created some ill feeling. When the Second Canon was published, Protestants of the famous Taize community, whose liturgy does not conform with Catholic liturgy, declared: "We might have written it ourselves." This meant that the canon was open to an interpretation which did not require the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. So even then it was unclear, imprecise, to say the least - I had no difficulty in pronouncing it but I was surprised one day when Cardinal Franjo Seper himself, who was the Holy Office Prefect then and had to keep watch over the Church's orthodoxy, said to me: "I will never recite that canon." He, too, had his suspicions. My impression is that people not particularly concerned about the purity of dogma and doctrine were chosen to formulate these liturgical reforms - in the name of a misinterpreted ecumenical concept, they sought to present these aspects in a way that would be pleasing to others. (Emphasis ours)
This is quite an interesting statement from the good Cardinal concerning "Eucharistic Prayer Form Number Two." As it is, it would seem that Cardinal Oddi himself admitted that the Canon was imprecise, ambiguous, and open to protestant interpretations - so much so, that Cardinal Franjo Seper (the Holy Office Prefect at that time) refused to say it, and the famous protestant Taize community liked it so much, that they declared that they might have written it themselves!
Again, you continue to focus all your attacking efforts on one Eucharistic Prayer, and thus by focusing on one Prayer, attempt to delegitimize all of the Eucharistic prayers. Now in the quotation of the prefect of the Holy Office, your similar attempt to misuse Cardinal Ottaviani has already been exposed, so your second hand supposed ‘witness’ of Cardinal Seper is highly suspicious. Where are Cardinal Seper’s comments themselves? Where is the direct witness from Cardinal Seper that he ‘refused’ to say the Second Eucharist Prayer? I would expect that to come from Cardinal Seper himself. Indirect testimony from someone else saying that he didn’t say that prayer doesn’t cut it. Cardinal Oddi, your only supposed witness who says that is what Cardinal Seper said, says he has no trouble saying it himself. Yes, he calls it vague and imprecise. Using that criteria again, is the institution of the Eucharist as recorded in Sacred Scripture not also vague and imprecise? Should we do away with a part of Sacred Scripture because some see it as vague and imprecise? The Eucharistic Prayer of St. Hippolytus, the most ancient Liturgical Eucharistic Prayer that we have on record, and no one questions its validity (except perhaps our opponents), would also be regarded as such. In reference to the idea that the Protestant Taize Community could have written the Second Eucharist Prayer itself, I again give approximately 25% of the Second Eucharistic Prayer:
Lord, remember Your Church throughout the world; make us grow in love, together with N. our Pope, N. our bishop, and all the clergy.
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. Have mercy on us all; make us worthy to share eternal life with Mary, the virgin Mother of God, with the apostles, and with all the saints who have done your will throughout the ages. May we praise you in union with them, and give you glory through your Son, Jesus Christ.
Ok, does the Protestant Taize community pray for the dead that they be released out of purgatory? Hmm. That is a unique Protestant community that would write this themselves. Ok, calling Mary the Virgin Mother of God, how often do we hear that nowadays in the Protestant community? This idea that Protestants could have written the prayer themselves is bogus, unless you can patently affirm that Protestants love to not only pray for the Pope, but the Dead!!! And if they are praying for the dead, is that Catholic or Protestant? Hmmm? I have a challenge for you. Why don’t you go to your local Presbyterian or Lutheran Church, and propose that they pray not only for the papacy, not only refer to the ever Virgin Mother of God, but also pray for the dead!!! Remember, they are supposed to be comfortable with this. See how far that one goes!!!


[1] Cipriano Vagaggini, The Canon of the Mass and Liturgical Reform, Alba House, 1967, p. 122.

[2] Rt. Rev. Dom Fernand Cabrol, The Mass of the Western Rites, chapter 9. This article is available at:

[3] Council of Trent, Session 21, Chapter V.

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

[5] James Likoudis and Kenneth Whitehead, The Pope, the Council, and the Mass, The Christopher Publishing House, 1981, p. 79. Quotation from Documentation Catholique #58, 1976, page 649.

[6] Rev. John Murphy, The Mass and Liturgical Reform, The Bruce Publishing Company, 1956, p. 280.

[7] The Thirty Nine Articles of the Anglican Faith. Article 22. The Articles can be found at:

[8] St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 23:22, available at:

[9] General Instruction of the Roman Missal, Introduction, 14

©2000, "Detection and Overthrow of the 'Traditionalist Catholics' Falsely So-Called" (Part 3, Section 1), 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


Go to Next Section of “Detection and Overthrow 
of the ‘Traditionalist Catholics’ Falsely So-Called” Response

Return to Index Page of“Detection and Overthrow 
of the ‘Traditionalist Catholics’ Falsely So-Called” Response

Return to Matt's Catholic Apologetics Page

Go to Matt’s Ultratraditionalist Page