New Mass or Protestant Service? 

Regarding the main rite where bread and wine are "changed" into Jesus, the canon, the Council of Trent "infallibly" decreed, "If anyone says that the canon of the mass contains errors and is therefore to be abrogated, let him be anathema".  This was in Session 23, c6.  If you read the canon of the time, you will see several Catholic doctrines mentioned.  The statement appears in the canon that

only Roman Catholicism is God's Church,

the pope is the head of the Church

that bread and wine truly become Jesus

that the Mass is a sacrifice

that saints and angels can be invoked

that we need salvation from eternal damnation

There are other statements too. 

All of these are declared infallible and correct then.  One reason traditional Catholics conserve the traditional Tridentine Mass is because they think it is a good test of what you believe you are being told to believe.

Since 1969, the Catholic Church has been bound by Church law to use the new rite of Mass approved by the Vatican and promulgated by Pope Paul VI. Before that, the law was that only the Latin Mass sanctioned by the Council of Trent, called the Tridentine Mass though it is much older, and enforced by Pope St Pius V in 1570 in the bull, Quo Primum Tempore, could be used. The Latin Mass required that the priest keep his back to the people while at the altar, it had many prayers to saints in it, it made transubstantiation absolutely clear, forbade the vernacular, forbade communion in the hand or under both kinds. The New Mass changed all this. The Latin Mass just had one prayer for turning the bread and wine into God and offering it to God but the New Mass has four basic ones and many others have been added.
 
In the Apostolic Constitution - Missale Romanum, Paul is alleged to have made it the law for the new form of celebrating Mass to be used. There are there three ways the law commanding the Latin Mass could be done away. One is by repealing it. The other, derogation, is partly abolishing it by modifying it. The last is by abrogation, replacing existing legislation with new.
 
Not far from the end, he declares that he and the commission give the force of law to what he has set forth concerning the new Mass. This however is a perversion of the original Latin version. The original says that they just want to draw attention to one major thought about the new Roman missal which happens to be its ability to bind the Church together in unity.
 
It seems that in his Apostolic Constitution, the only thing Paul could have done to make the new mass legal was derogation. The last line says that they order the prescriptions in the document to go into effect on November 30 that year. The derogation would mean then that the law of Pius V was still in force and the Latin Mass couldn’t be banned or done away with and used alongside the New Mass. Yet the pope and the Vatican enforced the New Mass on the Church and banned the old Latin Mass which was definitely heretical and uncanonical. Pius V commanded that there should only be one rite of Mass and that if any printer altered it even a bit they were to be excommunicated and fined and the purpose of all this was to “preserve incorrupt the Church’s public worship and we have strived with God’s help by every means given to us to make that happen” in Quo Primum Tempore. The reason for this was to make sure the Mass preserved and incorporated Catholic dogma without any error or ambiguity. There can be no doubt that because the faith comes first any pope who opens the way to corrupted masses and new prayers being added that could be heretical is disobeying Pius V and his activities are condemned and invalid if he tries to enforce them as if they were law.
 
But was the derogation valid? It could be argued that the derogation was invalid because he just says we order which may or may not mean that this is a command with full legal force. A law that is not enacted right is not binding for you can’t be sure if it is a law. Nothing then in the Apostolic Constitutions carries the force of law. Also, he did not say what was happening to the previous law. Was the new law temporary? Was the old law to be kept alongside the new one? The order is not explicit on this so it was not legally binding or was not a law. Read Society of St Pius X, St John’s Bulletin, April – June 1994 chapter 5 THE LEGAL STATUS OF THE TRADITIONAL LATIN MASS. Paul VI said that the new Mass is to be celebrated for it preserves the substance of the old rites – this isn’t true so when his reason for asking that it be celebrated is mistaken his asking cannot have any valid force of law even should he attempt to make it law.
 
The law of the Church says that only good laws are truly legal. If the new Mass is evil or heretical or harmfully ambiguous then the pope broke the law and made a fake law.
 
The Constitution says that the new Mass is in keeping with the wish of Vatican II (in its document, Sacrosanctum Concilum) to make the Mass express what it means better. It says this wish is to be agreed with. But we cannot agree with this statement from Vatican II and agree with the new Mass which is ambiguous and abandons much Catholic dogma. This makes the Constitution invalid for it makes a law and then unmakes it. It is devoid of any legal power. Another proof of this is that the Constitution claims that the substance of the Mass is to be kept though it commands a new rite of Mass that can be recited by a heretic who denies that the bread and wine literally become Jesus and that he is sacrificed for sins in the Mass.
 
Read the Society of St Pius X article proving that there is nothing in current Catholic Canon Law or since Vatican II that makes it illegal for a priest to celebrate the Tridentine Mass without his bishop's permission.
 
Top Canon Lawyers of the Novos Ordo Church one of whom is Professor Neri Capponi has found Paul VI’s alleged decree making the New Mass binding to be just an alleged one. Other problems are alterations of the pope’s document. The only thing that the pope decreed was that the bishops could decree when the new Mass should be used. A Commission of 9 cardinals in 1986 found that the Tridentine Latin Mass was not abrogated or illegal.
 
Nothing in the pope’s decree does away with the old Mass. Read it www.communigate.co.uk/ne/tradition/page9.phtml.
 
A more serious problem is that the pope’s decree only says about the changes to the words of consecration that are to be enforced and what the three new Eucharistic prayers are to be but doesn’t say who must use this new revised Mass which means that it is not legally binding. You can’t make valid or real laws unless you make it clear who these laws are binding on.
 
Disobedience to Paul VI would certainly be permissible legally and morally when he didn’t even know his own mind. He was like a liberal who changed his mind all the time. In such cases the true Catholic would have to obey him only in so far as his rules were legal and fitted the outlook required of the Church by tradition, tradition being considered a form of the word of God in addition to the Bible.
 
Here are the abominations of the new Mass.
 
The bread and wine are offered to God at the offertory. The prayers make this clear. In the old Mass, the bread and wine are symbols of Jesus and are used to offer him but the bread and wine are not literally offered. Christians are not allowed to offer anything other than Jesus and what he does in them (Hebrews 10:11, 12, 18).
 
One of the responses made after the alleged turning of the bread and wine into God tells Jesus that when we eat this bread and drink this cup we proclaim his death. This implies that what went before was symbolism.
 
Eucharistic Prayer II asks God that the bread and wine will become for us the body and blood of Christ. This for us appears in the Roman Canon, of the Tridentine Mass as in the new one, when much the same prayer is made. In a Mass that is not clear about transubstantiation such as the new one it can be taken as a denial of the doctrine. Protestants hold that the bread and wine are to or for us the body and blood of Jesus, i.e. symbolically. The Latin Mass made transubstantiation clear so the same cannot be said of the for us in it.
 
Some heretics hold that the bread and wine don’t become the body and blood of Jesus until the worthy person is about to eat and drink. The unworthy only get bread and wine. This new Mass is perfect for them.
 
The Prayer offers the saving bread and cup to God when they are supposed to be the resurrected Jesus. It is nonsense to do this if Jesus is really present. It makes more sense to offer his sacrifice instead of his resurrected body.
 
The Prayer praises God for making the congregation worthy to stand before him and serve him. Read Luke 18 on the parable of the Pharisee and the publican which condemns people who do that. This denies the Catholic doctrine that man cannot deserve salvation and grace. This is the Pelagian heresy so cherished by Modernists and Liberals.
 
Eucharistic Prayer III, says that all creation gives God praise. This implies that all are God’s friends and will be saved. Presumably, sinners are only venial sinners.
 
The Prayer is careful not to make it clear that the sacrifice of Jesus is present and is the sacrifice that is offered to God. God is asked to accept the offering and then to see the victim who has put us right with him by dying. It is like saying, “Accept this offering of thanksgiving but see the other sacrifice, the one that Jesus made.”
 
The preface of Eucharistic Prayer IV says that God leads all men to Heaven which denies the doctrine of Hell and if God wanted to lead all to Heaven he would have kept Jesus on this planet longer. And nobody would be dying in mortal sin.
 
The account of salvation history in it seems to say that Jesus came only to save us from physical death. Orthodox Roman Catholicism says that his main purpose was to save us from spiritual death, the condition of not being friends with God.
 
Again, after the consecration, the body and blood are offered. This may mean the body and blood on the cross not the altar which is orthodox enough.
 
The prayer does not mention the notion of the Mass being the sacrifice of Christ. It asks for the Church to become a sacrifice of praise and then it offers a sacrifice to God for it which must be the same one. If the sacrifice of Jesus is present then it is rude to concentrate on offering a lesser one. The prayer seems to be against the notion of the Mass and Calvary being the same.
 
The prayer says that the faith of the dead is known to God alone which denies the Roman doctrine that the saints and the angels know what is inside us which infers that they cannot pray for our intentions.
 
The prayer ends with saying that we will sing to God forever with every creature which once more challenges the dogma of eternal punishing.
 
Before taking communion, the celebrant puts a piece of the host in the chalice and asks that this mingling of the body and blood of Jesus Christ may bring eternal life to those who receive it a prayer that was only introduced in the new rite. This is a strange prayer that can only mean that you cannot receive Jesus unless you take both kinds. This denies that Jesus is really present for where the body is the blood will be and affirms the Protestant heresy that communion under one kind is no use.
 
Thanks to that prayer, when the priest gives the host saying, “The Body of Christ”, he means that the body of Jesus becomes present at that point but not necessarily that the bread is the body.
 
The New Order of Mass embodies heresy and its ambiguity itself is heresy for the Church is supposed to be clear and well grounded in the truth. It is not Catholic.

No Copyright