Why NOT to attend the New Mass

In his letter to the Corinthians in the year 88 A.D., Pope St. Clement of Rome (martyr and fourth Pope after St. Peter), wrote that Our Lord laid down the order of the Mass, referring to the Offertory, Consecration and Communion. St. Justin the Martyr (in his writings, 155 A.D.) stated that after His Resurrection, Our Lord taught the Apostles how to say Mass.

Many liturgical historians believe that the writings of St. Clement and St. Justin were expressed in a formal way by St. Ambrose (approximately 360 A.D.) in a book titled, De Sacramentis. De Sacramentis essentially contains the canonized Mass prayers. The Mass prayers appeared in written form only three hundred years after Jesus Christ’s death. It was in the 4th century that Latin became the official language of the Church and the word missa was introduced. This was probably introduced by St. Ambrose in the Leonine Sacramentary (Pope St. Leo in 450 A.D.) and the Gelasian Sacramentary (Pope Gelasius I in 498 A.D.). The essential parts of this missal were found to be almost the same as those in the Tridentine Mass. In the year 600 A.D., Pope St. Gregory the Great (590-604 A.D.) finished his Gregorian Sacramentary, which is essentially the Mass “codified” by Pope St. Pius V in 1570.7

The True Mass goes back to Apostolic times; and it was “codified”, solidified, or set in stone by St. Pope Pius V in his Papal Bull Quo Primum Tempore on July 14, 1570. Pope St. Pius V specified the exact Mass ritual “of and for” the Roman Rite. Only this Liturgy or Ritual was to be used from that time until the end of time (for the Roman Rite). The Canon with the exception of one short clause, inserted by Pope Gregory the Great, had remained unchanged “. . . until 1962, when John XXIII added the name of St. Joseph to the Canon of the Mass. A total of 26 words have been added to the Traditional Canon, by Popes Leo (440-461 A.D.) and St. Gregory the Great (590-604 A.D.). Thus, as the Council of Trent accurately states, the Canon is composed out of the very words of the Lord, the tradition of the Apostles, and the pious institutions of the holy Pontiffs.”8

It is called “the Mass of All Times” (because it dates back to the Apostles in its essential elements–though it is eternal in its nature), the “Tridentine Mass” (named after the Council of Trent), the “Mass of Pius V” (after the Pope who actually “codified” it in 1570), and on occasion (but loosely and incorrectly) “the Latin Mass” (incorrectly because any Rite can be translated into Latin and because the Novus Ordo Missae itself was issued originally in Latin).9 The True Mass should be called the Roman Rite of the Mass. This way there isn’t any confusion.

In the middle to late 60’s, Rome started to have the Mass said in the vernacular and then in 1970, Paul VI gave us a whole new rite of Mass called the “Novus Ordo Missae”. It is not by chance that the enemies of the True Faith who are building “a Novus Ordo Seclorum” (a new world order) would establish “a Novus Ordo Missae” (a new order of the Mass) to destroy the Roman Catholic Church. Even in the original Latin form, the New Mass was bad enough, but after going to the vernacular through the International Committee on English in the Liturgy (ICEL), disaster ensued, and the questions of validity were justified. A total of 35 prayers or approximately 70% of the Tridentine Mass has been replaced or discarded.10

Here is what Paul VI put in the new Roman Missal on April 3, 1969: #13 “We hope that the Missal will be received by the Faithful” and #15 “We wish that these, our decrees and prescriptions, may be firm and effective.”11 To impose a law a pope must make it clear to the Church that a Law is being imposed, or that he is binding the Church to use this New Mass. He did not do so. Paul VI said on November 19, 1969: “This Rite (New Mass) and its related rubrics are not in themselves a dogmatic definition.”12 Paul VI did not and could not change the Roman Rite of the Mass.

It is not necessary to examine all four of the Eucharistic prayers in the New Mass. However, let’s look at Eucharistic Prayer #3: The following words are addressed to the Lord: “From age to age you gather a people to yourself, in order that from East and West a perfect offering may be made to the glory of your Name.”13 This phrase makes it clear that it is the people, rather than the priest, who are the indispensable element in the celebration.

In the Encyclical Mediator Dei, Pope Pius XII condemned the statement that “the eucharistic sacrifice” is an authentic concelebration of the priest as well as of the people present.

The purpose of the True Mass is the praise and adoration of Almighty God through the Sacrifice of Christ, who is the invisible priest and victim. The difference between the New Mass and the True Mass is the difference between Cain and Abel. We are told: “The Lord had respect to Abel and to his offerings. But to Cain and his offerings, He had no respect” (Gen. 4:3-5). At the beginning of human history, the two brothers set the pattern of true and false religious observance for all time. One was an immolation in expiation of sin, the other merely a friendly exchange of gifts between man and God. One was acceptable, the other was not.14

“Archbishop Bugnini was a consultant in the Sacred Congregation of the Propagation of the Faith, and in the Sacred Congregation of Holy Rites. He was also the chairman of the Concilium which drafted the Novus Ordo Missae. Archbishop Annibale Bugnini was a freemason, initiated into the Masonic Lodge on April 23, 1963 (Masonic Register of Italy dated 1976). Monsignor Bugnini was removed from his office in the Vatican when it became public that he was a Mason. And instead of being publicly reproved, or required to renounce his Masonic membership, he was appointed Papal Nuncio to Iran.”16

The president of this Concilium was Cardinal Lecaro, a man whom Cardinal Bacci called, “Luther resurrected.”17

When we discuss the New Mass we must consider the authors. Whereas Paul VI was formally and juridically responsible, it was actually composed by the Concilium, which consisted of some 200 individuals, many of whom had functioned as periti (“expert theologians”) during Vatican Council II. The Concilium was helped by six Protestant ‘observers’ (ministers) who played a huge part in developing the New Mass. “. . . Paul VI publicly thanked them for their assistance in re-editing in a new manner liturgical texts … so that the lex orandi (the law of prayer) conformed better with the lex credendi (the law of belief).”18 You need a new liturgy for a new religion. The New Mass is the new law of non-Catholic belief.

Jean Guitton (an intimate friend of Paul VI) wrote: “The intention of Pope Paul VI with regard to what is commonly called the Mass, was to reform the Catholic Liturgy in such a way that it should almost coincide with the Protestant liturgy. There was with Pope Paul VI an ecumenical intention to remove, or, at least to correct, or, at least to relax, what was too Catholic in the traditional sense in the Mass and, I repeat, to get the Catholic Mass closer to the Calvinist mass.”19

Judging the Novus Ordo Missae (New Mass) in itself, in its official Latin form, Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci wrote to Paul VI on Sept. 25, 1969: “The Novus Ordo represents, both as a whole and in its details, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session 22 of the Council of Trent.”20 Of the 12 Offertory prayers in the Traditional Rite, only two are retained in the New Mass.21 And of interest is the fact that the deleted prayers are the same ones that Luther and Cranmer eliminated. Why did they eliminate them? Because, as Luther said, the “smacked of Sacrifice . . . the abomination called the offertory, and from this point on almost everything stinks of oblation.”22 The Offertory and Consecration are the very heart of the True Mass

Martin Luther said, “The Mass is not a sacrifice … call it Benediction, Eucharist, the Lord’s Table, the Lord’s Supper, Memory of the Lord or whatever you like, just so long as you do not dirty it with the name of a Sacrifice.”23 16th century Protestant reformer, Thomas Cranmer said: “The use of an altar is to make sacrifice upon; the use of a table to serve men to eat upon.”24 When you line up the New Mass with the Anglican schismatic Book of Common Prayer (1549), they are almost identical; in fact, the Book of Common Prayer is more reverent than the New Mass.

There are over 400 mistranslations from the Latin.25 Almost 100 percent of the new Masses around the world are said in the vernacular. Just changing the Mass into vernacular is, in itself, condemned. Session 12, Canon 9 of the Council of Trent says: “If anyone says … that the Mass should be said in vernacular only, let him be anathema.”26

Constitution, “Auctorem Fidei,” August 28, 1794, Pope Pius VI (1775-1799) The Suitable Order to Be Observed in Worship #33.

The proposition of the Synod condemns the following in regard to the Mass: “by recalling it (the Liturgy) to a greater simplicity of Rites, by expressing it in the vernacular language, by uttering it in a loud voice.” These changes were condemned by Pope Pius VI as “rash, offensive to pious ears, insulting to the Church, favorable to the charges of heretics against it.”27

In the offertory of the New Mass the priest says precisely the same words as those which are used in the Jewish sater service. These are the words: “Blessed art thou, O Lord God of all creation. For through your goodness we have this bread to offer, fruit of the earth and work of human hands it will become for us the bread of life. This wine to offer, fruit of the vine and work of human hands it will become for us our spiritual drink.”28 It’s frightening to think that the offertory of the New Mass is taken word for word from the sater meal of the Jewish holiday of Passover. In the New Mass the Priest offers bread and wine;

however, in the True Mass, the Priest offers the Immaculate Victim. It is a blasphemy to offer God bread and wine.In the Novus Ordo Requiem Masses (the Mass for the Dead), the word “Soul” is not mentioned even once.29

Paul VI said on May 24, 1976: “The New Ordo has been promulgated to replace the old after mature deliberation and in order to fulfill the Council’s decisions.”30 Canon 6 of the Council of Trent says: “If anyone says that there are errors in the Canon of the Mass and that therefore it should be abrogated: let him be anathema.”31

Back at the Council of Trent, in Session 22, the Council Fathers realized that the Mass was being attacked, and they basically said, “Let’s make sure the Mass remains intact.” After the Council, Quo Primum forever defined the liturgical morals – the Mass Liturgies, both Eastern and Roman.
Quo Primum

St. Pope Pius V said dogmatically and infallibly in Quo Primum that: “It shall be unlawful henceforth and forever throughout the Christian world to sing or to read Masses according to any formula other than this Missal published by us.”

The Decree of Quo Primum was irrevocable, and Pope St. Pius V went on further to state in Quo Primum: “This present Constitution can never be revoked or modified, but shall forever remain valid and have the force of Law . . . And if, nevertheless, anyone would ever dare attempt any action contrary to this Order of ours, handed down for all times, let him know that he has incurred the wrath of Almighty God, and the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.”32 (July 14, 1570)

But, can one Pope change what another Pope has done?

In pastoral matters, yes; in matters of Faith, No! When we talk about the Liturgy we are talking about the Faith. Quo Primum was not a discipline. It dealt directly with Faith and morals.

Faith: What you must believe to be saved.

Social Morals: How man behaves towards other men.

Liturgical Morals: How man behaves towards God.

Liturgy is not arbitrary or dispensable. The Liturgy is the essence of Catholic Faith.

The Bull on witchcraft by Pope Innocent VIII demonstrates that Quo Primum was infallible. The Bull’s language is not nearly as strong as Quo Primum, but ends with these words: “If any man dare to go contrary to this command, which God forbid, let him know that upon him will fall the wrath of Almighty God, and the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.” These are the exact words used in Quo Primum at the end. In the introduction to the 1928 Catholic Encyclopedia it says (speaking about Innocent VIII’s Bull): “If any man shall presume to go against the tenor let him know that therein he will bring down the wrath of Almighty God and The Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.” The commentary afterwards says: “Could words weightier be found?”

The Encyclopedia goes on to say: “Are we then to class this Bull in with the Bull Dogmatica Ineffabilis Deus where Pope Pius IX proclaimed the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception? Such a position is clearly tenable, but even if we do not insist that the Bull of Innocent VIII is an infallible utterance, that it does not in set terms define a Dogma, although it does set forth sure and certain truths, it must be held to be a document of supreme and absolute authority, of dogmatic force.

“Pope Pius XI said in his apostolic constitution “Divini Cultus” on December 20, 1928, addressing the connection of the Sacred Liturgy with the Church: “The Liturgy is an undoubtedly sacred thing; for through it we are brought to God and are joined with Him; we bear witness to our Faith . . . Hence a kind of intimate relationship between Dogma and Sacred Liturgy, and likewise between Christian worship and the sanctification of the people. Therefore, Pope Celestine I proposed and expressed a Canon of Faith in the venerated formulas of the Liturgy: “Let the Law of Supplication, (prayer) establish the Law of Believing . . .”33

7th Session, Canon 13 of the Council of Trent: The correct Latin translation says: “If anyone says that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church, customarily used in the solemn administration of the Sacraments, can be despised or can be freely omitted by the ministers without sin, or can be changed into other new rites by any pastor in the Church whomsoever, let him be anathema.”34

This canon states very clearly that the Pope, who is the first and supreme pastor may never change any approved Rite of the Roman Catholic Church. The Roman Rite was fixed forever by Pope St. Pius V in Quo Primum. Paul VI tried to establish a whole new Roman Rite. There is only one Roman Rite of the Mass; there cannot be two.

In the Profession of Faith in the Council of Trent, the following was always professed by the priest begin ordained; he promises and vows: “I also receive and admit the accepted and approved rites of the Catholic Church in the solemn administration of all the aforesaid Sacraments.”35

It is indisputable that according to the previous pronouncements of the Church that the New Mass is illegal, and therefore cannot be celebrated or attended.

The issue of whether there is a valid consecration in the New Mass is another question which we will now address.

In the decree to the Armenians in the Council of Florence, it states the following: “All these Sacraments are dispensed in three ways, namely, by things as the matter, by words as the form, and by the person of the minister conferring the Sacrament with the intention of doing as the Church does; if any of these is lacking the Sacrament is not fulfilled.”36

The four main things necessary for a valid celebration of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass:

minister: The celebrant must be a validly ordained priest.

intention: The celebrant must have the intention of confecting the Sacrament.

matter: The elements of the Mass must be wheaten bread and grape wine, made without additives.

form: The proper form (words) of consecration must be used. According to the Council of Trent, these requirements cannot be altered by anyone, not even the Church itself, since they were established by Christ.

Let’s first cover the issue as to whether the New Mass is valid by reviewing the vernacular. In most every vernacular translation of the New Mass, the words “many” have been changed to “all” in the Consecration. This is not a minor change! It will be argued that in the New Mass the priest says, “This is My Body” which are the same words used in the Tridentine Mass and so, if we use the right words for the Consecration of the Body, “This is My Body,” we have a Sacrament. They do not believe anything else is required. Those who hold to this position ignore the defects in the “form” of the New Mass (essential words needed to confect the Sacrament). Furthermore, they ignore the fact that the words in the form of the New Mass, while themselves essential to the form of the Sacrament, do not constitute the complete form of the Sacrament. Others will argue that both consecrations are not imperative to have a valid Sacrament. This is also contrary to the teaching of the Church. The proper intention necessary is an intention to confect not one, but both Sacraments. This is essential for a valid celebration of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

St. Thomas Aquinas says: “As often as the Sacrifice is offered, the consecration of both species is required, according to the will and institution of Christ. For Christ at the Last Supper, consecrating each (both) species, commanded: ‘Do this in commemoration of me’ . . . the very notion of sacrifice . . . demands the consecration of both species.” 37

De Defectibus is a long document written by Pope St. Pius V which discusses certain defects which could arise in the celebration of Mass. It is largely a point of reference so the celebration of Mass would remain the same in all lands for all times. Defects were described in detail so that priests would always say Mass in the same manner.

Quo Primum and De Defectibus emanated from the Council of Trent. Both of these documents were found in the front of all Altar Missals as an easy reference for priest offering the Holy Mass. Quo Primum and De Defectibus were first included in the Missale Romanum in 1572. They were deleted from the ICEL (Committee on English in the Liturgy) version in 1969.

De Defectibus Chapter X, Part 3, prescribes that a Mass interrupted after the Consecration of the Host (because of illness or death of the celebrant) must be continued by another priest, i.e., that the wine must be consecrated to complete and effect the Sacrifice.

In the 1917 Code, Canon 817 states: “It is unlawful even in the case of necessity, to consecrate one species without the other, or to consecrate both outside the Mass.”

The complete form or words of Consecration needed for a valid Sacrament were clearly stated in the Council of Florence.

The Council of Florence, in 1442, declared that the following words must be used for a valid Consecration in the Mass: “Wherefore the words of Consecration, which are the form of this Sacrament, are these: ‘For this is My Body: 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.”38

Various Mass Rites: “For Many” or “For All””. . .

The Church hast traditionally recognized as valid — some 76 different rites in various languages, many of which date back to Apostolic times, not one however, has ever used “all” in the form for the Consecration of the Wine.”39 Even the Anglican Common Prayer Book of 1549 didn’t change the word “many to “all” in the consecration and it was still declared by Pope Leo XIII to be invalid.

Some people may say that discarding or changing a word or words in the Mass isn’t a big deal. Church history has proven that little words, even little letters, can mean alot.

The combats sustained by the Nicean Fathers against the Arians over the definition of the dogma of the Incarnation are witness to the uncompromising zeal for stating the truth without shade of alteration, gloss, or ambiguity which the faith demand in a time of crisis. Major differences could have been settled at that time by the addition of one single letter. The problematic homoousios denoting “consubstantial” needed only have been softened to homoiousios denoting “similar in nature.”40

Luke 16:17: “It is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the Law to fall.”

Matthew 5:18: “For Amen I say unto you, till heaven and earth shall pass, one jot, or one tittle shall not pass of the Law, till all be fulfilled.”

The Church has always taught that the word “all”, for very specific reasons, is purposely not used in the Consecration!

St. Alphonsus tells us: “The words pro vobis et pro multis (for you and for many) are used to distinguish the virtue of the Blood of Christ from its fruits: for the blood of Our Savior is of sufficient value to save all men but its fruits are applied only to a certain number and not to all, and this is their own fault.”41 Or, as the theologians say, this Precious Blood is sufficient to save all men, but in reality it does not save all — it saves only those who cooperate with Grace. The Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist is not a Sacrament for all men; it is a Sacrament for you and for many.

The Catechism by Decree of The Holy Council of Trent teaches that the additional words “for you and for many, are taken, some from St. Matthew, some from St. Luke, but were joined together by the Catholic Church under the guidance of the Spirit of God . . . With reason, therefore, were the words ‘for all’ not used, as in this place the fruits of the passion are alone spoken of, and to the elect only did His Passion bring the fruit of salvation.”42

St. Thomas Aquinas expressed the same opinion in the Summa, III, Q78, Art. 4, Reply to Objection 8. Pope Benedict XIV also expressed this opinion in De Missae Sacrificio.

Just for the reason that there is a doubtful Consecration in the New Mass, Catholics are obliged to abstain from any participation in such rites. Fr. Jone’s Moral Theology, Chapter under the Efficacy of the Sacraments Part IV #2, states under examples: “To administer or receive a Sacrament invalidly is a much greater sin than to administer or receive it unfruitfully.”43

Pope Innocent XI, in a decree of the Holy Office, March 4, 1679, condemned the idea that a person could follow a probable opinion regarding the value of a sacrament and abandon the safer course.44 Pope Innocent XI condemned this thinking not once, but twice!

Errors of Michael of Molinos (Condemned in the decree of the Sacred Office, August 28, 1687, by Pope Innocent XI and in the Constitutions “Coelestis Pastor,” Nov. 20, 1687)45

11. It is not necessary to reflect upon doubts whether one is proceeding rightly or not.” (Condemned)46″

Condemned as heretical, suspect, erroneous, scandalous, blasphemous, offensive to pious ears, rash, or relaxed Christian discipline, subversive, and seditious respectively.”47

Fr. Henry Davis says in his Moral and Pastoral Theology Vol. 2 p. 27: “In conferring the Sacrament, as also in the Consecration in the Mass, it is never allowed to adopt a probable course of action as to validity and to abandon the safer course. The contrary was explicitly condemned by Pope Innocent XI (1676-1689); to do so would be a grievous sin against religion, namely an act of irreverence towards what Christ Our Lord has instituted.”48”

It would be a grievous sin against Charity, as the recipient would probably be deprived of the graces and effects of the Sacrament. It would be a grievous sin against Justice, as the recipient has a right to valid Sacraments. Matter and form must be certainly valid. Hence, one may not follow a probable opinion and use either doubtful matter or form. Acting otherwise, one commits a sacrilege.”49 That is one reason why the New Mass is a sacrilege.

The New Mass is a sacrilege because it is a deliberate counterfeit of the established Mass of the Roman Rite. The True Mass was given a definite and unchangeable form by St. Pope Pius V so sacrilege could be avoided and condemned.

St. Thomas Aquinas describes a sacrilege: “In a sacrilege, we find a special type of deformation, namely the violation of a sacred thing by treating it with irreverence.” (Summa. II Q. 99, Art. 2)

If the Novus Ordo Missae is not Catholic, then it cannot satisfy one’s Sunday obligation, and would be a grievous sin to attend. St. Thomas Aquinas said: “Falsehood in outward worship occurs on the part of the worshipper, and especially, in common worship which is offered by minister impersonating the whole Church. For even as he would be guilty of falsehood who would, in the name of another person, proffer things that are not committed to him, so too does man incur the guilt of falsehood who, on the part of the Church gives worship to God contrary to the manner established by the Church or Divine Authority, and according to the ecclesiastical custom.” Hence, St. Ambrose says: “He is unworthy who celebrates the mystery otherwise than as Christ delivered it.”50

Pope Innocent III, one of the greatest jurists, said: “No one may depart from the universal customs of the Church.”51

Saint Pope Pius X said in Pascendi Dominic Gregis: “For Catholics nothing will remove the authority of the Second Council of Nicea, where it condemns those who dare, after the impious novelties of some kind or to endeavor by malice or craft to overthrow anyone of the legitimate traditions of the Catholic Church.”

St. Leonard, The Hidden Treasure, p. 157

Rev. T. E. Bridgett, The Life of Blessed John Fisher (London:  Burns & Oates, 1888).  Bishop St. John Fisher was martyred, along with St. Thomas More, by Henry VIII in 1535.

St. Alphonsus Liguori, The Dignities and Duties Of The Priest (London: Benzinger Bros., 1889), p. 212.

Octava Controversia Generalis.  Liber Ii. Controversia Quinta. Caput XXXI.

Fr. Paul Trinchard, Holy Mass, Holy Mary (MAETA: P.O. Box 6012, Metairie, LA, 1997), p. 41.

St. Leonard, The Hidden Treasure, p. 157

Fr. Paul Trinchard, Holy Mass, Holy Mary (MAETA: P.O. Box 6012, Metairie, LA, 1997), p. 4,5.

Dr. Rama Coomaraswamy, The Problems with the New Mass, p. 11.

Ibid, p. 9.

Fr. Paul Trinchard, New Mass in Light of the Old (MAETA: P.O. Box 6012, Metairie, LA, 1995), p. 20.

Fr. James Wathen, The Great Sacrilege, p. 178, 179.

Fr. Paul Trinchard, Novus Ordo Condemned (MAETA: P.O. Box 6012, Metairie, LA, 1997), p. 34.

Comment of Fr. Joseph Jungmann, the Mass:  An Historical, Theological And Pastoral Survey (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1976), p. 201.

On the Contrary (Veritas Press, Box 1704, Santa Monica, CA), p. 50.

Most Asked Questions About The Society Of Saint Pius X (Angelus Press, 2918 Tracy Ave., Kansas City, MO), p. 26.

Fr. James Wathen, Who Shall Ascend?, p. 178, 179.

La Tunica Stracciata by Tito Casini, Rome 1967 / Fr. Paul Leonard, A Theological Vindication Of Roman Catholic Traditionalism (Angelus Press, 2918 Tracy Ave., Kansas City, MO), p. 43.

Dr. Rama Coomaraswamy, The Problems with the New Mass, p. 24.

Latin Mass Magazine, Winter, 1995 / Christian Order, Oct. 1994.

Most Asked Questions About The Society Of Saint Pius X (Angelus Press, 2918 Tracy Ave., Kansas City, MO), p. 26.

Msgr. Frederick McManus, The Revival of the Liturgy, p. 217.

Dr. Rama Coomaraswamy, The Problems with the New Mass, p. 34.

Ibid., p. 29.

The Works of Thomas Cranmer (London: Parker Society), V. 2, p. 524.

Faith, Nov 1979.

Denzinger 956.

Denzinger 1533.

Fr. Donald Sanborn, Changes of Vatican II, Part IV (Catholic Restoration Bookstore, 2850 Parent, Warren, MI).

Fr. Anthony Cekada, “A Response”, The Roman Catholic, Jan. 1987.

Fr. James Wathen, Who Shall Ascend?, p. 523.

Denzinger 953.

Fr. James Wathen, The Great Sacrilege, p. 173-175.

Denzinger 2200.

Denzinger 856.

Denzinger 996.

Denzinger 695.

De Eucharistia, Noldin-Schmitt, S. J., in “Summa Theologiae Moralis,” III Innsbruck, 1940.

Denzinger 715.

Dr. Rama Coomaraswamy, The Problems with the New Mass, p. 55.

Solange Hertz, On the Contrary (Veritas Press, Box 1704, Santa Monica, CA), p. 75.

St. Alphonsus, Treatise On The Holy Eucharist

Patrick Henry Omlor, Questioning The Validity Of The Masses Using The New, All-English Canon (Athanasius Press; Reno, NV), p. 59.

Fr. Heribet Jone, Moral Theology (The Neumann Press, Westminster, MD, 1952), p. 311.

Denzinger 1151.

Denzinger p. 331.

Denzinger 1231.

Denzinger 1288.

Fr. Henry Davis, S. J., Moral And Pastoral Theology (London: Sheed And Ward, 1936), V. 2, p. 27.

Fr. Heribert Jone, Moral Theology (The Neumann Press, Westminster, MD, 1952), p. 323.

Dr. Rama Coomaraswamy, The Problems with the New Mass , p. 86.

Innocent III, de Consuetudine Theol. II-II, 104-105.

Dr. Rama Coomaraswamy, The Problems with the New Mass, p. 18.

Denzinger 950.

The New Mass is strikingly similar to the service instituted by Cranmer (the liturgist of Henry VIII) following the Protestant Reformation. Pope St. Pius V told Catholics, at that time, that they were forbidden to attend such services. In fact, many went to their death rather than go to the churches where Cranmer’s form of prayer was being said. If true Catholics went to their death rather than attend a mass such as the Novus Ordo, the response of the faithful today must be the same.

You need a new liturgy for a new religion. Just because the original Novus Ordo Missae had a few similarities to the True Mass, that doesn’t make it Catholic. Consider the following description of the early Lutheran service, as given by the great Jesuit scholar, Hartmann Grisar: “One who entered the parish church at Wittenburg after Luther’s ‘victory’ discovered that the same vestments were used for divine service as before, and heard the same old Latin hymns. The host was elevated and exhibited at the consecration. In the eyes of the people it was the same Mass as before, despite the fact that Luther omitted all the prayers which represented the sacred function of the Sacrifice. The people were intentionally kept in the dark on this point. ‘We cannot draw the common people away from the Sacrament, and it will probably be thus until the Gospel is well understood,’ said Luther. ‘The rite of celebration of the Mass,’ he explained, is a ‘purely external thing,’ and he said further that ‘the damnable words referring to the Sacrifice could be omitted all the more readily, since the ordinary Christian would not notice the omission and hence there was no danger of scandal.'”52

The Council of Trent, Canons on the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, Canon 3 says:

“If anyone says that the Sacrifice of the Mass is merely an offering of praise and thanksgiving, or that it is a simple memorial of the Sacrifice offered on the Cross, and that it should not be offered for the living and the dead, for sins, punishments, satisfaction, and other necessities: let him be anathema.”53 The

New Mass is only an offering of praise and thanksgiving. At the New Mass anything can and does go. If the only church in town happened to be a protestant church, a Catholic surely could not attend services there. The same principle applies to the New Mass. Since it is not a Catholic Mass, a Catholic has no business being there. In fact, in most churches the New Mass would not even qualify to be a Protestant service. Many New Masses have laughing, joking, clapping, singing, dancing, hugging, kissing, flutes, guitars, charismatics calling up spirits, homosexual priests, Eucharistic ministers, communion in the hand, immodest dress, no dresses, no head coverings, no reverence, etc…

As the Antichrist will be so evil because he will claim to be the Real Jesus and will not be, so the New Mass is evil because it claims to be the Real Mass and is not. The New Mass is a deliberate counterfeit of the True Mass, and a non-Catholic service. It is very clear that according to the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church it would be a grievous sin to attend the New Mass. This is why the New Mass is deadly.