Welcome Eagles to the New Crusade!
Will thou help defend the Fortress of Faith?

BOOKMARK us & check in DAILY for the latest Endtimes News!

"And I beheld, and heard the voice of one eagle flying through the midst of heaven,
saying with a loud voice: Woe, woe, woe to the inhabitants of the earth....
[Apocalypse (Revelation) 8:13]

Friday, November 18, 2016

The True Mass...

 The True Mass...

-One is a deliberate SACRIFICE. Catholic.
-The other, Protestant: "The Lord’s Supper or Mass is a sacred meeting or assembly of the People of God, met together under the presidency of the priest, to CELEBRATE THE MEMORIAL OF THE LORD."
(no. 7, Institutio Generalis, ch. 2 Novus Ordo: De structura Missae, 1969)

The definition of the Mass is thus limited to that of a “supper,” and this term is found constantly repeated (nos. 8, 48, 55d, 56). This “supper” is further characterized as an assembly presided over by the priest and held as a memorial of the Lord, recalling what He did on the first Maundy Thursday. None of this in the very least implies either the Real Presence, or the reality of the sacrifice, or the Sacramental function of the consecrating priest, or the intrinsic value of the Eucharistic Sacrifice independently of the people’s presence. It does not, in a word, imply any of the essential dogmatic values of the Mass which together provide its true definition. Here the deliberate omission of these dogmatic values amounts to their having been superseded and therefore, at least in practice, to their denial.( http://sspx.org/en/node/1250 )

It is logically impossible for two opposing theologies to both be right.
With a simple google search, here is demonstrated the contrast:
Within the Roman Rite:
THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS (the Latin Mass) is clearly God-centered, and distinctly Catholic.
THE CELEBRATION OF THE MASS (New Order) is people-centered and ambiguous. Is it Catholic? Lutheran? Episcopalian?
You will also note another difference: vertical worship vs. horizontal worship. It is neither coincidence nor administrative manipulation that the Sacrifice images are all vertically presented, while the Celebration images are all horizontally represented.
Ut legem credendi lex statuat supplicandi.
This means “that the law of praying establishes the law of believing”. How we pray and what we pray will effect what we believe. What we believe will have its effect how we live. (Prosper of Aquitaine from the 5th century)
Judging the Novus Ordo Missae in itself and in its official Latin form (printed in 1969), Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci wrote to Pope Paul VI:
...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 XXIII of the Council of Trent. (A Brief Critical Study of the Novus Ordo Missae, September 25, 1969)
The Novus Ordo Missae, even when said with piety and respect for the liturgical rules, ...is impregnated with the spirit of Protestantism. It bears within it a poison harmful to the faith.
(-Archbishop Lefebvre, An Open Letter to Confused Catholics, p. 29)

 The New Mass is illicit and schismatic....

The New Order: a man-made, Protestantized Mass created (yes, created, not changed) by Pope Paul VI in the 1960's, an invention of a liturgical commission, the Consilium.

Three doctrinal reasons for rejection of the liturgical reform: 1) the near-total extinction of the unique role of the priest at the altar as the one who pronounces in the person of Christ the efficacious words of transubstantiation; 2) fewer signs of reverence toward the Real Presence of Christ under the consecrated species; 3) the tendency to de-emphasize the sacrificial and propitiatory nature of the Mass. Therefore this was no sentimental nostalgia for an outdated liturgy, but rather a battle for three truths of the Catholic Faith defined by the Church.

"In the Novus Ordo Mass, we have a man-made liturgy in which mention of the Sacrifice of Calvary has been insistently removed, as well as any sacrificial tone, and only the notions of praise and thanksgiving retained. Even the altar, which was turned toward Jerusalem reminding us of the sacrifice of Christ to God, was replaced by a table in order to emphasize the new notion that the Mass is mainly a banquet, and not a sacrifice.
According to this new conception, the Mass is principally a Communion service – a memorial of the Lord’s supper, a Protestant thesis emphasized by Luther in the 16th century. As Luther clearly stated, “The mass is not a sacrifice but a thanksgiving to God and a communion with believers.”

Fr. Annibale Bugnini (later Archbishop) was the principal designer of the New Mass. Heavily suspected of being a Freemason, he did not "change the Mass" but helped bring about the CREATION of a NEW Mass, which is theologically flawed and did not come from Apostolic succession.

Six Protestant theologians also helped shaped the New Mass, after which one of them, Dr. Smith, (one of the Lutheran representatives at this commission) later publicly boasted, “We have finished the work that Martin Luther began.”

For 50+ years we have been robbed of our Mass, the Mass of All Ages, the Mass that produced legions of saints! For 50+ years we have been forced to worship with a Protestant Liturgy!

Bugnini stated, "I am the liturgical reform!"
Pray for his soul.

How can something WRONG still be RIGHT?

POPE PAUL VI said: “The Mass is the sacred assembly or congregation of the people of God gathering together, with a priest presiding, to celebrate the memorial of the Lord.”
MARTIN LUTHER said: “The mass is not a sacrifice but a thanksgiving to God and a communion with believers.”

This insidious definition deliberately omits what makes the Catholic Mass Catholic, absolutely irreducible to the Protestant “Lord’s Supper.”
For the Catholic Mass is not just any memorial; it is a memorial which really contains the Sacrifice of the Cross, because the body and the blood of Christ are made really present by virtue of the double consecration. The rite codified by St. Pius V permits of no misunderstanding on this point, but the rite invented by Paul VI leaves the question floating and equivocal.
Likewise, in the Catholic Mass, the priest does not preside in just any manner; he is marked with a divine character which sets him apart for all eternity and thus he acts as the minister of Christ, who performs the Mass through him; he could never be likened to a Protestant minister, who is delegated by the faithful to ensure the good order of the assembly. This role is obvious in the rite of Mass established by St. Pius V; it is obscured if not suppressed entirely in the new rite. ~ Fr. Roger-Thomas Calmel, O.P.

This new and fabricated Mass does not bear apostolic succession, and is man-made with the help of "our separated brethren", Protestant theologians to remove the "stumbling blocks" from the liturgy. It gives the laity access to the Precious Blood, which is the concept of Luther. It has turned the Sacrifice into a banquet of thanksgiving, another Luther inspiration, and the people participate and share in the priesthood. Dr. Smith, one of the Lutheran representatives at this commission, later publicly boasted, “We have finished the work that Martin Luther began.” And Fr. Bugnini stated that his aim in designing the New Mass was “to strip from our Catholic prayers and from the Catholic liturgy everything which can be the shadow of a stumbling block for our separated brethren, that is, for the Protestants.”
We have been forced to worship with a Protestant liturgy.

“The Novus Ordo Missae, even when said with piety and respect for the liturgical rules… is impregnated with the spirit of Protestantism. It bears within it a poison harmful to the faith.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, Open Letter to Confused Catholics, p.29)


The Holy Mass is a sacrifice, the perfect sacrifice, created by Jesus.

The first Mass was, of course, the Last Supper. Christ instituted both Holy Communion and the Priesthood that night, establishing Apostolic succession:

"Neither the apostles nor their successors 'made' a Christian liturgy; it grew organically as a result of the Christian reading of the Jewish inheritance, fashioning its own form as it did so. In this process there was a filtering of the individual communities' experiences of prayer, within the basic proportions of the one Church, gradually developing into the distinctive forms of the major regional churches. In this sense liturgy always imposed an obligatory form on the individual congregation and the individual celebrant. It is a guarantee, testifying to the fact that something greater is taking place here than can be brought about by any individual community or group of people."...

"The new missal "was published as if it were a book put together by professors, not a phase in a continual growth process. Such a thing never happened before. It is absolutely contrary to the laws of liturgical growth."...

What happened after the Council was something else entirely: in the place of liturgy as the fruit of development came fabricated liturgy. We abandoned the organic living process of growth and development over centuries, and replaced it – as in a manufacturing process – with a fabrication, a banal on-the-spot product." ~BXVI

The Roman Rite preserved its identity over a period of 1500 years, yet all this time it developed continuously and organically. The will of the Second Vatican Council was to reform this living Roman Rite… Contrary to this intention, the Consilium, under Archbishop Bugnini, manufactured a new liturgy that broke the ancient continuity of the classical Roman Rite (The Restoration and Organic Development of the Roman Rite, 263).” ~Laszlo Dobszay

In order to show the importance of organic growth it is important we can trace the Traditional Latin Mass back a substantial amount of time, and reasonably show that development came from organic growth rather than liturgical manufacture. Liturgist Monsignor Klaus Gamber explains that the Roman Rite (referring to the Traditional Latin Mass also called the Usus Antiquior) remains the oldest form of the Mass that we have, with some revisions made beginning from Pope Damasus in the 300’s. Furthermore, the revisions that had been made 1400 years previously to the Roman Missal did not involve the rite itself. Rather, they were changes concerned only with the enrichment of new feast days, formulas and prayers (Gamber, The Reform of the Roman Liturgy, 11). Here it is important to comment on the idea that the Traditional Latin Mass came from the Council of Trent like the new Mass came from Vatican II. To the downfall of traditionalists, calling the Usus Antiquior the Tridentine Mass or Mass of Pope Pius V isn’t actually that accurate. What he did was publish a Missal with the form already in use in Rome and other places that was already well established; which is different to what occurred with a total New Mass in the wake of Vatican II.


Who made up the Novus Ordo Missae?

It is the invention of a liturgical commission, the Consilium, whose guiding light was Fr. Annibale Bugnini (made an archbishop in 1972 for his services), and which also included six Protestant experts. Fr. Bugnini (principal author of Vatican II’s Sacrosanctum Concilium) had his own ideas on popular involvement in the liturgy (La Riforma Liturgia, A. Bugnini, Centro Liturgico Vincenziano, 1983), while the Protestant advisors had their own heretical ideas on the essence of the Mass.

However, the one on whose authority the Novus Ordo Missae was enforced was Pope Paul VI, who “promulgated” it by his apostolic constitution, Missale Romanum (April 3, 1969). However, his proscription was highly unclear.

In the original version of Missale Romanum, signed by Pope Paul VI, no mention was made either of anyone’s being obliged to use the Novus Ordo Missae or when such an obligation might begin.
Translators of the constitution mistranslated cogere et efficere (i.e., to sum up and draw a conclusion) as to give force of law.
The version in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis (which records all official texts of the papacy) has an added paragraph “enjoining” the new missal, but it is in the wrong tense, the past, and reads praescripsimus (i.e., which we have ordered) thereby referring to a past obligation, and nothing, moreover, in Missale Romanum prescribes, but at most permits the use of the “New Rite" (The Angelus, March 1997, p. 35).
Can it be true that Pope Paul VI wanted this missal but that it was not properly imposed (it is known moreover, that Pope Paul VI signed the Institutio Generalis without reading it and without ensuring that it had been previously confirmed by the Holy Office).

Judging the Novus Ordo Missae in itself and in its official Latin form (printed in 1969)*, Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci wrote to Pope Paul VI:
...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 XXIII of the Council of Trent. (A Brief Critical Study of the Novus Ordo Missae, September 25, 1969)

(*A Novus Ordo Missae celebrated according to the 1969 typical edition would look very similar to the traditional Roman Rite, with the celebrant saying most (if not all) the prayers in Latin, facing the tabernacle and wearing the traditional Mass vestments, with a male altar server, and Gregorian chant, etc. None of the current abuses, e.g., Communion in the hand, Eucharistic Ministers, liturgical dancing, guitar-masses, etc., have part with this official form. Hence, the aforementioned cardinals' (as well as the SSPX's) critique of the Novus Ordo Missae is not of its abuses or misapplication, but rather of its essential and official form.)

The dissimulation of Catholic elements and the pandering to Protestants which are evident in the Novus Ordo Missae render it a danger to our faith, and, as such, evil, given that it lacks the good which the sacred rite of Mass ought to have. The Church was promised the Novus Ordo Missae would renew Catholic fervor, inspire the young, draw back the lapsed and attract non-Catholics. Who today can pretend that these things are its fruits? Together with the Novus Ordo Missae did there not instead come a dramatic decline in Mass attendance and vocations, an “identity crisis” among priests, a slowing in the rate of conversions, and an acceleration of apostasies? So, from the point of view of its fruits, the Novus Ordo Missae does not seem to be a rite conducive to the flourishing of the Church’s mission.

Does it follow from the apparent promulgation by the popes that the Novus Ordo Missae is truly Catholic?

No, for the indefectibility of the Church does not prevent the pope personally from promoting defective and modernist rites in the Latin rite of the Church. Moreover, the Novus Ordo Missae:

~was not properly promulgated (and therefore does not have force of law,
~ the old Roman Mass (aka, the Tridentine or traditional Latin Mass) was not abolished or superseded in the constitution Missale Romanum, hence in virtue of the of Quo Primum (which de jure [by law] is still the liturgical law and therefore the official Mass of the Roman Rite), it can always be said,
~and lastly, the constitution Missale Romanum does not engage the Church's infallibility.


Because six Protestant ministers collaborated in making up the New Mass: George, Jasper, Shepherd, Kunneth, Smith and Thurian:

We can see why he made this statement he did! He knew at first-hand!

The New Mass or Novus Ordo was examined in detail by a group of Catholic theologians in Rome in 1969. On their behalf Cardinal Ottaviani wrote to Pope Paul VI condemning it on 27 counts as being simply not a Catholic Mass: "It teems with insinuations or manifest errors against the integrity of the Catholic religion. It has no intention of presenting the Faith as taught by the Council of Trent, to which nonetheless the Catholic conscience is bound forever. It will thoroughly please all those groups on the verge of apostasy, who have been at work ravaging the Church, corrupting its organism, and assaulting its doctrinal, liturgical, moral and disciplinary unity, in a period of spiritual crisis that is without precedent."

More from the false-ecumenism of Thurian:
"Unity: does it not consist in loving our brothers, still separated from us, whom we desire to have living with us in the same house?...Unity today in the churches exists as we renounce all our divisive ways, only holding to the fundamental faith which saves and joins us." (Max Thurian as quoted in La Croix, January 26, 1984)


References to Modernism in Scripture:

I know that, after my departure, ravening wolves will enter in among you, not sparing the flock. And of your own selves shall arise men speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. Acts 20:29-30 ~DOUAY RHEIMS

"Beware of false prophets, who come to you in the clothing of sheep, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. By their fruits you shall know them. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit, and the evil tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can an evil tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit, shall be cut down, and shall be cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits you shall know them." Matthew 7:15-20 ~DOUAY RHEIMS

And yes, the Novus Ordo is the very fruit of Modernism, its crowning jewel!
Does Our Lord not deserve to be worshipped in the Mass He instituted?


On November 30, 1969, the first Sunday of Advent, the Novus Ordo Missae took effect, and the Latin Mass was, for a time, effectively abolished.
"In the Novus Ordo Mass, dogma itself is diminished. It is an act against justice, carried out not known exactly by whom, or why, against the advice of the same Sacred Congregation of Rites and the absolute majority of the Bishops. An arbitrary and unjustified act.“

Fr Hesse: Is the New Mass Catholic