The Novus Ordo Missae: The Great Sacrilege; The Abomination of Desolation; and Invalid Six Ways From Sunday

All those Six Hundred Pound Gorillas and White Elephants in the Halls of the Post Vatican II "Church" Identified

Much ink has been spilled on the status of the "New Mass" of Paul VI since 1970, but few have dared to fully expose all the chicanery which renders it most probably invalid.  Tragically, this feeds the "The Novus Ordo is the Only Option and I must fulfill my Sunday Obligation" legal positivist mindset, and the "it was promulgated by the Pope so it cannot be bad" fallacy.  So this Wolf is going to cut right to the chase, get right down to the brass tacks, and expose this fraud for what it is, and what it is not.

When the New Mass was first promoted, the Institutio Generalis said, in chapter three, in the course of the seventh paragraph:  “The Lord’s supper or Mass is the sacred assembly or congregation of the people of God gathering together, with a priest presiding, in order to celebrate the memorial of the Lord.”  Simple, isn't it?  The New Mass is a Happy Meal.

Compare that with the Council of Trent:  "If any one saith, that the sacrifice of the mass is only a sacrifice of praise and of thanksgiving; or, that it is a bare commemoration of the sacrifice consummated on the cross, but not a propitiatory sacrifice; or, that it profits him only who receives; and that it ought not to be offered for the living and the dead for sins, pains, satisfactions, and other necessities; let him be anathema."  (Session 22, Canon #3)  The True Mass is a Propitiatory Sacrifice, a Re-Presentation of Calvary.

Just so we are clear, the Communion Service is not part of the Mass.  From the time that the priest, dispensed by Canon Law, leaves the Altar to distribute Holy Communion, until he begins the Ablutions, the Mass is "suspended", as it were, and not truly consummated, even though the Priest has already consumed the Host and the Precious Blood.  

Also just so we are clear, the following critique is based on the New Mass, said in Latin, with "canon #1", purportedly the Roman Canon, but most definitely not.

We will not here cover all the travesties done to the prayers of the "Liturgy of the Word", more properly known as "The Mass of the Catechumens."  While the elimination of the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar, the Gradual Prayers, and the mutilation of so many collects and even of the Gospels themselves are blasphemies, they do not make for an utter desolation.  That only beings after the Credo.

First, we come to the offertory.  The Mass must have an offertory, as it is a sacrifice, and not a meal.  As such, it must have a victim to be offered.  That Victim is Our Lord Jesus Christ, offered by the Selfsame Lord Jesus Christ, Eternal High Priest.  (All this blather about "participation in the Mass" is just that, blather.  As said many times, even the priest himself "participates" in the Mass much less than fans watching a football game in a stadium.)

The Offertory of the True Mass begins: "Receive, O Holy Father, almighty and eternal God, this spotless host, which I, Thine unworthy servant, offer unto Thee, my living and true God..."  No canon exists stipulating that the material used for the host need be "spotless"; it must merely be unleavened bread.  Therefore, one should readily see that the phrase "This spotless host" is said in anticipation of the Divine Victim to be offered.  Moreover, obviously, a piece of bread cannot satisfy for sins.  Likewise the Chalice: "We offer unto Thee, O Lord, the chalice of salvation..."  This obviously anticipates the Consecration.

In the New Mass, the Offertory has been substantially and unquestionably changed.  The Bread and Wine, "Fruit of the earth" and "vine" respectively, and "work of human hands" will become "Our Spiritual Drink".  These prayers are vague, Protestant fluffery, and signify neither sacrifice nor oblation.  

The New Mass does have this prayer, somewhat preserved from the True Mass: "With humble spirit and contrite heart may we be accepted by you, O Lord, and may our sacrifice in your sight this day be pleasing to you, Lord God."  But what "our sacrifice" refers to is anybody's conjecture.

Entirely omitted is this prayer from the True Mass: "Come, Thou, the Sanctifier, God, almighty and everlasting: bless this sacrifice which is prepared for the glory of Thy holy name."  Here we have an ontological specification, something the "reformers" are entirely adverse to throughout their new creation.

We now advance to the canon.  Passing over all the troubling changes to the precision of the Latin of the true Mass that introduce vague and possibly heretical meanings to the text, we proceed to the words of Consecration.  For the Sacred Host they are as follows: "For This is My Body" (True Mass); "For This is My Body Which Will Be Given Up for You" (New Mass).  What is troubling here is the addition of words of the future tense in the New Mass.  One could rightfully ask: "In the New Mass, do we have here just a stasis, and not a sacrifice, which is to be consummated at some point in the future?"  Or one might also ask: "Is this merely an Institutional Narrative".  One of Pope Pius XII's expressed fears was that the "reformers" would reduce the Mass to a Protestant Narrative.  Is that indeed what we have here?  The mere fact that such a question can be asked casts doubt on the moral certainty of this act.  And many theologians have postulated that a priest can only consecrate the bread and wine within the context of the Roman Canon.  So, even if the Consecration of the Chalice had remained unaltered, one can at least have a serious doubt that any consecration has taken place.

Of course, for the consecration of the Chalice, the case gets considerably worse.  In the True Mass, the complete formula is as follows: "FOR THIS IS THE CHALICE OF MY BLOOD, OF THE NEW AND EVERLASTING TESTAMENT, THE MYSTERY OF FAITH, WHICH FOR YOU AND FOR MANY SHALL BE SHED UNTO THE REMISSION OF SINS."  In the New Mass, words have been deleted and words added: "TAKE THIS, ALL OF YOU, AND DRINK FROM IT, FOR THIS IS THE CHALICE OF MY BLOOD, THE BLOOD OF THE NEW AND ETERNAL COVENANT, WHICH WILL BE POURED OUT FOR YOU AND FOR MANY FOR THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS. DO THIS IN MEMORY OF ME."  In addition to the words being recast in the form of a narrative, the words "THE MYSTERY OF FAITH" are missing.  According to the Catechism of the Council of Trent, this alone would be reason to seriously doubt this Mass is valid, and by no means could it be called licit.

The next part of the New Mass that is very troubling is the utter conflation of the Communion of the Priest with the Communion Service of the Faithful.  In the True Mass, the "Priest's Communion" is in truth the oblation, or destruction, of the victim, just as the lamb was slain and then burnt as a holocaust, the priest consumes the Divine Victim, reciting a whole series of prayers to that effect.  In the Novus Ordo, those prayers are eliminated, and, immediately after taking Communion, the priest hastens to give such to the people.  In the True Mass, there is a clear break in the Mass and the Communion Service begins.  Thus, one could argue the New Mass is nothing but a "Sacrificial Banquet", and not a sacrifice in the proper sense at all.

In the voluminous apologia for the New Mass this Wolf has read, the defenders of the New Rite are always postulating something that just is not there, and insisting the reason it must be there is because "The Pope is Infallible" and "The Church is Indefectible".  Well, the Church is not "indefectible" concerning mathematical theorems, nor when it strays from Apostolic Tradition.

Now, this is the best case scenario.  From here, it just gets worse.  If "Canon Number Two" is used, an additional problem emerges. The Epiclesis is omitted.  In the Roman Canon, this is as follows: "We humbly beseech Thee, almighty God, to command that these our offerings be borne by the hands of Thy holy angel to Thine altar on high in the presence of Thy divine Majesty..."  Many theologians consider the Epiclesis necessary for validity of the Mass.

Many vernacular translations have "For All" instead of "For Many" for the Consecration of the Wine.  And that is only one of many problems that arise with the vernacular.

Of course, needless to say, many priests have thought nothing of using invalid matter for the consecration, or of changing or omitting entirely the words of institution while surrounded by clowns and dancing girls.

The Bottom Line?  Just because something looks holy and reverent does not mean that it is.  God is Unsearchable Mystery, and the Holy Ghost has protected through Apostolic Custom what Our Lord Jesus Christ instituted.  To stray in the least from Apostolic Custom is to enter at once into a world of dangers, abomination, and desolation.  The Great  Architect, Anibale Bugnini and his followers, went very boldly where angels fear to tread.

Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us.  You are our only hope!!