IN DEFENCE OF THE TRADITIONAL MASS

PART 3

I obtained the Pauline liturgy from Larry Nolte's website from an article he wrote defending the Scriptural basis of the Mass. This is why there are little to no rubrics mentioned and many passages of Scripture denoting either the parts of Scripture used in the liturgy or the ideas of the liturgy being conveyed. Because of this, I removed many of the rubrics from the Tridentine Rite liturgy except where I had the corresponding Pauline rubrics either from Mr. Nolte's article or from my own missal so that there would not be the deceptive appearance of a much longer liturgy with the Tridentine Rite.

As it is, Shawn took a very wise precaution here. The elimination of the rubrics of the Novus Ordo Missae gave him an opportunity to avoid answering why it is that so many of them were deleted, and changed – particularly those which deal with the Real Presence and the respect which this Presence deserves. Furthermore, as we have already seen, the Traditional Mass is quite a bit longer than the Novus Ordo Missae in many places – even though the rubrics are deleted.

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 simililarities in structure. For example, the Traditional Mass does not have four "canons" as the Novus Ordo Missae 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. To give yet another example, the Traditional Mass does not have 60 Prefaces as the Novus Ordo Missae 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?

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 "Protestatized" 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 Bishops and Priests are still in jail and underground because of the fierce persecution being waged against Catholics over there).

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. 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. 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...,". This caused some to think that this is when the sacrifice of Christ took place. 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). [1]

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???

In the first place, the Anglicans and Lutherans don’t believe in the Real Presence. "Real Presence" is defined as follows:

Real Presence. The doctrine that "in the Sacrament of the Eucharist the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ together with his soul and divinity are contained truly, really and substantially, and not merely in sign, figure or virtue" (Council of Trent, sess. XIII, can. 1). This statement condemns the error of Zwingli that the body of Christ is only representatively there; the error of Calvin that it is only virtually present by the effects of the sacrament; and the very common modern error that it is only there ideally by apprehension and faith. The Real Presence is effected by Transubstantiation. Both doctrines are of faith, but they are not to be confused. (A Catholic Dictionary, p. 418)

As the following citation from "The Catholic Encyclopedic Dictionary" states :

[The Anglicans believe that] transubstantation "is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture;" the "sacrifices of Masses… were blasphemous fables and dangerous deceits"; (p. 25)

Hence, they could not possibly believe in the Real Presence as they reject Transubstantiation! As far as the Lutherans are concerned, they don’t believe in Transubstantiation, they believe in consubstanatiation. Or, in other words, the host becomes the Body and Blood of Christ, but not the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ.

As far as the Anglicans and the Lutherans are concerned, Shawn seems to be mistaken on these points, as we shall see presently.

This is a topic 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 "Protestant" if the Protestant groups that use liturgical worship forms (even among who actually believed in the Real Presence) refused to use it??? To once again quote Matt 1618 on the matter:

As it is, whether or not the protestants make use of the Novus Ordo Missae is not at all evidence either in its favor or against it, nor is it 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.

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. 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.

To provide the entirety of the citation:

Recently, a Protestant liturgical commission was given the task of revising the prayers for the Lord’s Supper. It had been proposed that the second Catholic Eucharistic Prayer (inspired by the Anaphora of Hippolytus) should be adopted. This proposition did not succeed. For it was considered that the doctrine implicit in this prayer did not correspond to the common faith of Protestants. Two problems above all stood in the way of the adoption of this prayer: its sacrificial character was found unacceptable ("we offer you the bred of life and the cup of salvation") and the invocation of the Spirit on the bread and wine implied transubstantiation. This example shows clearly that the Catholic liturgy has conserved the traditional doctrine of the eucharistic sacrifice and the real presence. (Our Emphasis)

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." (Pope Paul’s New Mass, pp. 338-339)

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." Very interesting considering the fact that Shawn seems to think that it corresponds to the Traditional Mass! I guess it all depends on how you define the word "corresponds" – the Lutherans wouldn’t have come near the Traditional Mass, as a matter of fact Luther himself rejected it. To provide yet another (lengthy) 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)

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 travelling on the Continent! (The Catholic Herald, 15 December 1972)

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)

Dr. D. F. Wells is Associate Professor of Church History at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, Illinois, U.S.A. In his book on Vatican II, accurately entitled Revolution in Rome, he welcomes the fact that "the differences between Protestants and Catholics have been lessened as far as some aspects of the Mass and the liturgy are concerned." ………..

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. (Pope Paul’s New Mass, p. 264-266)

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. (Pope Paul’s New Mass, pp. 270-71 emphasis ours)

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. Unfortunately, the proof is in our favor.

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)

So the Calvinists don’t like it (or, at least, this particular one didn’t), but it seems the Lutherans and Anglicans don’t have much of a problem with it. In fact, the Anglican Series III Communion Service is very similar to the Novus Ordo Missae, as Father H. O. Waterhouse, S.J., remarks when he attended the Anglican Series III Communion Service [why a Catholic priest is attending a protestant service is beyond me, so don’t ask J]:

I attended the service and was immensely struck by the similarity of the service chosen (Series 3) to the Mass as we now have it in the West. The words, the actions, and the very structure of the service seem to be a replica of that to which we are now getting accustomed ourselves in the Catholic Church. If series 3 comes to be widely used by Anglicans it will surely provide a good preparation for the day when intercommunion becomes possible. (The Clergy Review, July 1973, p. 544)

Yet again we see a statement to the effect that the structure of the Novus Ordo Missae corresponds to a protestant communion service, and, yet again, we see that Shawn’s opinions are not shared by the opinions of both Catholics Priests, and protestants.

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!

We apologize to the reader for, yet again, having to provide a lengthy citation from Michael Davies’ book "Pope Paul’s New Mass," but we believe that Shawn’s absurd claims have made it necessary:

As Eucharistic Prayer II is presented as the argument par excellence in favor of the Novus Ordo Missae, some examination of its background might be useful. Hippolytus was a skillful controversialist of the third century (c. 170-c. 236). His orthodoxy was suspect on a number of points but in others he was a truly fierce proponent of orthodoxy. He came into conflict with two popes, Zephyrinus (d. 217) and Callistus (d. 222) and set himself up as anti-pope to the latter. He was eventually reconciled to the Church and died as a martyr. Hippolytus was narrow, obstinate, and quite unsympathetic in his dealings with others. By his rigor, he seems to have alienated even his own supporters in his quarrel with the hierarchy, and no man with any sweetness in his nature could have written the odious account of Callistus' sufferings as a slave, even if every word were true, which there is good reason to doubt. The so- called Canon of Hippolytus forms part of his Treatise on the Apostolic Tradition. It represented his personal theory of the apostolic tradition and was never recognized as an official Church book. Several editions are currently available. The original Greek text has been lost and the version now available is based on Coptic, Arabic, Ethiopian, Syriac, and Latin versions. Thus we do not know to what extent the text we have corresponds to what Hippolytus actually wrote. All the scholars who have studied it agree that during its history it has suffered additions and modifications with each successive edition. Such scholars as Ratcliff and Dix have taken a very critical attitude to its textual integrity. The most controversial section of the entire text is the Eucharistic Prayer, where considerable modification of the original has been suspected - there are important differences in the various editions. Finally, Hippolytus made no claim that his Eucharistic Prayer was one actually used in the third-century Rome. He makes it plain that the prayers in the Apostolic Tradition are no more than models of the kind of prayer he considers desirable. To sum up, the Canon of Hippolytus was written by a third-century anti-pope with views of dubious orthodoxy. It was simply a personal suggestion of the form a Eucharistic Prayer should take. It has never formed part of the official liturgy of the Church, its original version has been lost, and the text we have has certainly been modified. Yet because this prayer is supposedly included within the Novus Ordo all our doubts are to be set at rest! However, it is far from true to claim that Eucharistic Prayer II is the Canon of Hippolytus. The best that can be said is that it contains passages from this Eucharistic Prayer. The following analysis of Eucharistic Prayer II was written by the theologian already cited in this chapter ["New Eucharistic Prayers"]:

The text of Canon II is stated to be "based on that most ancient eucharistic prayer that we possess, namely that of Hippolytus." There is no direct evidence that this anaphora was ever in liturgical use in the West. Its only certain liturgical use is in Ethiopia whither it arrived via the Egyptian and Ethiopic church orders, and after various transformations, became the present Ethiopic Anaphora of the Apostles. The Hippolytus anaphora commences with the Sursum corda dialogue and includes no Sanctus. The composers of Canon II have retained the Roman Sanctus and inserted some of the Hippolytan material into a new Preface, but since it is stated that Canon II may be used with other Prefaces, attention will be confined to what follows the Sanctus. In that published edition under consideration, this comprises 48 lines, excluding the people's acclamation, which is a feature of the Missa Normativa and not peculiar to Canon II, and also an insert for Requiems. Of these 48 lines, 30 are identical or similar to parts of the Roman Canon, 7 correspond to parts of the Hippolytan Canon, 5 can be described as intermediate, being identical with neither but resembling both, 2 are derived from a probably oriental interpolation in the Hippolytan Canon, 1 is Mozarabic, 1 is Gallican and 2 may be regarded as specially composed. It is thus highly doubtful whether one can refer to a canon spliced of such diverse strands as having any stylistic unity, and the fact that two-thirds of it are derived from the Roman Canon makes it difficult to attach much weight to the assertion of its stylistic distinction from the latter.

It is thus clear that what has been presented to us as the Canon of Hippolytus is not the Canon of Hippolytus. Even if it had been this would not have been a cause for rejoicing as this prayer was formulated at a time when specific sacrificial terminology in the Mass had some way to develop and, thus, the introduction of this Canon could be for no other purpose than to serve false ecumenism. (Pope Paul's New Mass, p. 346-348)

Let us provide both "Eucharistic Prayer Form Number II," and the "Canon of Hyppolytus" so the reader himself to compare, and see if "Eucharistic Prayer II" (of the Novus Ordo Missae) can be attributed to Hyppolytus:

The Canon of Hippolytus We give you thanks, O God, through your beloved Servant Jesus Christ, whom at the end of time you did send to us a Saviour and Redeemer and the Messenger of your counsel. Who is your Word, inseparable from you; through whom you did make all things and in whom you are well pleased. Whom you did send from heaven into the womb of the Virgin, and who, dwelling within her, was made flesh, and was manifested as your Son, being born of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin. Who, fulfilling your will, and winning for himself a holy people, spread out his hands when he came to suffer, that by his death he might set free them who believed on you. Who, when he was betrayed to his willing death, that he might bring to nought death, and break the bond of the devil, and tread hell under foot, and give light to the righteous and set up a boundary post, and manifest his resurrection, taking bread and giving thanks to you said: Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you. And likewise also the cup, saying: This is my blood, which is shed for you. As often as you perform this, perform my memorial. Having in memory, therefore, his death and resurrection, we offer to you the bread and the cup, yielding you thanks, because you have counted us worthy to stand before you and to minister to you. And we pray you that you would send your Holy Spirit upon the offering of your holy church; that you, gathering them into one, would grant to all your saints who partake to be filled with the Holy Spirit, that their faith may be confirmed in truth, that we may praise and glorify you. Through your Servant Jesus Christ, through whom be to you glory and honor, with the Holy Spirit in the holy church, both now and always and world without end. Amen.

Eucharistic Prayer II 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 took bread and 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.

(Translation from TheApostolic Tradition of Hippolytus by Burton Scott Easton, 1934)

(Translation from Ordo Missae Cum Populo, A Latin-English Text For Congregational Use According to the Intent of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Second Vatican Council, 1978

We ask the the reader to examine the above prayer by Hippolytus, and "Eucharistic Prayer Form Number II" and come to his own conclusions regarding the "similarities."

Lastly, it is of interest to note that not a few matters of early liturgical practice revealed by Hippolytus run contrary to the ideological predilections of liturgical modernists (such as Shawn), who therefore ignore them. For instance:

And women, whether believers or catechumens, shall stand for their prayers by themselves in a separate part of the church. (Where’s this practice in the modern church?) And when [the catechumens] finish their prayers, they must not give the kiss of peace, for their kiss is not yet pure. (Isn’t this uncharitable towards our separated brethren?) Only believers salute one another, but men with men and women with women; a man shall not salute a woman. (This is interesting... why is it that Shawn & co., are so very selective as to what they bring back, and what they don’t? They like to claim that they use Hyppolytus’s prayer, but they certainly don’t like to follow his opinion on how the Mass should be said) And let all the women have their heads covered with an opaque cloth (as it is, I defy Shawn to show me where this practice is prevalent in the Novus Ordo Missae... or have they thrown out this practice as well?), not with a veil of thin linen, for this is not a true covering. . . . before being baptized, those assembled are commanded to kneel in prayer (Easton, The Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus, p. 43 emphasis ours, commentary in parentheses also ours).

This is interesting, according to Shawn they didn’t kneel in prayer during this time period - but we shall get into this later. Why is it that Shawn is very ready to declare that "Eucharistic Prayer Form Number II" is the "Canon of Hyppolytus," therefore from the Early Church, which makes it legitimate, important, and completely orthodox. Though, of course, Shawn neglects to inform the reader that Hyppolytus would probably have been flabbergasted if he attended a Novus Ordo Missae today. In the first place, what would he say to those women who didn’t have head coverings? What would he say to men giving the "kiss of peace" to women? 

claimed that the view of a Protestant commission revising their Last Supper prayers rejected using Eucharistic Prayer #2 claiming that "it presupposed transubstantiation"??? Since when is transubstantiation a Protestant doctrine???

Transubstantiation is not a protestant doctrine. But as the Novus Ordo Missae is not explicit on the subject – altogether too many implicit statements -, various protestants – such as the Lutherans and the Anglicans – have no problem with using the Novus Ordo. Though, yet again, I would like to stress the fact that whether or not the protestants make use of the Novus Ordo Missae is really quite irrelevant with regards to its orthodoxy. But what it does show, is that the Novus Ordo is not very clear with regards to Transubstantiation.

It is rather interesting now that I think of it that this factor never occurred to me and also does not seem to have occurred to any other self-styled "traditionalists" who make many of the stock defective arguments that will be addressed in the next section that are common in the "traditionalist" movement.

Obviously it didn’t occur to Shawn, otherwise he wouldn’t have made the above absurd statement concerning protestants. If he had done his research properly, he would have seen that he was wrong. As far as whether or not it has occurred to "any other self-styled ‘traditionalists,’" obviously it has. Shawn is, yet again, mis-informed.

It only goes to show the old proverb of not seeing the forest for the trees which seems to plague most of the "traditionalist" thinking much as it does with most Fundamentalist Protestant thinking on issues. The points of belief differ between the two but in both cases the tendency towards a narrow-minded lack of logic in their arguments is prevalent.

Here we see Shawn making a series of ad hominem attacks upon the persons of various Traditional Catholics, based upon the alleged "proof" that he gave above. And yet, we have already seen that his logic is faulty (it wouldn’t matter even if protestants didn’t say the Novus Ordo Missae) his evidence is faulty (because protestants do say the Novus Ordo Missae), and his conclusions are faulty.

Summary of Preceding Points:

Obviously there are other factors involved than just the liturgy but at first look, I see nothing in the Pauline Rite that makes it at all illicit, doubtfully valid, sacrilegeously valid, or even invalid.

As it is, we readily admit that Shawn can see nothing in the Novus Ordo Missae that would be doubtfully valid, sacrilegiously valid, illicit, or even invalid, because he does not wish to examine both sides with an open mind – though, by the way, the protestants don’t see anything invalid in it either, or anything contradictory to protestantism… so here we see that Shawn and protestantism have something in common with their love of the Novus Ordo Missae. If Shawn had bothered to read Traditional Catholic material on this subject, and examined both sides of the issue, he would have seen that there are answers to all the arguments he brought up, and he wouldn’t have been so stupid as to bring up that citation from Thurian as if it proved that protestants don’t use the Novus Ordo as well as the orthodoxy of the Novus Ordo Missae.

I see a rite with the same basic structure, many of the same prayers similarly worded, and a canon that emphasizes the sacrificial nature of the Mass itself albeit not as repetitively as the Tridentine Rite (referring to Eucharistic Prayer #2: Prayers 1, 3, and 4 are just as explicitly "sacrificial" in tone as the Tridentine Canon).

Sounds very similar to a black mass, similarly structured, prayers emphasizing sacrifice and nuanced prayers. As it is, the Anglicans and the Lutherans – and even various Catholic Priests – openly admit that the structure of the Novus Ordo Missae corresponds with that found in various protestant liturgies, such as those of the Lutherans and the Anglicans. Neither one of which believe in Transubstantiation, and yet they are both willing to accept the Novus Ordo – this could also be why 70% of modern Catholics don’t believe in Transubstantiation. Furthermore, we know that the Anglicans, for example, believe that the Traditional Mass was blasphemous, and would not touch it – and yet their own bishops use the Novus Ordo Missae, and their Communion Service Series III is very very similar to the Novus Ordo Missae in both structure and wording. Hence, it would seem that Shawn has simply stumbled upon yet another ambiguity in the Novus Ordo, and has decided to Catholicize it.

Either way though, there is no illicitness or invalidity that I can see on the surface but in the next section I will look at more of the details that the illegitimate "traditionalists" claim makes the Pauline Mass either "illicit", "invalid", a "sacrilege", or "not a sacrifice but a meal."

Indeed, Shawn does not see anything illicit, invalid, or sacrilegious, about the Novus Ordo Missae because he is only looking at the surface. He did not research and do his homework properly, or he would have seen these items. In the next section, we shall go further into it and examine these issues.

I have already shown from a macro standpoint that these claims are erroneous but I will do so more in detail in the next section which takes more of a "micro" look at the Revised Missal. We

Liturgical dancers Meredith Plankenhorn, 16, right, and
Marci Malone, 17, approach the altar during Mass at
St. Charles Borromeo, Greece, May 31, 1998

will see if the SSPX and their "traditionalist" allies have any valid points in this area or if they are instead speaking of something they know little to nothing about. In the interim though, a few more salient points to put the SSPX's position on the Pauline Rite in better perspective.

In the first place, we would like to point out that Shawn has not proven that the claims of Traditional Catholics with regards to the Novus Ordo Missae are not "erroneous," as he thinks. Secondly, Shawn is still under the delusion that the Society of Saint Pius X is the Traditional Movement. Of course, as we have already stated above, there are other Traditional Catholic organizations out there. Thirdly, with regards to speaking of something which one knows little or nothing amething about than going off into areas – such as the Novus Ordo Missae – where he clearly knows little to nothing.

An Example of "Tradition" SSPX Style:

I received the following in email correspondence from F. John Loughnan about some SSPX activities that he witnessed in Australia attending Society Masses a few years ago. Look this over and tell me if the impression you get is one of a group really caring about "preserving tradition." I know the subject of Mr. Loughnan's example (Fr. Angele) from years back (and have attended Masses said by him: at the time Fr. Angele was the "alternate" on the Pacific Northwest Society route flying out of Post Falls, Idaho). Anyway, here is a piece of correspondence with Mr. Loughnan which is very revealing about the respect paid to the Society for "unchanging tradition." The term "Pharisaical" comes to mind as I see it but I will let you be the judge. When Mr. Loughnan refers to the term "contrary to tradition" he is referring to the rubrics of the 1962 Missal (which the SSPX claims that they follow), not that he personally adheres to this belief himself.

In the first place, Shawn wishes to condemn a Society of over 400 Priests, 200 Seminarians, and numerous other Religious, upon the possible actions of one Priest. The only source Shawn has is an e-mail that came from John Loughnan on the subject. In other words, it’s second-hand information, completely unverifiable, and with no way of researching it. Secondly, his logic is faulty. For, after all, there have always been Priests who have not followed the guidelines in the Liturgy. What we see here is a typical argument that is used by many Protestants against Catholicism. Any Catholic apologist has run into this argument before. "I know a bad Priest," "I know several drunken Catholics," and from these statements the Protestants conclude "therefore, the Church cannot be right since it has these bad people in it." Whereas, we see Shawn saying "the Society cannot be right since it has this one Priest who, supposedly, did these bad things, and is still a member of the Society." Although we openly admit that this logic is faulty, let us apply this same argument to the Conciliarist establishment, and see how well they stand up under scrutiny the same microscope.

To provide a lengthy citation from the book "What Has Happened to the Catholic Church?"

Vatican II allowed "experimentation" with the Mass. This has resulted in abuses that are documented below. Certain guidelines were to be followed, but the language of the documents was so ambiguous that many priests came to the conclusion that "anything goes." As a result, such things as Santa Masses, Easter Bunny Masses, Thanksgiving Turkey Masses, and Marijuana Masses exist. Something is wrong somewhere!

"Garbage Mass"

Fr. Richard Engle offered what has been called a "garbage mass" at St. Philip the Apostle Church in Columbus, Ohio during the summer of 1975. He invited the parishioners to bring their household garbage in bags to the altar during the offertory and drop it into a big drum. A banner hung at the table which read, "God, the Garbage Collector." (Attended by witnesses.)

"Gun Mass"

After assasination attempts on President Ford’s life, Fr. Engle invited the parishioners to turn in their handguns at the offertory on Sunday October 12, 1975. Twelve handguns, sixteen starter pistols and twenty toy weapons were placed in a drum under police supervision. The guns were later melted down to make crosses which were handed to the parishioners. (Television camers covered the event. It was also recorded in the October 27, 1975 issue of Time.)

"Halloween Mass"

The Catholic chaplains at the University of Buffalo (now called the State University of New York at Buffalo) staged a "halloween mass" with both priest and people clad in costumes. This phenomenon occurs in many major cities across the United States on Halloween. (See Muggeridge, The Desolate City.)

"Clown Mass"

In recent years the "clown mass" has grown considerably in popularity. A priest at Mariopolis, a large catholic university in Montreal, offered a clown mass and was photographed by the press following the evernt. The University of Toronto chaplains dressed like clwons and used hand puppets during the service to entertain the audience. Balloons are often released inside churches during "kiddy masses." (See Muggeridge, The Desolate City.)

"Circus Mass"

Rev. Nick Weber started the world’ smallest complete circus. He brought his 12 animals and 4 clowns to St. Jude Catholic Church in Grand Rapids, Michigan and performed a juggling, balancing, comedy show which included animal tricks and a magic show. Admission was free. (The event was reported by The Grand Rapids Press.)

"People-Priest Mass"

A number of students at Notre Dame University remained seated and each held a piece of bread and a cup of wine "consecrated" with the priest at an experimental mass. (See Muggeridge, The Desolate City.)

"Marxist Mass"

On September 12, 1976, a "marxist mass" was held at St. Peter the Apostle Church in Montreal. The "mass" was "concelebrated" by Fr. Couture, the Minister of Labor in the Quebec government and a protestant minister. The service included political readings, anti-government songs and a film about the "communist martyr" Allende of Chile. A desk took the place of an altar. (See Muggeridge, The Desolate City.)

"Polka Mass"

Due to the decline in church attendance, an effort has been made to join entertainment with worship. The polka mass is the result. A polka band in the sanctuary plays throughout the mass. An ad in a Monroe, Michigan newspaper stated that "Big Daddy and the La Dee Das" were going to do an original polka mass at the local church. A drawing of a man with a beer mug in hand graphically conveyed the idea to potential worshippers.

"Drum & Spear Mass"

A Missionhurst priest Fr. Herman Coenraets, who was clothed in native chieftain garb, offered a tribal service complete with swinging spears, tribal dancers and invocations to departed ancestors. A priest in Kinshasa, Zaire wore a monkey skin cap with a monkey tail hanging down his back for his service. Two tribesmen carrying spears led the procession into the church. This may seem far out, but it has become a way of life in the African church. The missionaries are simply applying the norms of Vatican Council II that allows and encourages the implementation of tribal customs into the liturgy. (See Wynn, Keepers of the Keys and The Reign of Mary, Winter 1987.)

New Attractions in Church

"Happy Birthday to You"

Bishop Schmitt of Charleston, West Virginia offered mass at the cathedral on Easter Sunday, 1992. He announced during the mass that it was Fr. Mahone’s birthday and asked the congregation to join him in a round of applause and to sing "Happy Birthday." (Attended by a witness.)

"Something is Fishy"

The English speaking Oblates in Ottawa, Canada have a unique sanctuary. It has an organ, movie screen and a small pond serving as a home for 20 goldfish. (See Muggeridge, The Desolate City.) (What Has Happened to the Catholic Church? pp. 153-155)

This short listing of incidents where abuses took place in the Novus Ordo Missae is sufficient to show that Shawn really shouldn’t be the one throwing stones here. If one instance where a Priest was the cause of an abuse is enough to discredit and prove un-orthodox an entire Society of more than 400 Priests, 200 Seminarians, hundreds of Chapels and Churches, and so forth, then what are we to say concerning the entire Conciliar Establishment, considering the fact that the above (short) listing can be multiplied many times over?

Though, in reality, this really isn’t proof of anything against anybody. A single Priest down in Australia, supposedly, monkeyed with the liturgy. This was a bad thing, certainly, provided it happened. But does it disprove the entire Society of Saint Pius X? Nor more than the above incidents disprove the Conciliar church! It’s nothing more than useless to go into individual incidents where a Priest might have done something which was wrong, and use that as an argument against the Society (or Church) which that Priest was a member of at the time he did that thing! This is an argument that is better suited to some bigoted fundamentalist preacher on a street corner who is dead set upon disproving the True Catholic Church at any cost - even to the point where he is willing to spread rumors and second-hand accounts -, than to a good upstanding Catholic who is doing his best to defend the Truth to the best of his ability. It really is very pitiful.

Based on what I have outlined thus far and the mentality I have observed over the years in the Society (not to mention imbibed via their books, newsletters, etc. and intend to continue outlining in this treatise), I would say that Mr. Loughnan's assessment is right on the money.

As we have already seen, Shawn’s article so far has been utterly and completely ridiculous, full of second-hand rumors, false history, fabricated citations, ignorance, and just about anything else Shawn could slip in there without, or so he hoped, being noticed. Shawn’s mentality is not one of open-mindedness, or one is trying to teach another person - or persons - the Truth, but, rather, of bitterness against the Society, and his article is nothing more than the fulfillment of a need to attack the Society - even at the expense of his honesty and the Truth -, and Matt1618 kindly provided the forum for him to do so. Shawn seems to think that there is nothing more to Traditional Catholicism than the Society of Saint Pius X, his entire article thus far - while claiming to be a "prescription against ‘traditionalism’" - has been nothing more than an attack on the Society. It’s almost enough to make one think that Shawn is under the delusion that there is nothing more to the Traditionalist Movement than the Society of Saint Pius X.

Epilogue - Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger on the Liturgy:

I do not want to seem to imply when defending the legitimacy of the Pauline Rite to give the impression that I feel that everything done in the way of liturgical reform since Vatican II is good and above reproach. As I will show in the next section, there are several features of the pastoral realm that I am very much opposed to that are common in the celebration of Masses now that should be suppressed. Since I will cover them in the next section I will not go over them here but instead emphasize that supporting the legitimacy of the Pauline Rite as promulgated is not akin to endorsing the abuses of the liturgy during the past 30 years. I go into my views on why this has happened in the first section on Vatican II later on. In this section I want to briefly touch on the topic of liturgical diversity.

It’s good to know that Shawn hasn’t fallen for all of the modern abuses, just the majority of them. And it’s also interesting to take note of the fact that Shawn himself has no problem with criticizing various actions of the modern church, and various "improvements" they have made to the Novus Ordo Missae. And he even admits that there have been quite a few abuses since Vatican II, on this point we are forced to agree with him.

What must be recognized by all regardless of their positions on the liturgy is that the history of Catholicism on the whole is one of diversity in worship. Cardinal Ratzinger underlines this fundamental defect in the "traditionalist" mindset by their rigid insistence on the Tridentine Ritual as the "only acceptable Mass." As the Cardinal (in light of the later 1984 Indult) had noted:

Traditional Catholics willingly admit that there are other acceptable rites in the Catholic Church than the Traditional Mass. For example, the Eastern Rites have some very beautiful liturgies. But, as it is, the Novus Ordo Missae is completely unacceptable, a danger to one’s faith, and should be completely abolished. The reason we want the wholesale return of the Traditional Mass is simply because the "mass" that is in place now is completely unacceptable and dangerous. Secondly, with the exception of various small sub-rites - such as those of the Dominicans, for example -, there was no "diversity in worship" in the Roman Rite prior to Vatican II, only unity. Hence, before Vatican II you could never have found gun masses, clown masses, garbage masses, marxist masses, and so forth. Any Catholic could go anywhere in the World, attend Mass at a Church, and be able to 1) understand what was going on, 2) follow the Mass, 3) attend a Mass no different than the one back at his home parish - even if he didn’t speak Spanish, or Italian, or whatever the local language was. As it is, nowadays, the person would find it impossible to follow the Mass and understand what was going on.

"Prior to Trent a multiplicity of rites and liturgies had been allowed within the Church. The Fathers of the Council of Trent took the liturgy of the city of Rome and prescribed it on the whole Church; they only retained those Western liturgies which had existed for more than two hundred years. This is what happened, for instance, with the Ambrosian rite of the Dioceses of Milan. If it would foster devotion in many believers and encourage respect for the piety of particular Catholic groups, I would personally support a return to the ancient situation, i.e., to a certain liturgical pluralism. Provided, of course, that the legitimate character of the reformed rites was emphatically affirmed, and there was a clear delineation of the extent and nature of such an exception permitting the celebration of the pre-conciliar liturgy…Catholicity does not mean uniformity…it is strange that the post-conciliar pluralism has created uniformity in one aspect at least: it will not tolerate a high standard of expression…"

Catholicity does not mean uniformity? As Father O’Brien said in his book "A History of the Mass,"

"As order is heaven’s first law, uniformity seems to be the first law of the Church, for which reason she makes it her endeavor to have her greatest charge, the due and respectful celebration of the Adorable Sacrifice of the Altar, conducted with the same ceremonies and said in the same language everywhere. This she could not do unless she had fixed on a common language." (A History of the Mass, p. 33)

It would seem that the good Cardinal’s opinion was not universally held prior to the Second Vatican Council, and was developed in order to vindicate the Novus Ordo Missae. Cardinal Ratzinger knows very well that the Novus Ordo Missae is not unified, and, consequently, does not have one of the four marks of the Church, hence, he attempts to make excuse for it.

"Liturgy for the Catholic is his common homeland, the source of his identity. And another reason why it must be a ‘given’ and a ‘constant’ is that, by means of the ritual, it manifests the holiness of God. The revolt against what has been described as the ‘old rubricist rigidity’, which was accused of stifling ‘creativity’ has made the liturgy into a do-it-yourself patchwork and trivialized it, adapting it to our mediocrity…[4]

I would like to emphasis Ratzinger’s first sentence "Liturgy for the Catholic is his common homeland, the source of his identity." The "identity" of the Latin Rite was completely changed when the Novus Ordo Missae was introduced. The "common homeland" of Catholics was taken away, hidden in a back corner. This would further imply that we simply can’t identify the post-Vatican II church with the pre-Vatican II church that has been around for over 1900 years.

"The Council rightly reminded us that liturgy also means ‘actio’ something done and it demanded that the faithful be guaranteed an ‘actuosa participatio’, an active participation…But the way it has been applied following the Council has exhibited a fatal narrowing of perspective. The impression arose that there was only ‘active participation’ when there was discernible exterior activity —speaking, singing, preaching, reading, shaking hands. It was forgotten that the Council also included silence under ‘actuosa participatio’, for silence facilitates a really deep personal participation, allowing us to listen inwardly to the Lord’s word. Many liturgies now lack all trace of this silence."

In short, the situation in the Church at the present time is certainly not ideal and there are problems that need to be addressed. But the problems go much deeper than the mere superficialities of reverting wholesale back to the Tridentine Ritual which would be just as disastrous for the Church as the wholesale discrediting of the Tridentine Ritual was after the promulgation of the Revised Missal.

Yes, the problems do go much deeper than just the Novus Ordo Missae - which is nothing more than a result, not the cause, of the much greater problems which are threatening the Church nowadays. And yet a return to the Traditional Mass would not at all be "just as disastrous" for the Church. In those places where the Traditional Mass is said exclusively and on a regular basis - the Society of Saint Pius X, for example - religious vocations are flourishing, the True Faith is being preserved and taught, and the people are going to Mass in droves. Traditional Chapels are, for the most part, packed, while the local Novus Ordo church is empty, on Sundays. Is this disastrous? Yes, it most certainly is - for those modernists and conciliarists who want to continue using the protestant meal service that is the Novus Ordo Missae, and continue pushing Catholicism towards protestantism, and hiding True Catholicism in the back corner of their Churches where they keep the Tabernacles.

As I have shown in the first two "macro" sections, there is substantial conformity and structure to the texts and the Pauline Rite cannot be shown on a macro level to be at all invalid or defective.

And yet we find instances where protestants can make use of the Novus Ordo Missae without seeing any contradiction with their beliefs. We have protestant sects which are permitting their members to attend Catholic Churches for communion now, that wouldn’t have dared do so when the Traditional Mass was in place. We have 70% of Catholics in the United States who don’t even believe in the True Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and yet who can still go attend - or even, in the case of some priests, say - the Novus Ordo, and yet still believe that they are Catholic and that there is nothing in the Novus Ordo which contradicts their heretical beliefs. The Novus Ordo churches are practically empty, while vocations to the Priesthood are almost non-existent. Churches are closing all over the United States because we no longer have people attending them. In many cases, we’re selling them to protestants because their congregations are flourishing at the expense of the Novus Ordo. Even our own religious orders have gotten to the point where there are over 138 divorced nuns in the United States (Courier Journal, June 1 2000). Of course, none of this can possibly be the result of the Novus Ordo Missae that shows such a substantial conformity and structure to the Traditional Mass, that Anglicans, Lutherans, and other protestants, can say it/attend it without a problem.

As we have seen above, the Novus Ordo Missae was founded upon heresy, contains heresy, and is conducive to heresy.  Hence, it is most certainly defective, intrinsically evil, and must be avoided at all costs by any Catholic who wishes to remain Catholic.

However, there are still numerous other "micro" details that self-styled "traditionalists" seek to use to discredit the legitimacy or dignity of the Revised Missal. It is a maxim of the faith that one cannot do evil in the hope that good may come out of it. Those that seek to restore what they perceive is the "good" of the Tridentine Ritual by ripping down and demeaning the Revised Missal violate that maxim.

The maxim itself is a very good one, but the application is false. As can be seen from what we have said thus far, there are many very good reasons why the Novus Ordo should be "ripped down" and completely abolished, and why it would actually be a violation of that maxim to keep it in place. It is a danger to our Faith, it is a danger to the Catholic Church, and it must be done away with. Furthermore, I think it’s quite interesting note that Shawn here refers to the "dignity of the Revised Missal," and yet in his very own Appendix, he cites Dr. Art Sippo who states that God Himself has no dignity and He’s not worth defending. God isn’t worth defending, God doesn’t have dignity, but the Novus Ordo Missae does? I thought the Mass was supposed to be centered upon the "un-dignified" God? It’s interesting to note that Shawn & co. believe that the Novus Ordo Missae has more dignity than the creator of the entire universe. We see here that Shawn is willing to make use of citations from anyone if they attack the Society of Saint Pius X, or what he perceives Traditional Catholicism to be.

There is a difference between legitimate criticisms and borderline-heretical speculations. I am afraid that many if not most in the SSPX and other "traditionalist" organizations do not realize when they have actually stepped across the line in the discussion of these issues. In the next section I will seek to expose and refute these objections one by one.

Unfortunately, in the next section we are about to see further examples of Shawn’s ignorance regarding the matters which he presumes to write an article on. As we shall see, Shawn has truly swallowed Conciliarist propaganda hook, line and sinker. And what Shawn does not know, he tends to make up and falsify such things as history, truth, and as reality. Hence, we shall expose Shawn’s ignorance on these following points, one by one.

Validity of the Pauline Rite - A Micro Look

Prologue:

In this and all subsequent sections, my words will be predominantly in regular type.

Thank goodness.  The italicized, bold, underlined type of text can get on one's nerves. At least now my eyes won’t hurt as bad - now if only we can get rid of the weird background that Shawn and Matt1618 put on the back of their article.....

In this section I want to address in this section a few charges made by self-styled "traditionalists" as to what they claim are "crucial defects" of the Pauline Rite Mass (often called the "Novus Ordo" Mass but I hate that term so I will not use it).

As it is, at least one of the sections which Shawn brings up below as being a "crucial defect" are not claimed by Traditional Catholics. Whether or not Vatican II had the authority to change the Mass is irrelevant, especially when one considers the fact that the Novus Ordo (often called the "Pauline Rite" but I hate that term so I will not use it) was hardly the liturgy that was envisioned by the fathers of the Second Vatican Council. Not to mention the fact that many of the points brought up by Shawn as examples of what Traditional Catholics use to prove the fact that the Novus Ordo Missae has been protestantized are also as irrelevant. Furthermore, whether or not the liturgy is said in the vernacular is likewise irrelevant to the legitimacy of the Mass. While we admit that the above points are dangerous, and the effects of them have been disastrous to the Church, we must keep in mind that they don’t necessarily prove, in and of themselves, that Novus Ordo Missae is protestant.

Now to my knowledge (and I may be mistaken), Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre never claimed that the Pauline Rite was not a valid rite per se (at least not explicitly) but many in the Society (as I showed in the first macro section) have made these claims as to what they claim are crucial defects in the rite (albeit in less dignified ways). There are 4 main charges leveled by self-styled "traditionalists" claiming that either A) The Pauline Rite is illicit or B) It is a sacrilege or C) It is not a valid Mass or D) If valid, then it is a valid sacrilege. These claims are supported by the following arguments:

In the first place, I’m very happy to see that Shawn didn’t try to provide any citations from Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, considering the fact that at least three were highly inaccurate - if not fabricated outright. In the second place, whether or not the Mass is said in the vernacular does not effect the illicity, sacrilegious nature, or invalidity, of the Novus Ordo Missae - although it does effect the unity of the liturgy, which we shall get into further down. It is a side issue.

1.) The Mass Being Said in the Vernacular*

2.) Changes to the Words of Institution*

3.) Vatican II had no authority to change the Mass*

4.) The "Protestantization" of the Mass*

Do any of these charges have merit??? The following section will seek to show that they are all charges without any validity to them whatsoever.

Does Shawn’s charges above have any merit? The following section will seek to show that they are all charges without any validity to them whatsoever.

I. Council of Trent on the Sacrifice of the Mass in the Vernacular:

Since the celebration in the vernacular has been attacked by many self-styled "traditionalists" who cite the Council of Trent, lets look at what Trent said on the matter of vernacular Mass celebrations.

Doctrine on the Sacrifice of the Mass:

CHAPTER VIII.

On not celebrating the Mass every where in the vulgar tongue; the mysteries of the Mass to be explained to the people.

Although the mass contains great instruction for the faithful people, nevertheless, IT HAS NOT SEEMED EXPEDIENT TO THE FATHERS, THAT IT SHOULD BE EVERY WHERE CELEBRATED IN THE VULGAR TONGUE. Wherefore, the ancient usage of each church, and the rite approved of by the holy Roman Church, the mother and mistress of all churches, being in each place retained; and, that the sheep of Christ may not suffer hunger, nor the little ones ask for bread, and there be none to break it unto them, the holy Synod charges pastors, and all who have the cure of souls, that they frequently, during the celebration of mass, expound either by themselves, or others, some portion of those things which are read at mass, and that, amongst the rest, they explain some mystery of this most holy sacrifice, especially on the Lord's days and festivals. [1]

This is clearly a pastoral provision being set forth here and not a doctrine of the faith being declared (yes you "traditionalists" who hang that "pastoral council" title on Vatican II: there were sections of Trent---and virtually every other Ecumenical council---that were "pastoral" also).

(the following is an excerpt from a news report) NORTHERN CAMBRIA - PENNSYLVANIA, USA  Parishioners of St. John the Baptist Roman Catholic Church feel betrayed by what some term a desecration after the church’s nearly century-old altar was ripped out, broken apart and tossed into a Dumpster.

Note that this does not prohibit absolutely the celebration of the Mass in the vernacular in some places. Nor does it preclude the possible usage of the vernacular in the future. What the Fathers were saying here is that, given the conditions in Europe following the Protestant Revolt, that the shift to the vernacular was not advisable or advantageous considering the circumstances of that time period. Lets look further at the actual canons promulgated by the Council of Trent concerning the use of vernacular tongues.

In the first place, the Council Fathers did not even mention the protestant revolt in the paragraph above-quoted by Shawn, nor did they say that it was only because of the protestant revolt that the Mass was not said in the vernacular. There are many good reasons why the Mass should not be said in the vulgar languages - many of which reasons are being proved correct -, such a mistranslations in the Mass - several of which we have pointed out above -, a decrease in respect for the liturgy - the very changing and elimination of the Canon shows this disrespect, as well as the way the Eucharist is treated in most Conciliar churches (i.e. communion in the hand) -. To cite Father Michael Mueller:

The celebration of Mass and the administration of the Sacraments in the Latin tongue form for some Protestants a subject of surprise, for others of complaint; as if there were something unnatural or wrong in the practice. Among Catholics it never excites either surprise or complaint; they never think themselves in the slightest degree aggrieved by it. If strangers to the Catholic religion think otherwise, their complaints proceed from ignorance.

When a Protestant goes to Church he generally seems to consider the principal acts of religion to consist in reading, praying or preaching; nay, he seems to attach most importance to the last office. He seems to look upon his clergyman merely as a teacher of morality, as one whose chief business is to read prayers in an audible tone for the people, so that all may join in. His character lacks that sacredness which arises from the sublime duty of offering sacrifice; preaching and praying are the two great acts of his ministry, the former of which any clever man without the help of ordination may perform as well as he; and for the latter any good reader is equally capable. For a religion like this, which acknowledges nothing more sublime in its ministry, a foreign language, or an unknown tongue, as it is commonly called, would certainly not be very appropriate in public service; hence proceeds the error judgment so common to Protestants when they conclude it is equally unfit for Catholic worship.

How different are such ideas from ours and from the truth. We venerate in our priests a character of much higher order, and an office infinitely more exalted. We look upon them as the representatives and viceregents of Jesus Christ, our great High Priest; as having power, by virtue of their ordination, to consecrate and offer sacrifice, and to administer sacraments; thus divinely commissioned, to become, as St. Paul expresses it in admirable terms, "the ministers of Christ, and dispensers of the mysteries of God."

The Catholic looks upon his priest as a minister of Christ, whereas the Protestant considers his preacher more as a minister of the people. When the Catholic priest stands at the altar, he stands there as a mediator between God and the people; he has an office to perform in which they have nothing to do with him, or for him, as assistants or coadjutors; in a word, he has a sacrifice to offer, which is an act that passes between God and himself alone, to complete which, or to render it more acceptable, no assistance of the people is necessary. He offers it indeed for the people, and in company with them, but not that they have any part in offering it in the strict sense of the word. For the character of a priest is essentially distinct and separate from that of a layman, and nothing marks this distinction so absolutely as the power of offering sacrifice, which is his exclusive right.

Taking, then, this view of the subject, can it in itself be a matter of any consequence at al what is the language in which the Almighty is addressed at the time? Cannot He who is the Author of all, equally understand any language? And if the priest understands the language in which he is addressing the Almighty, what more is required? The words by which sacrifice is offered are addressed to God, not to the people, nor by the people, and if he who addresses them and He to whom they are addressed understand them, every useful object is attained, and nothing more can be wanting. This is the case in the Mass, and for this reason all the essential parts of the Mass – the Offertory, the Consecration, and the Communion – are performed in secret or in silence.

It is true that both prayers and instructions accompany the essential parts of a sacrifice, and these are spoken aloud so that all may hear them; but the fruits and blessings of the Mass are not the consequence of these prayers, or produced by them, but the essential act of the Sacrifice alone. In like manner the administration of the Sacraments is properly performed in Latin, for though these also are sometimes accompanied by prayer and instruction, or ceremonies, which, when properly understood, may affect the minds and excite the devotion of the people, yet the effect is not produced by any of these means, but by the actions rightly performed and the words properly pronounced by the priest, as ordained by Jesus Christ. In both these instances of Sacrifice and Sacraments, the priest is performing the highest offices ever given to man to perform – offices totally and incommunicably peculiar to himself, to which an unchangeable and a dead language is expressly and justly assigned. If the Mass or the Sacraments were nothing but a common prayer, read for the people, then perhaps the common language of each country would be the most proper to use; but then, also, would religion lose its chief character of Divinity, and the priesthood be stripped of the only character which distinguishes its members from the laity. We do not, therefore, blame the Protestants for using the common language of the people in their public prayers, for as they have neither sacrifice nor priest, they were only consistent in laying aside the language when they rejected the sacrifice and the priesthood. But on the other hand let them not object to us; for as we have still retained the sacrifice and the priesthood, there is no reason for rejecting the use of a language which is most convenient for our purpose.

Thus the complaints so common among Protestants about the use of the Latin language in the Mass are purely founded on a want of knowledge of our religion. Let them inform themselves upon this subject, and all difficulties will disappear at once. To Catholics it is a great consolation to reflect that, in this as in every other respect, the Church always adapts her discipline to the necessities of her flock, or to the dignity and order of her public service. (The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, p. 458 - 460)

Father O’Brien, in his excellent book "A History of the Mass," quite accurately gives further reasons why the Church retained the use of Latin in her Liturgy:

The Catholic Church celebrates in Latin for a variety of reasons:

First. Because she did so in the beginning; and as she never changes her faith, she has never deemed it advisable to change her language. If her sacred language changed with those that are changing around her, there would be no end to the confusion that would result, and much disedification would unavoidably be given by using words and phrases in the hearing of the people to which the grossest meanings are sometimes attached.

Secondly. As order is heaven’s first law, uniformity seems to be the first law of the Church, for which reason she makes it her endeavor to have her greatest charge, the due and respectful celebration of the Adorable Sacrifice of the Altar, conducted with the same ceremonies and said in the same language everywhere. This she could not do unless she had fixed on a common language.

Thirdly. Unity in respect to language goes a very great way in preserving unity of belief. A writer of high repute (Porubszky, Jure suo Ecclesiast., p. 854) declares as his firm conviction that the various churches of the East which have severed their connection with the centre of unity, Rome, would hardly ever have done so had they been required from the beginning to make Latin their liturgical language. National languages always pave the way for national churches.

Fourthly. By preserving the Latin in her Liturgy, and requiring her ministers to cultivate it, the Catholic Church has secured for herself the accumulated literary treasures of eighteen centuries of Christianity. By this she has free access to the writings of some of the most illustrious doctors of the Church, to canon and civil law, to the decrees of ancient councils and to many other documents of value which would have otherwise been totally out of reach. For which reason alone our Holy Church should receive the praise of Christendom. Hallam, in his Middle Ages, could not hide the fact that the sole hope of literature in these times depended principally on the Catholic Church, for wherever it existed the Latin language was preserved. (A History of the Mass, pp. 33-34)

Father Cochem in his excellent work "An Explanation of the Mass" had the following to say regarding why the Church kept the Mass in Latin:

"And if it be asked why the priest says Mass in Latin, an unknown tongue, instead of in the vernacular, we reply: The holy Mass is not a sermon, it is not intended for the instruction of the people, it is the offering for them of the sacrifice of the New Testament. There are good reasons why this should be done in a language which never can change. Some languages are called dead, others living: the former are no longer in common use, and are consequently unchanged; the latter are the modes of speech of the various peoples, and are subject to constant variation. If the Mass were said in one of the living languages, there would be great risk that as the meaning of words changed the original significance of the formulas would change also, and against this danger the Church must guard. The unity of doctrine in the Catholic church throughout the world is beautifully illustrated by the identity of the language she employs. In whatever part of the globe the Catholic finds himself there the great mystery of the faith he professes is celebrated in the same manner, in the same language. And lest the ordinary Christian should remain in ignorance of the meaning of the Latin prayers of the Mass, holy Church, in her maternal care for her children, provides that in the prayer-books they should be translated into the vulgar tongue of each country. She also enjoins, as we have seen, upon every one who has the care of souls frequently to explain to his flock the meaning of the prayers and ceremonies of the Mass, so that no one may fail fully to understand them." ("An Explanation of the Mass," p. 40-41)

Of course, all these reasons are inconsequential to the innovators. Who cares if mistranslations enter into the Liturgy? It’s only a communal meal anyway. Why would one want a uniform Liturgy? We already know that uniformity really isn’t Catholic anyways. And, as we know, the Liturgy needs to be more "vibrant," more "entertaining," and "sleeker," so the Latin language is completely unsuitable. To those who wish to reform the Liturgy, it’s simply not as much fun as the English. Furthermore, it would seem to be quite obvious that the saying of the Liturgy in the vernacular is also one of the reasons the protestants find it so agreeable - hence the reason why Catholics should find it disagreeable.