Why do some claim that the Novus Ordo Mass is invalid?

[RSiscoe]

There are three things required for a Mass to be valid: Proper form, matter, and intention.

The following is the form of consecration, as defined by the Church (the following form can be found repeated many places, such as the Council of Trent).

Pope Pius V, De Defectibus, Part V: “The words of Consecration, which are the form of the Sacrament, are these: 'THIS IS THE CHALICE OF MY BLOOD, OF THE NEW AND ETERNAL TESTAMENT, THE MYSTERY OF FAITH, WHICH SHALL BE SHED FOR YOU AND FOR MANY UNTO THE REMISSION OF SINS’. Now if one were to omit, or to change anything in the form of the consecration of the Body and Blood, and in that very change of the words the wording would fail to mean the same, he would not consecrate the Sacrament. If in fact he were to add something that did not change the meaning, it is true he would consecrate, but he would sin most gravely.” DE DEFECTIBUS Pope Pius V)

The form of consecration in the New Mass is different than what is given above. One of the big differences is that the words “for many” have been changed to “for all”. If “all” and “many” do not mean the same thing, then, according to the above decree of Pope Pius V, the New Mass is not valid.

So, the question arrises: Does all and many mean the same thing?

“Many will seek to enter in and shall not be able”. If we substituted “all” for many in the above verse, would it change the meaning?

That is one of ther reasons that many question the validity of the New Mass. And it should be noted that when Rome issued the New Mass it used the correct words of consectation - for many. “For all” was a later translation from the original Latin. So the true error did not lie in the original Novus Ordo Mass as issued by Rome. In fact, the New Mass, when said in Latin, still uses “pro multis” (for many) in the consecration.

Whether or not the change from many to all invalidates the Mass is debatable, but what is not debatable is that some New Masses us incorrect matter, which certainly invalidates it. Rome issued a document in 1979, in which they attampted to corrent the abuse taking place, which was that many Churches in America were using invalid matter for communion. This will certainly invalidate the Mass. However, as usual the problem was not corrected, but only got worse. I remember listening to Mother Angelica several years ago. A person called in to tell her that the Priest attempted to consecrate a cake for Mass and asked her if that was valid. Mother Angelica said, which disgust in her voice, “honey you got nothin”.

Better to be safe than sorry, which is why I believe it is wise to attend the Old Mass, where everything takes place with great reverence and holiness and where you find none of the abuses that are so common at the Novus Ordo.

 

[Fogny]

RSiscoe:

There are three things required for a Mass to be valid: Proper form, matter, and intention.

The following is the form of consecration, as defined by the Church (the following form can be found repeated many places, such as the Council of Trent).

Pope Pius V, De Defectibus, Part V: "The words of Consecration, which are the form of the Sacrament, are these: 'THIS IS THE CHALICE OF MY BLOOD, OF THE NEW AND ETERNAL TESTAMENT, THE MYSTERY OF FAITH, WHICH SHALL BE SHED FOR YOU AND FOR MANY UNTO THE REMISSION OF SINS’. Now if one were to omit, or to change anything in the form of the consecration of the Body and Blood, and in that very change of the words the wording would fail to mean the same, he would not consecrate the Sacrament. If in fact he were to add something that did not change the meaning, it is true he would consecrate, but he would sin most gravely." DE DEFECTIBUS Pope Pius V)

The form of consecration in the New Mass is different than what is given above. One of the big differences is that the words “for many” have been changed to “for all”. If “all” and “many” do not mean the same thing, then, according to the above decree of Pope Pius V, the New Mass is not valid.

So, the question arrises: Does all and many mean the same thing?

“Many will seek to enter in and shall not be able”. If we substituted “all” for many in the above verse, would it change the meaning?

That is one of ther reasons that many question the validity of the New Mass. And it should be noted that when Rome issued the New Mass it used the correct words of consectation - for many. “For all” was a later translation from the original Latin. So the true error did not lie in the original Novus Ordo Mass as issued by Rome. In fact, the New Mass, when said in Latin, still uses “pro multis” (for many) in the consecration.

Whether or not the change from many to all invalidates the Mass is debatable, but what is not debatable is that some New Masses us incorrect matter, which certainly invalidates it. Rome issued a document in 1979, in which they attampted to corrent the abuse taking place, which was that many Churches in America were using invalid matter for communion. This will certainly invalidate the Mass. However, as usual the problem was not corrected, but only got worse. I remember listening to Mother Angelica several years ago. A person called in to tell her that the Priest attempted to consecrate a cake for Mass and asked her if that was valid. Mother Angelica said, which disgust in her voice, “honey you got nothin”.

Better to be safe than sorry, which is why I believe it is wise to attend the Old Mass, where everything takes place with great reverence and holiness and where you find none of the abuses that are so common at the Novus Ordo.

I have posted on another thread, this very point about the “pro multis vs. pro omnibus” issue and others.
After learning about our Popes decision on the Anaphora of Adai and Mari where the words of consecration are not used as in the Roman liturgy I had to rethink this argument, either something is very wrong or no argument makes sense.
The attending of Latin Mass is a personal choice, I pefer it over the more accepted rite. If you have questions,get answers to satisfy your heart and intellect for you do have a choice.

Fogny

 

[WanderAimlessly]

Sean O L:

Doesn’t it kinda make one wonder why the “trads” don’t raise hell (so to speak) over the way Jesus conducted the first Mass?

I mean:

1. Women were not present;
2. Everyone “reclined” in lieu of kneeling;
3. Jesus didn’t say all the words contained in the consecration of the wine;
4. They all drank from the chalice;
5. He didn’t say the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar, the Confeteor, the Introit; etc., etc., etc.
6. He didn’t were a Chasuble.
7. Everyone received Communion in (ugh!!!) the hand.

Doesn’t it make one think that the First Mass couldn’t have been a “true and proper sacrifice”?

I’m joshing, of course, but, the “trads” (of whom I was one for over 23 years) have a lot to learn in terms of obedience to the “power of the keys.”

Warning: Sarcasm Alert

***WHAT???:bigyikes: ***

You mean it wasn’t the Tridentine High Mass in a Cathedreal with Gregorian Chant!!!

PF

 

[BulldogCath]

R Siscoe pretty much hit the nail on the head. I dont want to be one to say that it is not an invalid mass-as I am not that smart of a man or theologian to make such a proclamation. But you would think that the Vatican-knowing that there are many issues with this Mass-would do something about it instead of issuing warnings and GIRMs and all the like that just go by the wayside in 50-75% of the Dioceses. The NO mass has a horrible track record, does not inspire, and leaves you wondering if you are in a Protestant or Catholic service sometimes.

Why not-like Coca-Cola did when they introduced “New Coke” then canned it and brought back “Original Coke” just bring back the “Original Mass” and lets see the church, with some hard work, bring back the reverence and respect it once held in the world

RSiscoe:

There are three things required for a Mass to be valid: Proper form, matter, and intention.

The following is the form of consecration, as defined by the Church (the following form can be found repeated many places, such as the Council of Trent).

Pope Pius V, De Defectibus, Part V: "The words of Consecration, which are the form of the Sacrament, are these: 'THIS IS THE CHALICE OF MY BLOOD, OF THE NEW AND ETERNAL TESTAMENT, THE MYSTERY OF FAITH, WHICH SHALL BE SHED FOR YOU AND FOR MANY UNTO THE REMISSION OF SINS’. Now if one were to omit, or to change anything in the form of the consecration of the Body and Blood, and in that very change of the words the wording would fail to mean the same, he would not consecrate the Sacrament. If in fact he were to add something that did not change the meaning, it is true he would consecrate, but he would sin most gravely." DE DEFECTIBUS Pope Pius V)

The form of consecration in the New Mass is different than what is given above. One of the big differences is that the words “for many” have been changed to “for all”. If “all” and “many” do not mean the same thing, then, according to the above decree of Pope Pius V, the New Mass is not valid.

So, the question arrises: Does all and many mean the same thing?

“Many will seek to enter in and shall not be able”. If we substituted “all” for many in the above verse, would it change the meaning?

That is one of ther reasons that many question the validity of the New Mass. And it should be noted that when Rome issued the New Mass it used the correct words of consectation - for many. “For all” was a later translation from the original Latin. So the true error did not lie in the original Novus Ordo Mass as issued by Rome. In fact, the New Mass, when said in Latin, still uses “pro multis” (for many) in the consecration.

Whether or not the change from many to all invalidates the Mass is debatable, but what is not debatable is that some New Masses us incorrect matter, which certainly invalidates it. Rome issued a document in 1979, in which they attampted to corrent the abuse taking place, which was that many Churches in America were using invalid matter for communion. This will certainly invalidate the Mass. However, as usual the problem was not corrected, but only got worse. I remember listening to Mother Angelica several years ago. A person called in to tell her that the Priest attempted to consecrate a cake for Mass and asked her if that was valid. Mother Angelica said, which disgust in her voice, “honey you got nothin”.

Better to be safe than sorry, which is why I believe it is wise to attend the Old Mass, where everything takes place with great reverence and holiness and where you find none of the abuses that are so common at the Novus Ordo.

 

[TNT]

Sean O L:

Doesn’t it kinda make one wonder why the “trads” don’t raise hell (so to speak) over the way Jesus conducted the first Mass?

I mean:

1. Women were not present;
2. Everyone “reclined” in lieu of kneeling;
3. Jesus didn’t say all the words contained in the consecration of the wine;
4. They all drank from the chalice;
5. He didn’t say the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar, the Confeteor, the Introit; etc., etc., etc.
6. He didn’t were a Chasuble.
7. Everyone received Communion in (ugh!!!) the hand.

Doesn’t it make one think that the First Mass couldn’t have been a “true and proper sacrifice”?

I’m joshing, of course, but, the “trads” (of whom I was one for over 23 years) have a lot to learn in terms of obedience to the “power of the keys.”

**So, was the Last Supper an Institution of the Blessed Sacrament and ordination of the Apostles as The Priests of Christ, (showing them their priestly responsibilities and privileges) or was it and open congregation Mass?
I would certainly expect a separate motif in the 1st case from the open Mass with unordained participants in the 2nd case.
**I’ll await your decision.

 

[bear06]

Whether or not the change from many to all invalidates the Mass is debatable,

And this is where people end up when they continue this line of thinking. Sad.

Here’s yet another lengthy article on the situation. matt1618.freeyellow.com/part4.html

 

[TNT]

BulldogCath:

… I am reading **a book on the history of the Mass **-written before vatican II-and it is tough reading as it has many many greek and Latin words incorporated into the book…
But as I am half way through this book-and being traditional, I wanted to read a book that was before V2 and not tinged with anti NO mass or a Rad trad point of view. …

So, is there a name for this book? Where did you get ?
How many pages?
Who wrote it?
Do you have his background?
Tell us trads.

 

[Dr.Bombay]

I would assume that the Pope, being the Vicar of Christ and having the power of the Keys, had every right to promulgate a new Mass and said Mass would be valid.

To claim otherwise is a dangerous road to travel. That way lies madness. Not to mention, giving fealty to a “Pope” hiding in a cabin in Washington state.

On another note, do we really know exactly how Christ celebrated the first Mass? It seems to me, the Gospels are a bit sketchy on specifics.

 

[TNT]

WanderAimlessly:

Ah yes. The Ottaviani Intervention.

What the RadTrads will not mention, or say that the documents are fake…
PF

I may not understand here. Do you mean the Ottaviani / Bacci writing is a Fake?
You set the plural to “document(s)”. Were there more than 1?

 

[TNT]

Brendan:

Does your SSPX friend know that Pope St. Pius X said the Byzantine Divine Liturgy at least once in his Pontificate, in Greek?

That wasn’t the Latin Mass, but it certainly was a Catholic Eucharist.

I do not know what that has to do with the Latin Rite.
Is the Following correct in the English**?**
BYZANTINE DIVINE LITURGY:
“This is my Blood of the New Testament, which is shed for you and for many for the forgiveness of sins.”

 

[RSiscoe]

RSiscoe:

Whether or not the change from many to all invalidates the Mass is debatable.

Bear06:

And this is where people end up when they continue this line of thinking. Sad.

I have a question for you: Do the words “for all” and “for many” mean the same thing? If they mean the same thing, then no one goes to heaven, for our Lord told us that “many (all?) will seek to enter in and shall not be able”. If many means all then no one is saved.

On the other hand, if many and all do not mean the same thing, then according to Pope Pius V, the consecration in the New Mass, when the words “for all” are used, is invalid.

Pope Pius V, De Defectibus, Part V: “The words of Consecration, which are the form of the Sacrament, are these: 'THIS IS THE CHALICE OF MY BLOOD, OF THE NEW AND ETERNAL TESTAMENT, THE MYSTERY OF FAITH, WHICH SHALL BE SHED FOR YOU AND FOR MANY UNTO THE REMISSION OF SINS’. Now if one were to omit, or to change anything in the form of the consecration of the Body and Blood, and in that very change of the words the wording would fail to mean the same, he would not consecrate the Sacrament. If in fact he were to add something that did not change the meaning, it is true he would consecrate, but he would sin most gravely.” DE DEFECTIBUS Pope Pius V)

Changing the words of consecration is a problem. The words of consecration are found in the Bible in several places, and the Church has infallibly defined what the words of consecration are. And keep in mind that the Novus Ordo that Rome originally issued had the correct words of consecration. The words “for all” are a mistranslation of the original Latin Version.

The following is what the Catechism of Trent said regarding the words for all and for many in the consecration:

The Catechism of the Council of Trent, On the Form of the Eucharist:
“The additional words for you and for many, are taken, some from Matthew, some from Luke, but were joined together by the Catholic Church under the guidance of the Spirit of God. They serve to declare the fruit and advantage of His Passion. For if we look to its value, we must confess that the Redeemer shed His Blood for the salvation of all; but if we look to the fruit which mankind have received from it, we shall easily find that it pertains not unto all, but to many of the human race. When therefore (our Lord) said: For you, He meant either those who were present, or those chosen from among the Jewish people, such as were, with the exception of Judas, the disciples with whom He was speaking. When He added, And for many, He wished to be understood to mean the remainder of the elect from among the Jews and Gentiles. With reason, therefore, were the words for all not used, as in this place the fruits of the Passion are alone spoken of, and to the elect only did His Passion bring the fruit of salvation.” (The Catechism of the Council of Trent, TAN Books, 1982, p. 227.)

You may believe it to be a stretch that some think for all invalidates the Mass, but I don’t. It may invalidate the Mass and it may not. I personally don’t know for certain. But no one who is honest will deny that “for all” is certainly not the correct words of consecration.

And to the one who says “But Rome has approved the words “for all” therefore they must be OK”, I respond by saying “Rome also approved a “mass” that has no words of consecration”. Believe it or not, it is true!

The Assyrian Church, which is a heretical and schismatic Church, has a “mass” with no words of consecration. However, that did not stop Rome from approving the Mass, and declaring it valid. This shows just how confused our Church leaders have become, in our day of apostacy.

Therefore, since Rome approved a “mass” that has no words of consecration and is therefore obviously invalid, it would not surprise me “one iota” if the words “for all”, which Rome has approved, also invalidate the Mass.

Would anyone really be surprised if the following prophecy from Daniel has come to pass:

“they shall defile the sanctuary, and shall take away the continual sacrifice… And such as deal wickedly against the covenant shall deceitfully dessemble…” (Daniel 11:31-32)

“and strength was given him against the continual sacrifice, because of sins: and the truth shall be cast down on the ground” (Daniel 8:12).

St. Alphonsus: “The devil has always attempted, by means of the heretics, to deprive the world of the Mass, making them precursors of the antichrist, who, before anything else, will try to abolish and will actually abolish the Holy Sacrament of the altar, as a punishment for the sins of men, according to the prediction of Daniel ‘And strength was given him against the continual sacrificer’.”

Are we in those days? I think so.

 

[WanderAimlessly]

TNT:

I may not understand here. Do you mean the Ottaviani / Bacci writing is a Fake?
You set the plural to “document(s)”. Were there more than 1?

TNT:

Maybe documents is not the correct terminology, but there are two sets of documents in play here with the first being the Ottaviani Intervention document.

The second set occured a few years after the Ottaviani Intervention document. In that set, Cardinal Ottaniani retracted many of his statements in the Ottaviani Intervention.

Many of the RadTrads will not recognize this retraction and will even say that thy are fake or that Ottaviani did not know what he was signing because he was blind.

I have only seen snippets of the second set that were in a paper that was written on the subject. The reason I used the plural tense was that it seems that the citations in the paper were from multiple sources.

I have found the paper but I do not know if I can post it here since it is intellectual property. The source of the paper, however, is a regular poster on the forums and maybe he will post it.

PF

 

[Fogny]

bear06:

And this is where people end up when they continue this line of thinking. Sad.

Here’s yet another lengthy article on the situation. matt1618.freeyellow.com/part4.html

Mr. Sippo makes a good argument, there are others that can take the opposite view with equal vigor and documentation.
The important point in this argument is was the meaning changed of the words of consecration, when “all” was sustituted for “many”.
IF somebody can show me where in scripture “all” was used in the context of the new covenant between a priest and his church I will believe.
Do not argue that the Church has the right, that is not my question were does Christ or the Apostles use the word “all”.

Fogny

 

[bear06]

Fogny:

Mr. Sippo makes a good argument, there are others that can take the opposite view with equal vigor and documentation.
The important point in this argument is was the meaning changed of the words of consecration, when “all” was sustituted for “many”.
IF somebody can show me where in scripture “all” was used in the context of the new covenant between a priest and his church I will believe.
Do not argue that the Church has the right, that is not my question were does Christ or the Apostles use the word “all”.

Fogny

OK, someone nicely gave all of the new testament scriptures that used the words “for all”. Can somebody provide a link so I don’t have to look for it.

Mr. Sippo makes a good argument, there are others that can take the opposite view with equal vigor and documentation.

Uh yes, and what’s the point to any of this when it is the CHURCH that has the jurisdiction over this and now Mr. Sippo, Archbishop Lefebvre, etc. This who conversation is a monumental waste of time.

Once again, I have to ask, did Christ die so that the gates of Heaven would be open to all? I believe this is the teaching of the Church. I don’t think anyone here is actually contradicting this, so what’s the problem? Those who follow Church teachings also know that we have free will to reject God and His teachings and therefor forfeit heaven.

Also, once again, according to Luke, Christ said for you, not for many. How come the Tridentine isn’t in error for not using this version? The answer is because the Magisterium of Trent said so.

I think the problem is that this is all too simple for some.

 

[TNT]

bear06:

…
Once again, I have to ask, did Christ die so that the gates of Heaven would be open to all?

I had thought that RSiscoe had provided that in:
The Catechism of the Council of Trent**, On the Form of the Eucharist:**
"The additional words for you and for many, are taken, some from Matthew, some from Luke, but were joined together by the Catholic Church under the guidance of the Spirit of God. They serve to declare the fruit and advantage of His Passion.
Now here is the answer to your question:

For if we look to its value, we must confess that the Redeemer shed His Blood for the salvation of all; but if we look to the fruit which mankind have received from it, we shall easily find that it pertains not unto all, but to many of the human race. When therefore (our Lord) said:

*Remember Now:

• by the Catholic Church under the guidance of the Spirit of God.
  **
  **So, did that answer your question?

Then it goes on to dutifully explain to the Faithful:
Do you not see the 2 , not 1 purpose of the form?*
Here it is again:
*

shed His Blood for the salvation of all…For you, He meant either those who were present, or those chosen from among the Jewish people, such as were, with the exception of Judas, the disciples with whom He was speaking. When He added, And for many, He wished to be understood to mean the remainder of the elect from among the Jews and Gentiles. With reason, therefore, were the words for all not used, as in this place the fruits of the Passion are alone spoken of, and to the elect only did His Passion bring the fruit of salvation." (The Catechism of the Council of Trent, TAN Books, 1982, p. 227.)

I believe this is the teaching of the Church. I don’t think anyone here is actually contradicting this, **so what’s the problem? **

Bless you for trying, but the answer is:
There are 2 issues, not just the one you keep asking about:

1. They (plural) serve to declare the fruit and
   2. advantage of His Passion.

Also, once again, according to Luke, Christ said for you, not for many. How come the Tridentine isn’t in error for not using this version?
Because:**
by the Catholic Church under the guidance of the Spirit of God**.
**
**

That was also addressed. Remember "some from… some from…
(You would have made a good midieval inquisitor.)

The answer is because the Magisterium of Trent said so.

Indeed. So why would the VATII ICEL et al dispose of it unless it had a purpose in mind? Does ICEL trump Trent? yes or no?
They have reduced it to ONLY 1 purpose. What happened the 2nd one?

Again, when you QUOTE someone, you use their exact words such as in Matthew::
Matthew 26:

28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins.

You can interpret it outside the QUOTE as Trent did. But you don’t misquote God as the ICEL et al did.
And that is the 2nd position I have as I explained in another thread.
Remember PA?

                          For the Holy Spirit promised to the successors of Peter, **not** that they would unfold new doctrine which He  revealed to them, but that, with His assistance, they would piously **guard and faithfully** expound the revelation or deposit of  faith **handed on through the Apostles**. All the venerable Fathers and holy orthodox doctors venerated and followed **their** * **apostolic doctrine***; they knew full well that this See of St. Peter always remained unstained by all error, according to the divine promise which Our Savior made to the chief of His disciples when He said, 'I have prayed for you, that your faith may not fail, and you, having turned, strengthen your brothers.'

Continued in next Post:

 

[TNT]

Continued from prev Post:
Now technically, the Church, in it’s original manuscript (Latin) held to this. BUT, the ICEL is the bunch that changed it.

BTW: (What is your Trust Rating of the ICEL?)

THEN, by silence, or acquisence, the Church did not correct them or insist that its original manuscript be sustained in translation.
This is the “good guy, Bad guy” program that the VATII church frequently employs. They don’t officially teach the error, they let underlings do it, then wring their hands, or give a basket of ambiguities about culturating or collegiality…blah blah. In the end the error or novelty or “new revelation” is allowed to not only remain, but propagate. (nearly all translations besides English have the “for all”.)
I’m getting dizzy from all the sudden thread starts on this subject. (What moon phase is it?)
I wish we could have ONE permanent eternal Thread on this and anyone who dares start another one receives the Mark of Cain via a mama Bear Claw! And, their sig has to state it…in GLOWING PURPLE.

 

[Fogny]

bear06:

OK, someone nicely gave all of the new testament scriptures that used the words “for all”. Can somebody provide a link so I don’t have to look for it.

Uh yes, and what’s the point to any of this when it is the CHURCH that has the jurisdiction over this and now Mr. Sippo, Archbishop Lefebvre, etc. This who conversation is a monumental waste of time.

Once again, I have to ask, did Christ die so that the gates of Heaven would be open to all? I believe this is the teaching of the Church. I don’t think anyone here is actually contradicting this, so what’s the problem? Those who follow Church teachings also know that we have free will to reject God and His teachings and therefor forfeit heaven.

Also, once again, according to Luke, Christ said for you, not for many. How come the Tridentine isn’t in error for not using this version? The answer is because the Magisterium of Trent said so.

I think the problem is that this is all too simple for some.

It is to simple for some, Christ is perfection.
Man is imperfect, his only true purpose is to attain perfection.
Christ instituted the “Mass” so that man could attain perfection.
Why Change the words of consecration?? Is man more perfect than God. Lucifer told Adam the same lie. God destroyed his generation. Noah and Abraham’s generation was of the old covenant. Our generation is of the new covenant, Why do we accept change by man, and deny Christ’s words and accept imperfecton.
the argument of infallibity is wrong in this case, 1900 years of truth against 40 years of a man made liturgy is false.
It is not my soul that upholds mans imperfection and denies the perfection of Christ.
I ask how can we be more Christian than Christ???
The Truth stings does it not.

Fogny

 

[Genesis315]

ewtn.com/library/Liturgy/zlitur46.htm

Here’s some pretty convincing arguments for the validity of the NOM and the word change from “many” to “all.” They seem to make sense to me.

 

[bear06]

BTW

: (What is your Trust Rating of the ICEL?)

T, I don’t think I’ve EVER quoted the ICEL. I’ve quoted several specialists in this area though!

Wasn’t it you who was ranting about only using the exact words Christ used when quoting him and now you’re quoting a catechism that doesn’t do this. A little hypocritical isn’t it?

T, so much worry for nothing since the Catholic Church cannot contradict Tradition. It seems either way the people who make a fuss over “for all, for many” are wrong. If this is part of tradition with a little “t” then it falls under the Pope’s jurisdiction (pof course a reading of PA and submission would help here) and if it’s Tradition with a big “T” then the Church cannot err in this matter.

 

[BulldogCath]

TNT

It is simply titled “The Mass” A Study of the Roman Liturgy
Written by Adrian Fortescue
It was first written in 1912 and is published by Preserving Christian Publications, Inc out of Albany

A truly eye-opening book and it makes it clear that what took place in 1970 was a butchering of a Mass that has essentially been handed down by Martyrs, Saints, Popes, and the Apostles themselves, and replaced with what is essentially a Protestant service. It is sad that something like this could actually happen.

A Must read for all-as it is facts and history before the winds of Vatican II came about and before there were all of these labels. So that the Modernist who reads this book can actually see that the mass is indeed sacred , especially the Canon and was never to be touched-but was ripped apart bu Bugnini and his co-horts

TNT:

So, is there a name for this book? Where did you get ?
How many pages?
Who wrote it?
Do you have his background?
Tell us trads.