The Holy Catholic Mass:

How the Vatican II Sect transformed the August Sacrifice of the Altar into a Liturgical “Happy Meal”

Traditional-Latin-Mass

 

Nowhere is the apostate nature of the Vatican II religion more evident than in what it has done to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, which is the true and perfect worship which alone is per se acceptable to the Most Holy Trinity. Thick tomes could be — and have been — written on the liturgical changes perpetrated by the Vatican II Sect, and certainly it is beyond the scope of this page to address them all. Rather, on this page we will present an overview of what has changed and then point you to resources that provide further details:

Direct Comparison: Traditional Latin Mass of the Ages vs. New Mass of “Pope” Paul VI (1969)

As the central act of Catholic worship, the liturgical actions, gestures, and prayers of the Holy Mass reflect the Catholic Faith to a tee. In all its details, the Catholic Mass reflects what Catholics believe, and vice versa: What Catholics believe is reflected in the Holy Mass. It therefore follows that if someone were to change the liturgical actions or prayers of the Holy Mass substantially, this would necessarily change or impact the belief of Catholics. A common Catholic adage is that the law of prayer is the law of belief: lex orandi, lex credendi. Therefore, whenever changes were made to the Catholic Mass in the past, these changes were minor and never substantial, and complete orthodoxy was always guaranteed so that the faithful would always be nourished with pure and sound doctrine in this principal act of worship of the Most Holy Trinity.

In fact, the Catholic Church teaches clearly that she is infallible and spotless in the promulgation of her sacramental rites and sacred laws imposed upon all. It is not possible for the Catholic Church to promulgate a sacramental rite that is intrinsically invalid, impious, evil, or otherwise harmful to souls. In fact, the Council of Trent under Pope Pius IV hurls an anathema (“let him be excommunicated”) at anyone who would dare to suggest that the Church’s sacramental rites are an incentive to impiety:

If any one saith, that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs, which the Catholic Church makes use of in the celebration of masses, are incentives to impiety, rather than offices of piety; let him be anathema.

(Council of Trent, Session 22, Canon 7)

Likewise, Pope Pius XII taught as follows:

Certainly the loving Mother is spotless in the Sacraments, by which she gives birth to and nourishes her children; in the faith which she has always preserved inviolate; in her sacred laws imposed on all; in the evangelical counsels which she recommends; in those heavenly gifts and extraordinary graces through which, with inexhaustible fecundity, she generates hosts of martyrs, virgins and confessors.

(Pope Pius XII, Encyclical Mystici Corporis Christi, n. 66)

There are many other examples of this kind, but these suffice to make clear that the sacramental rites of the Catholic Church are without blemish and are of themselves conducive to the salvation of souls. This should not be surprising, given that the Blessed Lord Jesus Christ Himself established the Catholic Church for the salvation of souls and promised that the gates of hell would never prevail against her. If this Church could promulgate sacramental rites that are harmful to souls and even invalid, the gates of hell would definitely have prevailed, and the Church would be worthless, nay dangerous!

As all practicing Catholics assist at the Holy Mass at least once a week (on Sundays), as far as they are able, it is clear that the Faith is taught them principally and most often specifically in the liturgical rite of the Holy Mass. It stands to reason, therefore, that in order to change the faith of Catholics, to change what they believe and how they believe it, it was necessary for the enemies who had infiltrated Holy Mother Church to change the liturgical rites and prayers of the Holy Mass.

The Modernist takeover of the Vatican in 1958 could never have been successful if they had only changed the beliefs on paper. Most Catholics are not familiar with papal encyclicals (which are addressed to clerics, anyway, and not to laymen), nor do they read conciliar documents; but all practicing Catholics assist at Holy Mass at least once a week. Just as the secular-sexual revolution of the 1960’s was transported into every home via rock music on the radio, and mostly thereby produced its evil fruit in abundance, so the New Faith of the Modernists could not spread into every Catholic heart and soul except by imposing on the faithful a “New Mass” that would longer be an expression of the pure Catholic Faith of the ages but of the poisonous new Modernistic religion that had begun to be introduced and sanctioned by John XXIII and his successors, especially Paul VI.

Interestingly enough, something very similar occurred when the Anglican heretics broke with Rome in the 16th century. They changed the Mass and sacraments to express the new faith they were preaching. In his magisterial document declaring the invalidity of the Anglican “priesthood” and “Masses,” Pope Leo XIII pointed out what could very well be said of the Modernist revolutionaries of the 1960’s:

Being fully cognizant of the necessary connection between faith and worship, between “the law of believing and the law of praying” [lex orandi, lex credendi], under a pretext of returning to the primitive form, they corrupted the Liturgical Order in many ways to suit the errors of the [Protestant] reformers. For this reason, in the whole Ordinal not only is there no clear mention of the sacrifice, of consecration, of the priesthood (sacerdotium), and of the power of consecrating and offering sacrifice but, as we have just stated, every trace of these things which had been in such prayers of the Catholic rite as they had not entirely rejected, was deliberately removed and struck out.

(Pope Leo XIII, Apostolic Constitution Apostolicae Curae, n. 30)

Note how Pope Leo emphasizes the connection between faith and worship — it is essential! The infamous founder of Protestantism, Martin Luther, once said: “Tolle Missam, tolle Ecclesiam” — “If you take away the Mass, you take away the Church.” He was right on this point, in a certain sense. Note also that Leo XIII says that the Anglicans made changes to the Mass “under the pretext of returning to the primitive form,” which is precisely what Paul VI and his cohorts claimed they were doing when introducing the New Mass, and which is precisely what Pope Pius XII had condemned in 1947 as “antiquarianism”:

Assuredly it is a wise and most laudable thing to return in spirit and affection to the sources of the sacred liturgy. For research in this field of study, by tracing it back to its origins, contributes valuable assistance towards a more thorough and careful investigation of the significance of feast-days, and of the meaning of the texts and sacred ceremonies employed on their occasion. But it is neither wise nor laudable to reduce everything to antiquity by every possible device. Thus, to cite some instances, one would be straying from the straight path were he to wish the altar restored to its primitive tableform; were he to want black excluded as a color for the liturgical vestments; were he to forbid the use of sacred images and statues in Churches; were he to order the crucifix so designed that the divine Redeemer’s body shows no trace of His cruel sufferings; and lastly were he to disdain and reject polyphonic music or singing in parts, even where it conforms to regulations issued by the Holy See.

…Just as obviously unwise and mistaken is the zeal of one who in matters liturgical would go back to the rites and usage of antiquity, discarding the new patterns introduced by disposition of divine Providence to meet the changes of circumstances and situation.

This way of acting bids fair to revive the exaggerated and senseless antiquarianism to which the illegal Council of Pistoia gave rise….

(Pope Pius XII, Encyclical Mediator Dei, n. 62-64; underlining added.)

Does this not sound familiar?

On a side note: It is probably not insignificant that the New Mass was promulgated on April 3, 1969, which was not only Holy Thursday but also the first day of the Jewish Passover (recall that Christ established His True Sacrifice of the Mass at the same time when the Jews were celebrating Passover, in 33 AD). On that fateful day, the papal impostor Paul VI introduced what he claimed was simply a “reform” of the Catholic Mass based on “more ancient liturgical sources” (see Paul VI, Missale Romanum). He called it the “new order of the Mass,” or, in the Latin original, the “novus Ordo Missae.” This “new order of the Mass,” a term perhaps more pregnant with meaning than he then realized, gradually came to be known as the “Novus Ordo Mass,” or simply the “New Mass.” The term “Novus Ordo” (“new order”) has since come to be used to describe not only the liturgical worship of the Vatican II Sect but the entire new religion that this New Mass expresses as well. Therefore, we use “Novus Ordo” as an adjective to refer to the entire Neo-Modernist religion that was begun by John XXIII, openly manifested itself at Vatican II, found its perfect expression in the New Mass, and continues to masquerade as Catholicism to this very day.

Links on the True Catholic Mass & the New Mass of Paul VI

At the end of this page, we present a full list of links to all our blog posts on the New Mass and the indult Mass.

Recommended Reading

Below you will find some more information about the true Catholic Mass, contrasted in words and pictures with the new, Novus Ordo “Mass” of Paul VI and the new religion of the Novus Ordo Church (for important information on Benedict XVI’s 2007 Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificumplease click here).

See for yourself: The True Mass vs. the New Mass

traditional-mass1

 

Above you see a picture of the Traditional Catholic Mass (click photo to enlarge it). An objective observer would describe it as mysterious, glorious, reverent, awe-inspiring, and holy, lifting the mind and soul towards Heaven. It is otherworldly and is clearly directed away from man to the transcendent God, the Most Holy Trinity.

The pictures that follow are fairly typical depictions of the Novus Ordo Mass. They are by no means “unusual” or “extreme” but quite mainstream. Reverence, mystery, godliness, and devotion are noticeably absent. The New Mass features not an all-holy Sacrifice offered to a transcendent Triune God, but a meal that is shared by a community closed in on itself and celebrating itself. The “celebration” is banal, commonplace, and dull, and of itself it cannot possibly attract devotion or vocations to the holy priesthood, which has been stripped of all dignity and all that made it special, the priest having been reduced, in essence, to a glorified social worker who is not allowed to marry (not exactly an exciting vocation for any healthy and sane boy or young man).

new-mass.jpg
Novus Ordo Mass
Novus Ordo Mass

 

It is clear that a New Mass also needs a New Priesthood, and with both there came new church buildings, that is, houses of worship that, likewise, no longer represented the Catholic Faith but rather reflected the New Religion, the new teachings of the Modernists, which are in manifest contradiction with true Catholicism (the very fact that everything had to be changed after Vatican II to be in harmony with the New Religion and its new hippie “Gospel of Man” is proof enough that the contradiction with the Catholic Faith is real and not merely apparent).

Hence, with the arrival of the Novus Ordo religion, there also came new churches, some of them already as early as the 1950’s, with the approval of the local (Modernist-in-hiding) bishop. Generally, Novus Ordo church buildings are characterized (just like their new faith and their new liturgies) by looking banal, sterile, static, and totally unlike traditional Catholic churches, the purpose of whose very architecture is to assist in lifting souls up to Heaven and to allow them to pray and think of heavenly things, in accordance with Holy Scripture: “Mind the things that are above, not the things that are upon the earth” (Colossians 3:2). Here is a clear example showing the stark contrast that exists between the two religions as expressed in their respective architecture:

built-by-catholics-and-novus-ordos

Traditional Catholic churches are houses of God, because Christ resides in them in the tabernacle under the appearance of bread. Novus Ordo churches, by contrast, are nothing but gathering spaces in which the “community” comes to “share a meal” and celebrate itself (hence also the priest no longer faces God in the tabernacle but now faces the people, just as Protestant ministers do). Typically, Novus Ordo churches look so bad that they can be mistaken for libraries, community centers, medical buildings, Protestant churches, or the local police station. And quite often, Novus Ordo churches are absolutely hideous and ugly, as you can see in some more examples below.

Defenders of the Novus Ordo religion and its new doctrines and churches will often go through all sorts of hair-splitting points about how really no substantial change has occurred and everything is just orthodox enough still so as not to breach Catholic dogma and piety. This nonsense is best countered by sticking to the visible facts of what takes place and what is believed in Novus Ordo Land. The proof is in the pudding: We have a new religion on our hands, new churches, new doctrines, a new priesthood; and all of this is intrinsically connected with the almost-complete disappearance of true Catholicism from the face of the earth. It should stand to reason that such occurrences are not coincidental — a new religion is not imposed by accident. Just as this world could not have been the result of chance or random occurrences among particles, so this new religion with all its heresy, impiety, and wickedness, so cleverly disseminated throughout the world and injected into the souls of unsuspecting Catholics, also requires to have been carried out by means of a master plan to defeat the Catholic Church and put up a religion that serves man, not God.

Some Examples of the New Church Buildings:

Wotruba ChurchThis first picture depicts what the Modernists call “Most Holy Trinity Church” in Vienna, Austria, a country that used to be very Catholic and still has many gorgeous Catholic churches. This church was designed by the Modernist Fritz Wotruba (d. 1975), a man notorious for creating bizarre “art”, including nude sculptures. View an image of his drawing “Sitting One” here. More of Wotruba’s impious “art” can be viewed here. This Wotruba “church” was built under and approved by the infamous Modernist, “Cardinal” Franz König (d. 2004), a man appointed “cardinal” by John XXIII in 1958, just a few weeks after the death of Pope Pius XII.

Liverpool CathedralWhat the next photo shows is not an incineration plant in Detroit but the Novus Ordo “cathedral” in Liverpool, England, supposedly to honor Christ the King. Examples like this can be multiplied ad nauseam, and you have probably seen similar hideous or strange-looking churches yourself.
Another great example of the bizarre hideousness of the new churches, whose architectures simply expresses the new Modernistic religion, is the church of “Mary Queen” in southern Germany (see the inside here, if you dare). Needless to say, such horrible architecture is likewise no accident. In fact, it has a name: Brutalism. “Brutalist architecture is a movement in architecture that flourished from the 1950s to the mid-1970s, descending from the modernist architectural movement of the early 20th century”, according to Wikipedia.
Despite the horrendous ugliness of the above-shown buildings, there is still one Novus Ordo church that tops them all: the so-called Nevigeser Wallfahrtsdom, or “Mary Queen of Peace Church,” officially a Wallfahrtskirche (“church of pilgrimage” [!]), located in Velbert-Neviges, Germany. Here are two photos of this catastrophe:

 

"Mary Queen of Peace" church in Germany
"Mary Queen of Peace" church in Germany

 

So… do you dare look inside?

This, ladies and gentlemen, is the face of the New Church, the Novus Ordo Religion officially present in today’s Vatican. If you find it offensive and impious, it’s because that’s exactly what it is. And if it offends human beings, how much more must it offend God Himself?

The New Religion has a different face from the True Catholic Religion. The ugly buildings, the strange “Masses” and other liturgical actions, are merely the outward sign of its new, ugly, and offensive theology.

More examples can be found through the following link:

In case you are inclined to agree with our assessment of the situation with regard to the Vatican II Sect, its false theology, its ugly churches, and its offensive liturgical worship service, the Novus Ordo Missae, you are probably wondering what to do now. To help answer this question and guide you through the jungle that is out there, we have compiled many good resources and offer some practical advice in the following link:

By the way, in the Novus Ordo Church, this is what a “papal Mass” looks like. They can call it “noble simplicity”, but it’s still the same Modernist junk:

“Papal Mass” with Mr. Jorge Bergoglio

 

By comparison, here’s what a real Mass offered by a true Pope looks like:

Pontifical High Mass with Pope Pius XII in the Vatican (1942)

 

Links to all Posts & Articles on this Web Site containing Information about the Novus Ordo Missae and related issues