1

Is the New Mass Valid or Pleasing to God?

Document Summary:
• Introduction
• What is validity?
• Is the New Mass Ever Valid?
• Is the New Mass invalid by defect of matter?
• Is the New Mass invalid by defect of minister?
• Is the New Mass invalid by defect of form?
• Comparison of the words of Consecration
used in the Traditional Mass and in the New
Mass
• How does any change made to the words of
Consecration affect validity?
• The changes made to the words of
Consecration used in the New Mass
• Is the New Mass invalid by defect of intention?
• Is the New Mass Displeasing to God when it is Valid?
• Two Examples of Valid Masses that are NOT
pleasing to God
• The four causes of goodness in a thing
• Is the New Mass displeasing to God because
of circumstances?
• Is New Mass displeasing to God because it is
lacking something good which it should
have?
• Is the New Mass objectively displeasing to
God in itself?
• Is the New Mass displeasing to God because
of the purpose expressed in it?
• What does the Council of Trent say about the New
Mass?
• Summary of Reasons why we shouldn't attend the
New Mass
• Answers to Commonly Asked Questions Regarding the New
Mass
 2

Abbreviations: S.T. refers to the Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas; S.C.G. to the
Summa Contra Gentiles of St. Thomas Aquinas.
Acknowledgements: The author thanks several persons of the SSPX for doing much work on
the essential parts of the arguments below, as well as for providing key insights for many of the
details.
Introduction
Rather than just "follow along with the crowd", more and more Catholics today are questioning
the New Mass. They're comparing the New Mass with the Traditional Latin Mass that has been
said by holy priests in the Church for centuries. They're looking critically at all "the changes,"
which go beyond a mere question of language. The question of the Mass is important, because:
• Catholics attend Sunday Mass to fulfill their Sunday obligation (3rd Commandment) and
to obtain the graces most necessary to save their souls.
• The defects that exist in the New Mass are very serious, and they become glaringly
evident after:
1. comparing the New Mass with the Traditional Mass and
2. studying the New Mass in the light of Catholic Theology regarding the Mass and
sacrifice
In terms of practical action, Catholics who really care about their Faith ask themselves the
following questions:
• CAN A CATHOLIC ATTEND THE NEW MASS?
• DOES THE NEW MASS FULFILL A CATHOLIC'S SUNDAY OBLIGATION?
• IS THE NEW MASS EVEN VALID?
To answer these questions, we must first consider: what is validity?
What is validity?
At a valid Mass, the bread and wine change into the Body and Blood of Christ at the
Consecration, and at an invalid Mass they don't. The question of validity is an important one,
since we can never knowingly participate in the worship of an invalid Mass. To do so is to
worship mere bread and wine rather than the Body and Blood of Christ, and this is idolatry,
contrary to the 1st Commandment. And furthermore, participation in an invalid Mass can
never fulfill a Catholic's Sunday obligation.
Unfortunately, when most Catholics today answer the very important questions posed above, the answer they give
tends towards one of two extremes:
NO, the New Mass in English is OR
YES, the New Mass in English is
never valid, sometimes valid,
SO a Catholic may never attend it at SO a Catholic may always attend it
any time, whenever it is valid,
HENCE, the New Mass can never HENCE, the New Mass will
fulfill a Catholic's Sunday obligation. sometimes fulfill a Catholic's Sunday
obligation.
We will show below that the true Catholic position, based on the theological teaching of St.
Thomas Aquinas, is that the New Mass in English can indeed be valid, but that even when it is
 3
valid, it is so displeasing to God that such a Mass can never fulfill a Catholic's Sunday
obligation, and that a Catholic should never feel obliged to attend it. Furthermore, inasmuch as
the New Mass would cause a Catholic to adopt beliefs about the Mass which are not Catholic,
and at the same time lose their Catholic beliefs, a Catholic should not attend the New Mass.

Is the New Mass Ever Valid?

Unfortunately there is unquestionable evidence that many Masses being celebrated today are
invalid. But is every New Mass said in English invalid? And how could we know an invalid
Mass from a valid one?
St. Thomas Aquinas teaches that there are four causes which directly affect that validity of the
Mass, and that a defect in any one of these four causes will make the Mass invalid. These four
causes are:
1. the matter used (bread and wine) [S.T. III.74]
2. the minister (validly ordained priest) [S.T. III.82.1]
3. the form used (the words of Consecration) [S.T. III.78]
4. the intention of the minister [S.T. III.64.8] and
secondarily, the intention expressed by the Rite itself [S.T. III.60.8].

If we can show that in some cases all four of these causes are properly effected, we can be
certain that in those cases the New Mass is valid.
1. Is the New Mass invalid by defect of matter?
This question concerns the bread and wine used at Mass. The simple answer to this question is:
No, if the priest "follows the book."
The reason for this is that for a valid Mass the bread must be of pure wheaten flour mixed with
natural water. The use of any grain other that wheat makes the Mass invalid, as does the addition
of ingredients such as oil, milk, eggs, butter or honey or anything which would make the mixture
into cake or cookies rather than bread. The addition of things such as salt or yeast (in the Latin
Church) is gravely illicit (against Church Law), as is the use of whole wheat flour rather than
white flour, but these do not make the Mass invalid. The shape of the hosts in the Latin Church is
traditionally round, but this isn't necessary for validity.
For a valid Mass the wine must be made strictly from grapes (red or white) which have been
allowed natural fermentation with no artificial additives.
In the case of older or conservative priests, the use of proper matter usually isn't a problem. Only
where the priest doesn't "follow the book" in using the proper bread and wine should we doubt
the validity of the Mass by defect of matter.
2. Is the New Mass invalid by defect of minister?
This question concerns the priest (or bishop) who says the Mass. The simple answer to this
question is:
No, if the priest's ordination was done "by the book" and the ordaining Bishop's intention
was to ordain priests with the power to offer the sacrifice of the Mass.
The reason for this is that he who celebrates the Mass must be a validly ordained priest [S.T.
III.82.1], and the new Rite of ordination is so ambiguous that its validity depends on the
intention of the ordaining bishop. If such a bishop clearly does not intend to ordain priests with
the power to offer the sacrifice of the Mass, the men he ordains do not receive this power and
then we should doubt the validity of their ordination.
Some would argue that an ambiguous Rite of ordination is automatically invalid, because in the
Rite there is an intention opposed to the ordination taking place. To this objection we answer that
wording that is ambiguous is not really contrary to anything, simply because it is
ambiguous. This seems so obvious to us that we really can't explain it more simply.
 4
Concerning the bishop's intention when he ordains priests: we do have a problem whenever we
try to determine someone's intention for doing something, because intentions are interior, and we
can only form judgements based on what is exterior. To solve this problem, what the wisdom of
the Church has always sought is a moral certitude, which favours the bishop's intention
(especially that of a more conservative bishop) in the absence of any positive doubt. This means
that we should doubt the bishop's intention only if he has shown positively, by words or action,
that he does not intend to do what the Church does in conferring on a man the power to offer the
Sacrifice of the Mass.
There is never a question of whether the bishop actually believes in the power of the Priesthood,
but only that he intends to do what the Church does, and has not given external evidence that he
does not intend to do this. Otherwise, as long as the ordination is done "by the book," we may
have a moral certitude of the validity of the priestly ordinations, and in these cases the New Mass
is not invalid by defect of minister.
3. Is the New Mass invalid by defect of form?
This question concerns the words of Consecration used in the Mass. There is no simple answer to
this question.
The reason is that the words of Consecration in the New Mass are different from those used in
the Traditional Mass. We know that the words of Consecration in the Traditional Mass are valid.
We have to study the words used in the New Mass in some detail before we can know whether
they are valid or not.
The words of Consecration are referred to as the form of the sacrament of the Eucharist [S.T.
III.60.7]. For a Mass to be valid, the words of Consecration must fulfil certain criteria. We'll
begin our discussion by comparing the words of Consecration of both the Traditional Mass and
of the New Mass in chart form:
Comparison of the words of Consecration used in the Traditional Mass and in the New
Mass
(notes explained below the chart)
The Traditional Mass The New Mass
(showing the "changes")
Consecration "This is My Body." "This is My Body,
of the bread which will be given up for youa."
Consecration "This is the chalice of my Blood, "This is the cupe of My Blood,
of the wine of the new and eternal testament, the Bloode of the new and
everlasting covenante.
b

the mystery of faith, It will be shed

which will be shed for you and for all menc
for you and for many so that sins may be forgivend."
for the forgiveness of sins."
Each change made to the words of Consecration presents its own problem. The changes are:
a) at the Consecration of the bread
• the words "which will be given up for you" ("quod pro vobis tradetur") have been added
b) at the Consecration of the wine
• the words "mystery of faith" ("mysterium fidei") have been removed from the
Consecration and placed somewhere else in the Rite
c) at the Consecration of the wine
• in the English and other vernacular translations, the words "pro multis" which mean "for
many" have been mis-translated by "for all men"
d) at the Consecration of the wine
 5
• the words of Consecration, which have always been said as one complete sentence, are
now broken into two sentences
e) at the Consecration of the wine
• there are other changes in the way that the words of consecration have traditionally been
translated, as well as the addition of the words "the Blood" for emphasis
How does any change made to the words of Consecration affect validity?
Before considering each of the specific changes noted above to see whether they make the New
Mass invalid, we will first consider the general case of how making changes to the words of
Consecration affects validity.
According to St. Thomas, a Mass is rendered invalid:
i) if words are added or taken away so that the essential sense of what is being said at the
Consecration is destroyed, and this includes removing words from what St. Thomas calls
the "substance of the form" [S.T. III.60.8]
ii) if the words are changed so that the intention of what is being effected by the
sacrament is changed, thus affecting the intention of the minister [S.T. III.64.8]
On the other hand, a Mass is not rendered invalid:
iii) if words are added or taken away that do not add to or take away from the essential
sense of what is being done [S.T. III.60.8 ad 2]
We will also look at the words of Consecration as they are in use by the various Eastern Rites of
the Church. These sacraments are most certainly valid; but the words they use for Consecration
are different from those used by the Latin Church. The differences will help us know what
words the Church considers to be essential to the words of Consecration, and what words may
be removed or added without affecting validity.
The changes made to the words of Consecration used in the New Mass.
We will now consider the specific changes made in the New Mass to see if they make the New
Mass invalid.
a) at the Consecration of the bread
-the words "which will be given up for you" ("quod pro vobis tradetur") have been added.
Although there has been a change to the words of Consecration of the bread, this change does not
affect validity. This is because, as St. Thomas says, words can be added to the form of
Consecration as long as the words added do not alter the essential sense of the form [S.T. III.60.8
ad 2]. In this case, the words "which will be given up for you" serve only to further specify
whose body is referred to by "My Body" in the words: "This is My Body." And furthermore, we
can look at the words of Consecration of other Rites in the Church, (for the Consecration of the
Bread) and compare them to the New Mass. The Consecrations of the other rites are certainly
valid, and since the New Mass uses words that are very similar, the Consecration of the New
Mass must be valid too.
Words of the Consecration of the bread in various Rites of the Church
Armenian Rite Byzantine Rites New Mass
This is My Body This is My Body This is My Body
which is distributed for you and for which will be broken for which will be
many for the expiation and remission of you for the forgiveness of given up for you
sins sins
This consecration
This consecration is valid This consecration is valid
must also be valid
b) at the Consecration of the wine
-the words "mystery of faith" ("mysterium fidei") have been removed from the
Consecration and placed somewhere else in the Rite.
 6
Those who have doubts about the validity of the New Mass due to this change made to the
words of the Consecration of the wine, use the following argument:
i) St. Thomas says that a sacrament is rendered invalid if the essential sense of the words
of the form is changed [S.T. III.60.8], and he says further that this includes suppressing
any part of the "substance of the form" of the sacrament.
ii) Elsewhere St. Thomas says that the words "the mystery of faith" belong to the
"substance of the form" of the Consecration of the wine [S.T. III.78.3].
iii) Thus by removing the words "the mystery of faith" from the words of Consecration of
the wine, the New Mass is invalid.
iv) And furthermore the Roman Missal says that the whole form of the Consecration of
the wine includes the words "the mystery of faith" and that any words belonging to the
integrity of the form cannot be lacking without affecting validity [De defectibus, V.1]. It
is also stated that if any of the words of the form are omitted, then the entire form of that
Consecration must be repeated by the priest before resuming the rest of the Mass [De
defectibus, V.2]. Thus, because the priest does not say the words "the mystery of faith" in
the words of Consecration of the wine, the New Mass is invalid.
But on the other hand:
The liturgies of the various Eastern Rites: the Syrian, Coptic, Ethiopic, Abyssinian,
Byzantine, and Armenian Rites do not include the words "the mystery of faith" in the
words of Consecration of the wine, yet their Consecrations are certainly valid.
We respond to those who argue against the validity of the New Mass in this case by saying that it
is evident that St. Thomas is using the expression "substance of the form" in two senses: a wider
sense [in S.T. III.78.3] in which he says that all the words of the Consecration of the wine belong
to the "substance of the form" of the Eucharist, and a stricter sense [in S.T. III.60.8] in which he
says that a change in meaning made to the "substance of the form" renders the sacrament invalid.
If we don't admit that St. Thomas is using the expression "substance of the form" in two senses,
then we must conclude that St. Thomas disagrees with the judgement of the Church: on the one
hand he says that the words "mystery of faith" are part of the "substance of the form" and hence
to omit them renders the sacrament invalid, whereas on the other hand these words are omitted
by the liturgies of the various Eastern Rites and the Church certainly does consider these
sacraments valid. We illustrate the resolution of this dilemma in chart form as we consider the 3-
fold division of the words of Consecration of the wine given by St. Thomas [in S.T. III.78.3] and
at the same time we show how St. Thomas uses both senses of the term "substance of the form".
Substance of the Form chart with the traditional words for the Consecration of the wine
Substance Division of the words of Does omission of these words affect
of the Consecration by St. Thomas validity?
Form [S.T. III.78.3] [S.T. III.60.8]
in the 1. Words by which the change of Yes, always, by definition, since these
strict sense wine into blood is signified = the words clearly signify the change of
[S.T. shorter form of Consecration. wine into blood [S.T. III.78.3] which is
III.60.8] "This is the chalice of My Blood" the sacrament itself (res sacramenti)
[S.T. III.78.1], and the words of the
form must signify what they bring
about [S.T. III.78.2].
2. Words that show the power of Yes, insofar as they are considered
the blood shed in the Passion = the collectively as a determination of the
 7
latter words of Consecration. shorter form (determination of the
in the "of the new and eternal predicate). In this way, together with
wide sense testament" the shorter form they comprise the
[S.T. "integrity of the expression." And
III.78.3] "the mystery of faith" hence, in practice, the change of wine
into blood occurs only when the last of
"which will be shed for you and these words has been said, and not
for many for the forgiveness of before.
sins." No, insofar as they are considered
individually as part of the
determination of the shorter form.
Individual phrases may thus be omitted
entirely, as they are in the Eastern
Rites, without affecting validity.
3. Words that belong to the use of No, never, since these words belong to
the sacrament. the use of the sacrament and not to the
"As often as you shall do these change of wine into blood.
things, do them in memory of me."
Thus only by agreeing that St. Thomas uses the term "substance of the form" in 2 senses, can we
reconcile the 2 texts of the Summa Theologica as well as the long-approved practice of the
Eastern Churches; and we can easily see that the words "mystery of faith" are not strictly
necessary for the Consecration to occur. And if these words are not strictly necessary for
Consecration, then the other words that determine the predicate, which we shall call the latter
words of Consecration for convenience, must not be necessary either, since St. Thomas makes no
distinction between the words "the mystery of faith" and the other latter words.
But if the latter words are not strictly necessary for Consecration, then what necessity do they
have?
Integrity of the Expression
On the one hand as we see in the chart, St. Thomas divides the words of Consecration into words
that signify the change of wine into blood (the shorter form) and words that show the power of
the blood (the latter words). It is clear that the shorter form is sufficient for Consecration, since:
• the form must signify what it effects [S.T. III.78.2]
• the effect of the Eucharist is the change of the matter [S.T. III.78.1], in this case that of
wine into blood, and
• the words of the shorter form "This is the cup of My Blood" sufficiently signify the
change of wine into blood [S.T. III.78.1, III.78.3].
On the other hand, St. Thomas insists that the latter words together with the shorter form
comprise the "integrity of the expression" [S.T. III.78.3], a term not used elsewhere by St.
Thomas when he speaks of the "substance of the form" of the other sacraments. Hence the term
"integrity of the expression" applies only to the words of the Consecration of the wine and is
crucial to the understanding of why St. Thomas insists that the latter words must not be omitted
by the minister at the Consecration.
In considering the effect of changes to the words of the form, St. Thomas speaks of maintaining
the "essential sense" of the words of Consecration [S.T. III.60.8]. Now the essence of a thing is
what the thing is, its nature, and this makes it different in nature from other things. For example,
the nature of man is to be a rational animal; the possession of reason making him different from
other animals and the possession of a physical body making him different from the angels. But
there are parts of a man that are called integral parts, and these are parts that according to his
nature he ought to have, but at the same time if these parts are lost, an individual man does not
 8
cease to be a man. For example, men have arms and legs, but by the loss of an arm or a leg a
man does not cease being a man. The arms and legs which we would normally expect to find in a
man but which could be lost are then integral parts of a man.
In this light we can see what St. Thomas means when he says "integrity of the expression." The
latter words ( like "the mystery of faith") are quite simply integral parts of the form. This
means on the one hand that we would expect to find these words in the Mass, but if they were
omitted, as some of them are by the Eastern Rites, the Mass would not cease being a Mass. And
this is because the removal of some or all of the latter words doesn't change the essential sense of
the words of Consecration: the change of wine into the Blood of Christ. On the other hand it also
means that when the priest pronounces the words of Consecration over the wine, he adores the
Precious Blood only after he says the latter words, and not before, so that all of the words of
Consecration are thus necessarily pronounced as an integral unit.
That is why the latter words of Consecration are not all strictly necessary (absolutely speaking)
for the validity of the Consecration, but it is nonetheless necessary that they be said by the priest
together with the shorter form of Consecration, and if they are not, the priest is obliged to begin
the words of Consecration again from the beginning. And so it is that the Roman Missal instructs
the priest to do so as noted above. Thus we can conclude that in the case of the New Mass, a
change to the latter words such as the removal of the words "the mystery of faith" doesn't
automatically render every Mass invalid.
c) at the Consecration of the wine
-in the English and other vernacular translations, the words "pro multis" which mean "for
many" have been mis-translated by "for all men."
First of all, no-one can say that the mere act of saying Mass in a vernacular language makes the
Mass invalid, for as St. Thomas teaches, a sacrament may be valid regardless of the language
spoken [S.T. III.60.7 ad 1], and furthermore the Mass is validly said in Greek and Ukrainian in
the Eastern Rites, and Arabic in the Maronite Rite; and these are vernacular languages. And, as
we have shown, a change made to the latter words of Consecration of the wine doesn't
necessarily render the New Mass invalid.
However, we now need to consider a further objection made against the New Mass:
Granted that changing the latter words of Consecration doesn't automatically make all
Masses invalid, nonetheless this particular change that has been made, mistranslating "for
many" by "for all men," does change the meaning of the sense of the words of
Consecration so as to create a contrary intention that would invalidate all Masses.
Those who have doubts about the validity of the New Mass due to this change made to the words
of the Consecration of the wine, use the following argument, following our analogy of the
integral parts of a man:
Indeed it is true that if a man were to lose both his arms, he would still be a man.
However a creature could be imagined with 2 legs and, in the place of the 2 arms a man
should have, with 2 wings or even 2 more legs, and this mutation would indeed be
"integral," but it would be so radically different that this creature could no longer be a
man but would have to be some new kind of animal.
Those making the above objection claim that the mistranslation in the words of Consecration:
i) at worst creates in the Rite itself an intention contrary to the essential sense of the
words, and
ii) at best would so affect the minister's intention that the Mass would then be invalid.
And furthermore, it is argued that the minister's intention could also be changed by other
texts in the Mass that are ambiguous and could have a heretical interpretation.
 9
We will answer these questions regarding intention, as well as a further objection: "Wouldn't the
New Mass automatically be invalid if those who created it had bad intentions?" further below,
when we consider whether the New Mass is invalid for reasons of intention.
In the meantime, we can look at how the words "for many" relate grammatically to the rest of the
words of Consecration of the wine, and whether there is any grammatical evidence to suggest
that this particular mistranslation makes the Mass invalid.
Grammatical Considerations of the words of Consecration of the wine.
Words of Consecration taken from the Traditional Latin Rite Mass
Main Clause Appositive Phrases Subordinate Clause
"of the new and "which will be shed for
"This is the chalice of
Words of Consecration eternal testament" you, and for many, for the
My Blood"
"the mystery of faith" forgiveness of sins"
To state what is on To help remove all To show the power of the
Grammatical Purpose of
the altar; in this case doubt whose Blood is Blood
the Words
it is Christ's Blood on the altar [S.T. III.78.3]
What these words say
What Blood is shed What Blood is shed Why the Blood is shed
about the Blood
Does a change in these Yes, but only if the Yes, but only if the No, because a change in
words change the change makes it plain change makes it plain something's purpose why
meaning of the words of that the Blood is not that the Blood is not doesn't necessarily
the main clause? Christ's Blood Christ's Blood change what the thing is
Adding these words:
Example of a change in "the blood of Fr. Joe
the words that changes "This is not the Smith"
the meaning of the words chalice of my Blood" OR
of the main clause "but not the Blood of
Christ"
Example of a change in Adding these words:
the words that DOES "also known as the "which will be shed for
"This is the cup of
NOT change the Precious Blood" you, and for all men, for
my Blood"
meaning of the words of OR the forgiveness of sins"
the main clause "shed upon Calvary"
Grammatically, the words of the Consecration of the wine consist in a main clause "This is the
chalice of My Blood," two appositive phrases "of the new and eternal testament" and "the
mystery of faith," and finally a subordinate clause "which will be shed for you, and for many, for
the forgiveness of sins." The two phrases and subordinate clause are determinations of the
predicate of the main clause "This is the chalice of My Blood," and they thus help to remove all
doubt of whose blood it is, and as St. Thomas says, to show the power of the blood [S.T.
III.78.3]. As we have seen, the phrase "the mystery of faith" can be removed completely without
affecting validity, and in fact in the New Mass it has been removed.
Let us compare the remaining phrase "of the new and eternal testament" and the subordinate
clause. One striking difference becomes obvious immediately: the phrase "of the new and eternal
testament" specifies what blood was shed in the Passion and hence is being consecrated in the
Mass, whereas the subordinate clause "which will be shed..." specifies why the blood was shed.
Now it is evident from the teaching of St. Thomas that both the what and the why of the
Precious Blood of Christ are included in the determination of "the chalice of My Blood" because
"the most important circumstances [of an act] are why it is done and what is done" [S.T. I-II.7.4].
However we know from Metaphysics (the study of the first principles of things that are) that the
form of a thing such as a sacrament is strictly speaking what the thing is and not why it is. As St.
Thomas says "the purpose [why] is not part of the substance of the act [what]" [S.T. I-II.7.4 ad
 10
2]. Hence, although the subordinate clause "which will be shed for you and for many..." is
included in the form of the sacrament to comprise the "integrity of the expression," it is by
definition not truly part of the form, and furthermore it is metaphysically impossible that a
change to the purpose of a thing (why the thing exists) will automatically change the form of the
thing (what the thing is), unless a contrary intention is indicated by the change of the purpose,
and we have already shown this not to be the case.
Thus the mis-translation of the words "pro multis" by "for all men" is very grave, but does not
make the New Mass invalid.
d) at the Consecration of the wine
-the words of Consecration, which have always been said as one complete sentence, are now
broken into two sentences
Those who have doubts about the validity of the New Mass due to this change made to the words
of the Consecration of the wine, use the following argument:
i) St. Thomas says that the latter words of Consecration of the wine must be said together
with the shorter form "This is the chalice of My Blood" in order to preserve the "integrity
of the expression" [S.T. III.78.3].
ii) And when the priest does say the words of Consecration, the latter words which are
found in the Rite must be said as one integral expression together with the shorter form
for validity.
iii) But in the New Mass the latter words of Consecration have been divided into two
sentences, and thus have lost their integrity of expression. Thus the New Mass is invalid.
iv) And furthermore, in the other Rites of the Church the words of the Consecration of the
wine are said in one sentence, and this shows us that the Church disapproves of the words
of Consecration being divided into two sentences. Thus, again, the New Mass is invalid.
But on the other hand,
v) We have shown that not all the latter words are necessary for validity, and that changes
made to any of the words of Consecration do not adversely affect validity unless the
change introduces a contrary intention.
We answer that this particular change made to the words of Consecration is very grave, and
shows that the creators of the New Mass had a total disregard for all liturgical tradition in the
Church. However, as we have stated above, changes made to the words "which will be shed..."
do not affect validity, since these words comprise a subordinate clause which expresses the
purpose why and not the what of the Blood of Christ, and for this reason these words are by the
strictest definition not part of the form. Thus the fact that this subordinate clause is now a
separate sentence does not affect validity either, since as we have said it is truly not part of the
form necessary for Consecration anyway.
And so although there are some who say that 2 distinct sentences can together comprise a single
integral expression, and that thus the division of the words of the Consecration of the wine does
not destroy the "integrity of the expression;" we do not agree with this opinion, since for
something to be integral it can't be divided. Besides this, these words have always existed as a
single sentence in the other Rites of the Church.
Lastly, the fact that there are two sentences in the words of Consecration, actually makes it
MORE likely that the Consecration is valid. This is because the words that determine the
Precious Blood are in the first sentence, which is complete and on its own. The controversial
words "for you and for many" are in a separate sentence, and grammatically speaking, are no
longer part of the words of consecration, which are found in the first sentence. It could thus be
argued that Transubstantiation takes place when the priest finishes saying the first sentence,
 11
(since Transubstantiation takes place after the priest finishes saying the sentence that expresses
what change is taking place) and when the priest says the second sentence, it has no effect on the
Transubstantiation that has already occurred. We have summarized this argument in the chart that
follows:
Words of Consecration used in the New Mass
Main Clause Appositive Phrase Second Sentence
"the Blood of the
"It will be shed for you, and for
"This is the cup of new and
Words of Consecration all men, so that sins may be
My Blood" everlasting
forgiven."
covenant."
To state what is on To help remove all
To show the power of the Blood
Grammatical Purpose of the altar; in this doubt whose
the Words case it is Christ's Blood is on the
[S.T. III.78.3]
Blood altar
What these words say What Blood is What Blood is
Why the Blood is shed
about the Blood shed shed
Does a change in these Yes, but only if the No, because this is a separate
Yes, but only if the
words change the change makes it sentence, and
change makes it
meaning of the words of plain that the Transubstantiation will take
plain that the
the main clause, or Blood is not place when the priest finishes
Blood is not
affect Christ's Blood saying the previous sentence.
Christ's Blood
Transubstantiation?
e) at the Consecration of the wine
-there are several other changes in the traditional way that the words of consecration have
been translated, as well as the addition of the words "the Blood" for emphasis.
These changes made to the latter words of Consecration do not create a contrary intention to the
change of wine into the Blood of Christ, and so in view of all that we have already said above,
these changes do not affect validity.
4. Is the New Mass invalid by defect of intention?
St. Thomas speaks 2 kinds of intention that affect the validity of a sacrament:
i) the intention expressed by the Rite [S.T. III.60.8]
ii) the intention of the minister using the Rite [S.T. III.64.8]
Many who dispute the validity of the New Mass also call into question a third intention: the
intention of those who created the New Mass, among whom were Protestants who don't believe
in transubstantiation.
The intention of those who created the New Mass
We will consider this intention first. The answer is found in the discussion of intention by Pope
Leo XIII in his letter Apostolicae Curae, (Sept. 13, 1896). In this letter, the Pope considered the
validity of Anglican ordinations after the Protestant Reformation in England, since the words of
the sacrament of Ordination were changed by those who didn't believe in the power of the
Priesthood to effect transubstantiation. At that time the Pope agreed with the decision made by
his predecessors and stated that concerning the internal heretical intentions of the creators of the
new Rite of ordination, the Church could not judge, as this was interior; however what the
Church could and did judge was their intention as it was externally manifested, and their interior
intention was externally manifested in the Rite itself.
So it is that in the present case, the Church cannot judge the interior intentions of heresy and
Ecumenism held by the creators of the New Mass, and indeed these intentions do not directly
 12
affect the validity of the New Mass anyway. But what we must examine is the external
manifestation of their internal intention in the Rite of the New Mass itself.
Thus we turn our attention to examining the two types of intention spoken of by St. Thomas. As
noted by Pope Leo XIII, St. Thomas divides intention in 2 ways [S.T. III.64.10]: the internal
intention, or why something is intended to be done; and the external manifested intention or
what is intended to be done. As an example of this, we can think of someone who intends to go
to the store [what] to buy a loaf of bread [why]. As previously mentioned, the Church can judge
only the external manifest intention, and St. Thomas taught that only this external intention
affects the validity of a sacrament.
We can summarize the various kinds of intention and their effect on validity in the following
chart:
Intention and Validity
Intention What action is intended to be done. Why the action is intended to
[S.T. This intention does affect validity. be done. This intention does
III.60.8] [S.T. III.64.10] not affect validity.
[S.T. III.64.10]
Expressed For validity the words of Consecration The intention of the Rite = the
by the must express the change of wine into purpose why the sacrifice is to
Rite itself Christ's Blood, which is the intention of be offered and is expressed in
the Church in conferring this sacrament the oblation (at the Offertory).
[S.T. III.78.1, III.64.8 ad 2]. The presence of ambiguous or
The words of Consecration have a direct, heretical prayers or phrases in
adverse effect on validity: the Rite may affect validity
1. if they do not express the change of indirectly, but only if they
wine into Christ's Blood effectively [S.T. encourage a contrary intention
III.78.2], in the minister. However we
or would not attend such a Mass,
2. if they express an intention contrary to even if the Mass were valid, for
the change [S.T. III.60.7 ad 2, III.60.8]. fear that such a Mass were
Ambiguous or heretical prayers or displeasing to God, due to:
phrases in the Rite do not affect validity 1. the presence of the
directly as long as they do not express ambiguous or heretical prayers
an intention contrary to the essential in the Rite, or
sense of the form [S.T. III.60.8 ad 2] 2. the absence of those
which in this case is the change of wine traditional prayers which would
into Christ's Blood. express the necessary intention.
Of the The intention of the minister = what he The intention of the minister =
minister intends to do in the Rite. This intention the minister's personal reason
using the is presumed to be that of the Church why he is performing the Rite:
Rite which is expressed by the sacrament 1. the minister's bad intention
[S.T. III.64.8], unless the minister can't invalidate a Rite which is
expresses a contrary intention [S.T. otherwise valid [S.T. III.64.10].
III.64.8 ad 2]. 2. the minister's good intention
The minister's contrary intention can't make valid an otherwise
directly affects validity if he does not invalid Rite [S.T. I-II.20.2].
intend to do what the Church does [S.T. 3. the minister's good intention
III.60.8, III.64.10, III.83.4 ad 7]. can't compensate for the serious
But the minister's lack of belief in offenses done to God by
whatever change the Rite is effecting ambiguous or heretical prayers
does not affect validity if he still intends or phrases in the Rite, valid or
 13
to do what the Church does [S.T. not [S.T. I-II.20.2].
III.64.9].
As we see from the chart, the intention expressed by the words of Consecration can affect
validity if the change of the wine into Christ's Blood is insufficiently expressed, or if the words
of Consecration somehow express an intention contrary to the change. We have already shown
that the change of the wine into Christ's Blood is sufficiently expressed by the shorter form in the
New Mass ("This is the cup of My Blood"). We shall now examine whether the changes made to
the latter words of Consecration in the New Mass are sufficient to constitute an intention
contrary to the change signified by the shorter form.
How could changes made to the latter words produce an intention contrary to the Consecration?
The words "This is the cup of My Blood" signify the change from wine into blood, and the latter
words "of the new and everlasting covenant" merely confirm that "My Blood" is Christ's Blood.
However if a priest were to change the latter words and say "This is the cup of My Blood, but
not of the new and everlasting covenant," this change would create a contrary intention to
transubstantiation and the Mass would be invalid. But what about changing the words "which
will be shed for you and for many" to "which will be shed for you and for all men?"
In his discussion of the form of the Consecration of the wine, St. Thomas makes the distinction
between the objective and subjective Redemption [S.T. III.78.3 ad 8]. Objectively, the
Redemption won by Christ's blood suffices for all men, whereas subjectively the Redemption
won by Christ's blood is efficacious only for many (the elect) who will actually benefit by it.
The Catechism of the Council of Trent teaches that the words of Consecration "for many" refer
to the subjective Redemption, and the Tradition of the Church has always insisted that these
words be used. The reason is that the words "for all men" when used in the context of the
Consecration are ambiguous: they could refer to the objective Redemption, in which case the
meaning would be that Christ's blood is sufficient to redeem all men (so that all men could go to
heaven), and this is the true teaching; but they also could refer to the subjective redemption, in
which case the meaning would be that Christ's blood efficaciously redeems all men (so that all
men will go to heaven), and this is heretical.
The New Mass in the original Latin has "pro multis" which means "for many." Hence this
ambiguity exists only in the words of Consecration in English and other vernacular translations,
and is very grave, but is not sufficient to create a contrary intention for two reasons. The reason
is that ambiguous words do not contradict a clear statement. Ambiguous words are simply
ambiguous, and don't clearly state anything, for or against the Blood being Christ's Blood. So
when the priest says "This is the chalice of My Blood...which will be shed for all men for the
forgiveness of sins" the meaning of the words themselves doesn't deny that "My Blood" is
Christ's Blood, so there is no contrary intention. Furthermore, St. Thomas teaches that it doesn't
matter what the priest believes to be the effect of Christ's Blood, nor whether he even believes
that the wine becomes Christ's Blood at all. As long as the priest:
i) intends to do what the Church intends, and
ii) the words that he says sufficiently signify Transubstantiation and don't contradict the
Church's intention to consecrate the wine (and we have shown that this is the case in the
New Mass),
then his intention is sufficient for validity [S.T. III.64.9]. Hence the change made to the latter
words doesn't create a contrary intention that affects validity. And furthermore, St. Thomas tells
us that the minister's intention is presumed to be that of the Church which is expressed by the
Rite [S.T. III.64.8], unless the minister expresses a contrary intention [S.T. III.64.8 ad 2].
Finally, there are those who doubt the validity of the New Mass because of the presence of
ambiguous phrases apart from the words of Consecration, phrases which nonetheless form the
intention of the minister. Among these phrases are the words "for us" which the priest says when
 14
he offers the bread in the Offertory (Preparation of the Gifts): "It will become for us the bread
of life." This phrase is ambiguous, as the Catholic interpretation would be that it truly becomes
the bread of life for those who are able to partake of it, whereas the Protestant interpretation is
that Christ becomes present in the sacrament only because of the faith of those present at the
Mass.
Again we must state that this ambiguity is very grave, and could create doubts about the
intention of the minister. Nonetheless, we must re-iterate that as long as the priest intends to do
what the Church intends, and namely to change the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of
Christ, it doesn't matter whether he has heretical beliefs concerning the change or not [S.T.
III.64.9].
Conclusion: The New Mass in English when done "by the book" is valid unless the minister
does not intend to do what the Church does. However we do note that many parts of the New
Mass are ambiguous, and although this ambiguity doesn't necessarily make the Mass invalid, it
does make the Mass dangerous. This is because the ambiguity can affect the intention of the
minister and this creates a doubt of validity. And even if there is the slightest doubt of validity,
we should not attend the Mass, since we are not allowed to have doubts when it comes to the
sacraments. On the other hand, as we shall see in the next section, being certain of the validity
of a Mass is not a good enough reason to attend it.

Is the New Mass Displeasing to God when it is Valid?

(A consideration of whether we should attend the New Mass when we are certain that it is valid)
In the way of a reminder, we note that at a valid Mass, the bread and wine become the Body and
Blood of Christ during the Consecration; this is called Transubstantiation. At a Mass which is
invalid, the bread and wine remain mere bread and wine after the Consecration:
Transubstantiation does not occur. Against those who say that the New Mass is never valid, we
have already shown that in some cases at least, the New Mass is indeed valid.
Nonetheless, it is unfortunately true that there are many invalid Masses today. At the same time
there is also a growing number of Catholics who refuse to participate in such invalid Masses.
And rightfully so, because to knowingly participate in the worship of an invalid Mass would be
idolatry, the giving of worship to a mere piece of bread as if it were God, and this is contrary to
the 1st Commandment. Furthermore, an invalid Mass cannot fulfill a Catholic's Sunday
obligation.
Today when many Catholics are asked the question: "Can we attend the New Mass?" or "Does
this Mass fulfill my Sunday obligation?" the answer they give is "YES, if it is valid, and NO if it
is not valid." For them, validity has become the sole measure of a "good" Mass or of a "bad" one.
St. Thomas Aquinas, theological Master and Doctor of the Church, would strongly disagree.
(And so do we). He teaches quite clearly that what makes the offering of a sacrifice (like the
Mass) pleasing to God is not what victim is being offered, but why the victim is being offered.
As he says: "the offering of a sacrifice is not measured by the value of the victim, but by its
signification" [S.T. II-II.85.2. ad 2]. Thus the value of the sacrifice of the Mass does not come
from its being valid, but from the reason why it is being offered. St. Thomas confirms the above
teaching when he says that sacrifices "are not deserving of praise except if they are done out of
reverence for God" [S.T. II-II.85.3].
Two Examples of Valid Masses that are NOT pleasing to God
1. St. Thomas Aquinas gives an example of a valid Mass that is not pleasing to God:
A satanic black Mass, where the purpose the Consecration is to change bread and wine into the
Body and Blood of Christ, to desecrate the Body and Blood of Christ afterwards in a satanic
ritual. Such a Mass is a true sacrifice and is a valid Mass as St. Thomas teaches [S.T. III.64.10],
however it is most certainly displeasing to God, and by attending it we can never fulfill our
Sunday obligation.
 15
2. We can think of another example of a valid Mass that is not pleasing to God:
A Mass said by a schismatic priest or bishop, like the Eastern Orthodox. Like a satanic black
Mass, such a Mass is a true sacrifice and is a valid Mass, however it is most certainly displeasing
to God, and by attending it we can never fulfill our Sunday obligation.
What we will now set out to prove is that the New Mass can be valid and yet still be displeasing
to God. If for any reason at all the New Mass is displeasing to God, then we we should not attend
it, nor could attending such a Mass fulfill the Sunday obligation, even though the Mass is valid.
This is because no-one can expect to please God (fulfill the Sunday obligation) by
participating in something that offends God (a displeasing Mass).
The four causes of goodness in a thing
St. Thomas teaches that there are four causes (or factors) that influence the goodness or badness
of any act, such as the Mass, and that we can't say that the Mass is good "unless it is good in all
these ways, since evil results from any single defect, but good from the complete cause" [S.T. I-
II.18.4. ad 3]. These four causes of goodness are:
1. having good or bad circumstances [S.T. I-II.18.3]
2. having or not having all the goodness the act is expected to have [S.T. I-II.18.1]
3. being objectively good or bad [S.T. I-II.18.2]
4. having a good or bad purpose, such as the satanic black Mass cited above [S.T. I-II 18.4].
Let us examine the New Mass under the aspect of each of these four causes of goodness.
1. Is the New Mass displeasing to God because of circumstances?
Most of us are aware of so-called "abuses" such as liturgical dancers, clowns, balloons, rock
music and Masses said in profane places with an atmosphere of casualness and even disrespect
being shown for what is taking place. Surely all these circumstances make the New Mass
displeasing to God. But what if the circumstances surrounding the saying of Mass are such that
Mass is said reverently, in an atmosphere of respect for the sacred and otherwise "by the book"?
The general rule today is for Mass to be said "facing the people." While this seems to be
"pastoral," in fact it is a circumstance of great theological significance. In the traditional Mass,
both the priest and people face the altar, where the priest, on behalf of the people, offers the
sacrifice. The fact that the priest stands between the people and the altar visibly shows the
priest's role as a mediator between the people and God. We can call this the "face the altar"
orientation.
When the priest stands on the other side of the altar, facing the people, his role as mediator is
blurred. Both priest and people stand and sit around the same altar, which has had the tabernacle
removed to look more like a table. This new "surround the table" orientation signifies the meal,
and not the sacrifice. This orientation in what we do causes a slow shift in what we believe,
from sacrifice to meal, and causes a loss of faith in the Mass as a sacrifice. The fact that this loss
of faith is encouraged by the priest facing the people makes the New Mass a threat to our Faith
and hence offensive to God. The threat to our Faith is very real, (you can't continue to do
something and believe the opposite) and continued attendance at the New Mass can make us lose
our Faith in the Mass as a sacrifice and even in the Real Presence just as faith in these things has
already been lost by millions of Catholics.
We also see in the New Mass that the priest is now in the centre, in the place that God (Jesus in
the tabernacle, on the altar) used to occupy. This is also offensive to God, since man has removed
God from the central focus of our worship, and put himself in God's place. Concelebration is
another circumstance that lends the New Mass to be interpreted as a meal rather than as a
sacrifice. In view of all the above circumstances and their implied threat to our Faith, the New
Mass is indeed displeasing to God.
2. Is New Mass displeasing to God because it is lacking something good which it should
have?
 16
St. Thomas teaches that every action which is lacking a due good (a good aspect that should be
part of it, considering the kind of action it is) is an evil act [S.T. I-II.18.1], and every evil act can
only be considered as displeasing to God.
Certainly a faithful translation is a due good. But the New Mass in English contains some 400
errors in translation. Therefore the New Mass in English is lacking a due good, considering that
God is truth and deserves to be worshipped in spirit and in truth (Jn. 4:23-24), and therefore the
New Mass in English is an evil act and displeasing to God as cited above.
But what about the New Mass if it is said in Latin?
Let us examine the notion of sacrifice. It is necessary that men offer sacrifice. St. Thomas
teaches that "God instituted visible sacrifice, which man offers to Him, not because God has any
need of it, but so that it may be made manifest to man that he must direct himself and all that he
has to God" [S.C.G. III.119].
Furthermore, sacrifice is the offering of sensible things to God in an outward sign which shows
the inward subjection and honour due to Him [S.T. II-II.85.1]. The outward sign is expressed in
the Rite used. But even in the original Latin version of the New Mass, the outward signs of
subjection and honour due to God, such as the many genuflections and signs of the cross, are
missing, as they have been deliberately removed by those who created the Rite. Hence the
New Mass, even when said in Latin, doesn't give due worship to God through outward signs and
is therefore an evil act and is displeasing to God as cited above.
And in obedience to God's command to sacrifice which was noted above, the Church daily offers
the Mass, which is the same sacrifice that Christ offered on the Cross [S.T. III.22.3 ad 2]. But for
a Mass to truly be a sacrifice, there must be an offering (oblation) of the victim specified in the
rite, for as St. Thomas says "every sacrifice is an offering" [S.T. II-II.85.3 ad 2] and the "outward
worship of religion consists in signification by deed" [S.T. II-II.93.1]. But in the New Mass, the
offering of Christ the Victim (oblation), as was found in the Traditional Mass, has been
deliberately removed from the Offertory, and in its place is the offering of bread and wine
only. Hence in the New Mass, the signification of the sacrifice of Christ as Victim is absent,
having no oblation even in the original Latin text, and this oblation is a due good (necessary for a
sacrifice). Hence the New Mass is lacking something good that it should have and it is an evil act
and displeasing to God as cited above.
And as much as the New Mass leads to irreverence because of its omissions of subjection and
honour due to God, it is a sacrilege of the worst kind, since sacrilege is irreverence toward
holy things [S.T. II-II.99.1], and irreverence to the Blessed Sacrament is the worst kind of
sacrilege [S.T. II-II.99.3]. Hence the New Mass is an evil act and displeasing to God
3. Is the New Mass objectively displeasing to God in itself?
Every time a priest says the New Mass in English, he is telling a lie
Let us consider the words spoken by Our Lord at the Last Supper. The Gospel according to St.
Matthew (26:27-28) and that of St. Mark (14:23-24) both say that Jesus said that His Blood
would be shed "for many," whereas the Consecration of the New Mass says that Jesus said that it
would be shed "for all men." Now either the New Mass is right and the gospels are wrong, or the
New Mass is wrong and the gospels are right. The Church teaches that Sacred Scripture is free
from error and hence we know that Jesus really did say "for many" at the Last Supper, and thus
the text of the Consecration of the New Mass is wrong, even telling us a lie that Jesus said
something at the Last Supper that He didn't say. These words are summarized in the chart below.
Chart showing the words of Jesus according to the Gospels and according to the New Mass
According to According to According to
the Gospel of St. Matthew the Gospel of St. Mark the New Mass
The And taking the chalice, He gave And having taken the chalice, giving He gave the cup to
Words thanks, and gave to them, thanks, He gave it to them. And they His Disciples and
of Jesus saying: "Drink ye all of this. all drank of it. And He said to them: said:
 17
For this is My Blood of the new "This is My Blood of the new "This is the cup of
testament, testament, My Blood, the
which shall be shed for many which shall be shed for many." Blood of the new
unto the remission of sins." and everlasting
covenant.
It will be shed for
you and for all
men so that sins
may be forgiven."
Did
Jesus
really
Yes. Yes. No.
say
these
words?
It is always objectively bad to tell a lie, and thus the New Mass in English is always an
objectively bad act in itself. And, as St. Thomas teaches, if anything false is signified by outward
worship, this worship will be pernicious [S.T. II-II.93.1]. The telling of lies in sacred matters was
also condemned by God, who spoke through the prophet "thou shalt not live, because thou
hast spoken a lie in the name of the Lord" (Zach. 13:3), and it is also contrary to the command
of Jesus who said that all must worship God in spirit and in truth (Jn. 4:23-24). And further, as
St. Thomas comments, a worship that contains falsehood is inconsistent with a salutary (and
hence pleasing) calling upon God [S.T. II-II.93.2 ad 1].
The New Mass also contains much ambiguity. For example, the phrase "for all men" is
ambiguous, as it could mean:
a) that Christ's Blood was shed intentionally for all men, so that all men may potentially
benefit from it, but only many will actually go to heaven; this is the Catholic
interpretation, or
b) that Christ's blood was shed efficaciously for all men, so that all men will actually
benefit from it and everyone will go to heaven; this is the false interpretation.
The Traditional Mass carefully avoided any ambiguity. The ambiguity of the New Mass is also
objectively bad since it has been condemned by God: "the double tongued is accursed"
(Ecclus. 28:15); God hates "a mouth with a double tongue" (Prov. 8:13); and Jesus said "let your
speech be yes, yes: no, no. And that which is over and above is of evil" (Mt. 5:37).
4. Is the New Mass displeasing to God because of the purpose expressed in it?
Consider the following chart of comparison of the Traditional Mass, the New Mass, and the sacrifice offered by
Cain.
Sacrifice What is offered Stated Purpose of Is the Sacrifice Pleasing
Offered the Sacrifice to God?
Traditional "unspotted host" "for sins" Yes, because:
Mass "chalice of "for all faithful 1. It has the approval of
salvation" Christians, living years of Church
"sacrifice" and dead" Tradition, and
"oblation" "for salvation unto 2. It clearly expresses the
(Offertory prayers) life everlasting" true purpose of an act of
"for the glory of worship, namely that man
Thy holy name" give glory to God [S.T.
(Offertory prayers) II-II.93.2]
Sacrifice "the fruits of the "gifts to the Lord" No, by God's declaration
 18
offered by earth" (Gen. 4:3) (Gen. 4:3) (Gen. 4:5)
Cain (Gen.
4:3,5)
New Mass "bread...which "to become the No, because:
earth has given bread of life" 1. The true purpose of
and human hands "to become our being offered for God's
have made" spiritual drink" glory, which was clearly
"wine...fruit of the (Preparation of the expressed in the
vine and work of Gifts) Traditional Mass, has
human hands" been deliberately omitted,
(Preparation of the and
Gifts) 2. The New Mass bears a
striking resemblance to
the sacrifice of Cain, a
sacrifice which God
expressly condemned.
As can be seen by the above chart, the purpose of offering the sacrifice is clearly expressed in the
Offertory of the Traditional Mass as "for the glory of Thy holy name." This intention has been
deliberately removed from the New Mass. In its place the only purpose expressed is to "become
the bread of life," and to "become our spiritual drink," and in addition the emphasis is now
placed on the "fruit," the "earth," "the work of human hands" and the "Preparation of the Gifts."
But St. Thomas teaches that the purpose of divine worship is that man may give glory to God
and submit to Him in mind and body [S.T. II-II.93.2]. Yet the expression of this purpose is
deliberately omitted in the New Mass. And so the New Mass claims to be divine worship, but
omits as its expressed purpose the true purpose of divine worship.
Because of this grave omission of the purpose for the sacrifice, St. Thomas would teach that the
New Mass is displeasing to God for 2 reasons:
1. The value of a sacrifice is derived from the why of its being offered, which is defective in
the New Mass, and not by the Victim offered (so even when the New Mass is valid it is
never pleasing to God), and,
2. What is signified outwardly in the New Mass (that the New Mass is divine worship) is
contrary to the truth, (which is that the New Mass lacks the true purpose of divine
worship), and because of its masquerade as true divine worship, the worship of the
New Mass is pernicious [S.T. II-II.93.1].
And so just as God rejected Cain's offering of "the fruits of the earth" as "gifts to the
Lord" because Cain's expressed purpose for offering his sacrifice was lacking the true
purpose of divine worship, so God will reject the New Mass, which almost word for word
repeats the same sacrifice of Cain.
We should also note that it is because the purpose of the sacrifice in the New Mass, as it is
explicitly expressed in the text itself, is not "for the glory of God," that the New Mass lends itself
so easily to clown Masses and other abuses. If this purpose were as clearly expressed as it is in
the Traditional Mass, these abuses would more easily be seen to contradict what the sacrifice of
the Mass should be. In other words: an ambiguously stated purpose leads to abuses.
Some might say that it doesn't matter what words you say, as long as you have the right intention
in your heart. St. Thomas teaches that good intentions can't make a bad act good [S.T. I-
II.20.2]. Consider the example of complimenting and insulting someone. Someone with a good
intention could say "you are very kind" and this would be a compliment, since the meaning of
the words themselves is complimentary. However if they were to say "you are very stupid," no
matter how well intentioned they might be, this would be an insult, simply by the meaning of the
words. The good intentions of the speaker can't give bad words a good meaning.
 19
So it is with the New Mass. Those who participate in the New Mass might have all the best
intentions of offering the Mass for glory of God, but if the words of the Mass themselves express
an intention different from this, the good intentions of the participants are not sufficient to
correct the clear meaning of the words being said.
What does the Council of Trent say about the New Mass?
The Council of Trent (1545-1563) was called to defend the Teaching and Practice (which are
both summed up in the one word "Tradition") of the Catholic Church. The results of this Council,
which are infallible, were recorded in Decrees (which explain the Teachings) and Canons (which summarize
what must be believed, and which call down anathema, or automatic excommunication, upon those who obstinately
refuse to assent to the respective Canons). The following Canons have particular significance for the New Mass:
Teaching/ The Council of Trent The New Mass
Practice
Lay Readers "If anyone says that all Christians [lay At the New Mass it is quite
and Lay people] have the power to administer usual for lay people to read
Ministers of the word [read at Mass] and all the at Mass and to distribute
Communion sacraments [give out communion], let Communion.
him be anathema."
[Canon 10, Session VII, March 3,
1547]
Communion "If anyone says that the Holy Catholic At the New Mass
under both Church has not been influenced by just communion under both
species causes and reasons to give communion species is commonly
under the form of bread only...or that administered.
she has erred in this, let him be
anathema."
[Canon 2, Session XXI, July 16, 1562]
The Canon "If anyone says that the Canon of the In the New Mass the Canon
of the Mass Mass contains errors, and therefore that existed in the Mass at
should be abrogated, let him be the time of the Council of
anathema." Trent has been changed
[Canon 6, Session XXII, Sept. 17, (this includes the new
1562] Eucharistic Prayer I).
The "If anyone says that the Rite of the At the New Mass the whole
Language of Roman Church, according to which a Canon (Eucharistic Prayer)
the Mass part of the Canon is pronounced in a is said out loud, and the
low tone, is to be condemned, or that New Mass is said entirely
the Mass ought to be celebrated in the in the vernacular
vernacular only...let him be anathema." everywhere.

[Canon 9, Session XXII, Sept. 17,

1562]
Making "If anyone says that the received and Bishops and priests make
changes to approved rites of the Catholic Church... personalized changes to
the Mass may be changed by any pastor of the the New Mass whenever
Churches to any new ones: let him be they like. (This includes
anathema." adding extra prayers that
[Canon 13 on the Sacraments, Session are not in the Missal, or
VII, March 3, 1547] leaving prayers out, or
adding clowns, balloons or
 20
dancing girls. Some may
argue that it also includes
adding the shaking of
hands, WHICH IS NOT
IN THE MISSAL
EITHER. Only the Pope
has the authority to change
the liturgy.
To contradict any one of the above named infallible declarations results in automatic
excommunication. We must make the observation that priests and bishops who say the New
Mass contradict these infallible declarations every day. Vatican II did not nor COULD NOT
CHANGE these declarations because they are infallible. Thus, in the light of these
declarations, it is not the priests, bishops and faithful who attend the Traditional Mass today who
are in danger of excommunication, but those who attend the New Mass.
Summary of Reasons why we shouldn't attend the New Mass
1. We are never allowed to have any doubts with regard to the sacraments, so if a
sacrament is doubtful, we must not take part in it. Because of the ambiguity of the
prayers in the New Mass, and because these prayers have an effect on the intention of the
priest saying the Mass, there is doubt of his intention, and hence a doubt about the
validity of the Mass. Hence we shouldn't attend the New Mass.
2. The New Mass is displeasing to God. This is because:
1. The various circumstances that usually surround the celebration of the New Mass
make us slowly lose our Faith.
2. The New Mass lacks something good it should have as a sacrifice worthy of being
offered to God.
3. The New Mass is bad in itself, containing ambiguities and an actual lie about the
words Jesus said at the Last Supper.
4. The New Mass is bad because of the purpose expressed in it.
3. The way the New Mass is celebrated most of the time has been condemned by infallible
declarations of the Council of Trent.

Besides the question of the New Mass and a Catholic's Sunday obligation, there are other
pastoral questions, such as attending the New Mass for weddings, funerals, and other family
occasions. We discuss these questions in the next section.
Answers to Commonly Asked Questions Regarding the New Mass
We have already shown above that the New Mass is always objectively displeasing to God and
although it may on occasion be valid, nonetheless it can never objectively fulfill a Catholic's
Sunday obligation: something displeasing to God cannot be considered to be a form of worship
of Him, nor can it fulfill any command to worship God, either from the Church or from God
Himself.
That being said, we must be prepared to answer the many questions that people will ask
concerning attendance at the New Mass. These questions can be asked in several ways, but there
are basically eight of them:
1. I have fulfilled the Sunday obligation all my life by attending Sunday Mass.
Furthermore, the Church has always taught that to not fulfill the Sunday obligation is a
mortal sin. I must, therefore, attend Mass on Sunday, even if it is the New Mass, must I
not?
Quite simply, the answer is NO.
The 3rd commandment, which comes from God says that we must make the sabbath day holy.
This commandment we must fulfill, without any exception. The Church has added to this a
 21
precept that in order to make the sabbath day (Sunday) holy, we must attend Mass. The
Church's commandments can be dispensed from, especially when it is not possible to attend
Mass, as in the case of illness, or if there is no Mass close to you. (The Church has decided that
no-one is obliged under pain of sin to travel a distance of more than an hour to go to Mass.
However it is very praiseworthy to do so).
What about the New Mass and the Sunday Obligation? These are our conclusions:
A. The Sunday obligation does not oblige anyone to attend the New Mass, and
B. No-one attending the New Mass fulfills their Sunday obligation.
And this is not because the New Mass is always invalid, but because the New Mass is
displeasing to God:
1. because of the defective intention of the Preparation of Gifts, which does not contain
that intention which is due in true divine worship; hence the New Mass is not true divine
worship and cannot fulfill a Sunday obligation
2. because of the ambiguity of expression which leads to lessening of faith and devotion
of the faithful and the priest; this can lead to a possible contrary intention of the priest
and then to possible invalidity
3. because the words of Consecration the New Mass tell a lie that Christ said something
at the Last Supper that He didn't say
4. because in the New Mass the defective expression of the honour and respect due to
God leads to irreverence toward the Blessed Sacrament which is the greatest of sacrileges
and finally because
5. the good intention of the priest saying the New Mass or of those who attend the New
Mass can't make a Mass which is displeasing to God into one which does please God, just
as a good intention cannot make a bad act into a good one.
On the other hand: the traditional Mass DOES fulfill the Sunday obligation, because:
1. it always did
2. it still does
We know it still does because of a letter from Cardinal Oddi, Prefect of the Sacred Congregation
of the Clergy in Rome, dated March 17, 1984. This letter was a direct response to a letter from
Mrs. Barbara Keenan, 17 Ralph Street, Holbrook NY 11741, dated January 11, 1984. In her
letter, Mrs. Keenan asked whether her family could fulfill the Sunday obligation by attending
Mass at a chapel which is under Archbishop Lefebvre.
The Cardinal's answer: YES.
The conclusion regarding the Sunday obligation is clear:
To fulfill the Sunday obligation:
i) attend the traditional Mass
ii) don't attend the New Mass.
What if you can't find a Traditional Mass near you? If you cannot find a Traditional Mass within
one hour's distance from you, the best thing to do is to stay at home and, putting aside the same
time that you would've spent at the New Mass, read the Missal of the Traditional Mass, and if
you are so inclined sing some hymns, and thus sanctify the Lord's day.
Remember: you can't make the Lord's day holy with a Mass (the New Mass) that is not holy.
 22
2. If the New Mass is as bad as you say it is, then no-one could attend it under any
circumstances. Must I then cut off all ties with relatives and friends who get married or
die?
NO. The Church has always permitted Catholics to attend Protestant services when a serious
reason, such as civil or family duty, has made such attendance necessary. The attendance in
question must be passive participation and must be occasional.
Passive attendance. There must be no question of active participation. Out of courtesy you may
stand and sit when the others stand and sit, but don't answer any of the responses or sing any of
the hymns. Moreover, don't take an active part by being a pallbearer or a member of the bridal
party.
Occasional: There must be no question of attending these services on a regular basis. Inasmuch
as the New Mass is based on a compromise with Protestant ideas, and does not clearly proclaim
Catholic beliefs, regular attendance at the New Mass will gradually make you lose your Faith.
This is simply human nature: after a while what is said and done at the New Mass will "gradually
sink in", and you will eventually be thinking like a Protestant. However it might also be true that
the occasional attendance, although never with any participation, could actually strengthen your
Faith. The reason for this is that by attending the New Mass on such isolated occasions, you
would be shocked by what you see, and this would serve as a confirmation that by attending only
the Tridentine Mass you are in fact doing the right thing to preserve your Faith.
3. In my area there is no Traditional Mass except those Masses which are said by priests
under the Indult of 1984. What about attending such Masses?
NO. In such cases, the local bishop has made people sign an agreement that the New Mass is just
as good as the old. Furthermore, the priest saying the Indult Mass usually has the permission to
say it only if he assures the bishop that he will say the New Mass at least once a year. Lastly,
when you attend an Indult Mass, you have the Traditional Mass, but New Sacraments. The New
Sacraments are unacceptable for the same reasons that the New Mass is unacceptable. To accept
them is to compromise. It's better to stay at home and read the Missal, just as we said in
answering the first question.
4. In my area there is no Traditional Latin Mass but there is a Ukrainian Rite Liturgy.
What about attending Traditional liturgies such as the Ukrainian?
Besides the Tridentine Latin Rite, there are many other rites of Holy Mass (or Divine Liturgy)
that were approved by Rome for use in Catholic churches before Vatican II. Among these are the
Ukrainian and Maronite Rites, but there are many others. A Catholic could only consider
attending these rites of the Church if they are done in churches that are in union with Rome.
Many churches where these rites are performed were not in union with Rome before Vatican II,
and these churches are clearly schismatic.
If in fact the Ukrainian or other rite church in your area is in union with Rome, it could be
possible to attend liturgies at this church, but there is another problem. Some of these churches
are already becoming quite liberal, and have already made ecumenical and other compromises in
line with the "spirit of Vatican II". For example, some Ukrainian Catholic churches have held
ecumenical services with schismatic Orthodox clergy. Others have introduced changes in the
Liturgy, with obvious ones such as General Absolution, Saturday evening liturgies, and dancing
girls, but also with subtle ones, such as changes to the words. If this is the case in your local
situation, then you cannot attend liturgies at such a church, as the compromises that permeate the
spirit of the place would put your Faith in danger, just as they would in the case of the New
Mass.
5. I do not attend the New Mass, and there is not a Traditional Mass close to me. What if I
am in danger of death, and need to receive the sacraments?
If possible, you should call a traditional priest. He may agree to come to administer the last rites
even if you are several hours away.
 23
Canon Law (before Vatican II) provided that in danger of death, any Catholic could receive the
sacrament of confession from any priest, even a schismatic priest, if there were no Catholic priest
available. If can you foresee this happening to you, the best thing is to talk to a traditional priest
now, and get his advice on what to do if this should happen. Many people have explicitly stated
in their wills that they must be given the Traditional Mass of St. Pius V for their funerals, and
have pre-arranged this with a local funeral home.
6. What should be our attitude towards those who attend the New Mass in good faith, being
ignorant that it is objectively a lie and a sacrilege?
As the catechism teaches, for a mortal sin, you need three things: grave matter, full knowledge
and full consent. In the case of someone who is ignorant of the true nature of the New Mass, an
act which otherwise would be an evil act (such as attending the New Mass) would not be a sin on
their part. This is especially true in the case of someone for whom the ignorance is not their fault.
These things are best judged on a case by case basis, and require a knowledge of a person's inner
dispositions.
7. What should be our attitude towards those who have begun to attend the Traditional
Mass, but because of scruples or other reasons continue to attend the New Mass?
As we said above, for a mortal sin, you need three things: grave matter, full knowledge and full
consent. It is sometimes true that there is not full consent, through fear, or coercion. In such
cases, an act which otherwise would be an evil act (such as attending the New Mass) would not
be a sin on the part of the one committing the act. On the surface, it does seem unlikely that
someone who "should know better" could be excused from attending the New Mass again.
However, we could imagine the case of a person who has begun to attend the Traditional Mass,
but cannot attend this Mass every Sunday or on days during the week, and on these occasions
this person still wishes to be able to attend Mass. Or another case where family pressures place a
heavy moral obligation upon this person to "go along" and attend the New Mass. If you know
someone in this situation, you do weel to remind them that to resist such pressures is an act of
heroic virtue, and God will help them resist if they pray. Such situations are best judged on a case
by case basis, and require a knowledge of a person's inner dispositions.
All the above being said, we should remind someone who "should know better" about the
scandal they are likely to cause those who are weaker in their Faith. We can easily imagine
someone saying: "So-and-so goes to the Traditional Mass but they also go to the New Mass,
therefore both Masses must be O.K." We must stress with everyone who attends the Traditional
Mass that to attend the New Mass, without a serious reason as given in question 2 above, is to be
in danger of formal cooperation in the evil.