Pope Saint Pius V proves that the  Novus Ordo is invalid, and is therefore idolatry.

This is from Patrick Henry Omlor:


                                                        No "Mystery of Faith" : No Mass



                                                        IV. The Powerful Backing Of De Defectibus

18. There is yet another most weighty authority supporting our position that the entire form for the wine consecration is required for validity. De Defectibus in Celebratione Missarum Occurrentibus (abbr. as "De Defectibus") is a section of the official rubrics for the celebration of Holy Mass, and it is to be found printed among the introductory pages of all legitimate (ante-NOM) altar missals.
19. In Part V of De Defectibus we read: "Verba autem Consecrationis, quae sunt forma hujus Sacramenti, sunt haec: 'Hoc est enim Corpus meum.' Et: 'Hic est enim Calix Sanguinis mei, novi et aeterni testamenti: mysterium fidei, qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum.' Si quis autem aliquid diminueret, vel immutaret de forma consecrationis Corporis et Sanguinis, et in ipsa verborum immutatione verba idem non significarent, non conficeret Sacramentum. Si vero aliquid adderet, quod significationem non mutaret, conficeret quidem, sed gravissime peccaret."
20. The English version of this reads: "The words of Consecration, which are the form of this Sacrament, are these: For this is my Body. And: For this is the Chalice of my Blood, of the new and eternal testament: the mystery of faith, which shall be shed for you and for many unto the remission of sins. Now if one were to omit, or to change anything in the form of the consecration of the Body and Blood, and in that very change of the words the [new] wording would fail to mean the same thing, he would not consecrate the Sacrament. If in fact he were to add something that did not change the meaning, it is true he would consecrate, but he would sin most gravely."
21. Could anything be clearer? Anything more incapable of being misunderstood? It begins by saying "The words of Consecration, which are the form of this Sacrament, are these:" Then the entire form, both for the Consecration of the Body and of the Blood -- including, of course, the words "the mystery of faith" -- is set down precisely.
22. Having specified the sacramental form in its entirety, the prescription then warns that if the priest-celebrant should omit anything at all (aliquid) of this form -- for example, omit the words "the mystery of faith" -- or use different wording that would change the meaning of the prescribed words, then "he would not consecrate the Sacrament"; he would celebrate no Mass at all.
23. What is the binding force of rubrics? In the article under the heading Rubrics by F. Cabrol in The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. XIII, p. 217, 1913 edition, we read:
"Obligatory Character. -- ...Writers distinguish between Divine and human rubrics, but as soon as rubrics are approved by the sovereign pontiff and promulgated in his name it seems to us that they emanate from a Divine-human authority, and none save the Church has the right to establish such rules. ...
"It may be said that the rubrics of the liturgical books are real laws; this follows from the definition: they are prescriptions for the good order of external worship in the Catholic Church, they emanate from the highest authority -- the sovereign pontiff -- and considering the terms in which they are promulgated it does not appear that the supreme head of the Church merely desires to give a counsel. ...[T]he minds of the sovereign pontiffs as expressed in their Bulls, which in establishing and promulgating rubrics, intend to make them real laws."
24. Some may argue that De Defectibus, being thus classified as a law, may be legitimately and validly changed by another Sovereign Pontiff; for example, Paul VI. I reply that the text of De Defectibus I cited above (in pars. 19-20) is not merely a law pertaining to a purely disciplinary matter -- that is, "prescriptions for the good order of external worship in the Catholic Church," as Cabrol puts it. Much more than the preservation of "good order of external worship" is intended here. These particular dicta are definitive teachings of sacramental theology regarding the sacramental form of the Holy Eucharist. They fall within the domain of dogmatic theology, rather than ecclesiastical law.
25. This is true because rubrics relating to the matter or the form of sacraments take on a new dimension. "The Rubrics, if we except the few which regard the matter and form of sacraments [emphasis added], are ecclesiastical laws ..." (Notes on the Rubrics of the Roman Ritual, by Rev. James O'Kane, Jas. Duffy & Co., Dublin, 1922, p. 14).
26. Simply examining Part V of De Defectibus drives this point home. It is a plain statement of theological fact on a most vital matter. In effect it says to the priest: "Here are the words you must recite. They are all essential. If you leave anything out or change anything you will not celebrate a valid Mass." What the informed priest will also know is that the full authority of the Sovereign Pontiff is behind this teaching.
27. An aside: An important point to note is that the aforementioned Part V of De Defectibus does not speak of two forms. The singular noun "forma" -- "The words of Consecration, which are the form of this Sacrament, are these:" -- means that the form of this Sacrament, although twofold in nature, is but a single form. Hence any of the proscribed violations of the form -- either of the part for the consecration of the bread or of that for the consecration of the wine -- invalidates the whole Sacrament. "Now if one were to omit, or to change anything in the form [N.B. "the form" : singular] of the consecration of the Body and Blood, and in that very change of the words the [new] wording would fail to mean the same thing, he would not consecrate the Sacrament."
28. Some persons who accept our arguments that the wine consecration is invalid and therefore the Mass itself is invalid, nevertheless believe that the hosts may be truly consecrated. If the interpretation in the preceding paragraph is correct, then such a belief is unfounded.
V. Synopsis Of The Preceding Points
29. To prove the necessity for validity of the words "the mystery of faith" in the consecration form for the wine we have specifically named these authorities: St. Thomas Aquinas, the Roman Catechism, St. Pius V, St. Antoninus, Innocent III, the Salmanticenses, Raymond Capisuccus, O.P., Emmanuel Doronzo, O.M.I., and, lastly, Part V of De Defectibus.
30. We have cited the incident of the expunging by Pope St. Pius V of the contrary opinion held by Cajetan (supra, Part III, pars. 15-17).
31. The detailed and cogent evidence from the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas was presented in paragraphs 9-13 of Part II.
32. The whole of Part IV (pars. 1828) was devoted to a treatment of the doctrine of the Ordinary Magisterium of the Church found in Part V of De Defectibus in Celebratione Missarum Occurrentibus, which comprises part of the official rubrics of Missale Romanum.
…


                                                         VI. Origin Of The Words "The Mystery Of Faith"

36. All of the words of the wine consecration form are found in Holy Scripture, with the exception of "and eternal" and "the mystery of faith." What, therefore, is the origin of these words? "[N]early all these words [of the wine consecration] can be culled from various passages of the Scriptures. Because the words, This is the chalice, are found in Luke xxii 20, and in 1 Cor. xi 25, while Matthew says in chapter xxvi 28: This is My blood of the New Testament, which shall be shed for many unto the remission of sins. The words added, namely, eternal and mystery of faith, were handed down to the Church by the apostles, who received them from our Lord..." (Summa Th., III, Q. 78, A. 3, ad 9).
37. St. Thomas therefore teaches here that the words "the mystery of faith" are derived from Tradition (Tradition with capital "T", which is one of the two sources of Divine Revelation), since they "were handed down to the Church by the apostles, who received them from our Lord."
38. It is not merely an "opinion" that the Angelic Doctor is here expressing; rather it is a fact of ecclesiastical history -- nay, a truth of Divine Revelation -- fully substantiated by the Papal authority of Innocent III in his doctrinal letter cuм Marthae Circa, Nov. 29, 1202. (Cf. Denzinger, Enchiridion Symbolorum, nos. 414-415).
39. An Archbishop of Lyons had inquired of Pope Innocent who it was that inserted "the mystery of faith" in the consecration form for the wine. In cuм Marthae Circa the Sovereign Pontiff replied as follows:
"You have asked (indeed) who has added to the form of words which Christ Himself expressed when He changed the bread and wine into the Body and Blood, which are in the Canon of the Mass that the general Church uses, but which we find expressed by none of the Evangelists. ... In the Canon of the Mass that expression, "the mystery of faith," is found interspersed among His words. ... Surely we find many such things omitted by the Evangelists from the words as well as from the deeds of the Lord ... Therefore We believe that the form of words as is found in the Canon, the Apostles received from Christ, and their successors from them" [emphasis added].
40. What is the force and status of cuм Marthae Circa? It is not just the theological opinion of a pope writing as a private theologian. Leeming calls it a "doctrinal letter" (Principles of Sacramental Theology, 1960, p. 255). Its very inclusion in Denzinger shows that it is part of the Ordinary Magisterium of the Church. Since those words "the mystery of faith" were received from Our Lord by the Apostles and handed down by them, they come down to us via Apostolic Tradition, one of the two sources of Divine Revelation. And that is why I claimed in par. 38 above that the words "the mystery of faith" are in the wine consecration of the Latin Rite through Divine Revelation.
41. Anyone who would be so bold as to gainsay the teaching of Pope Innocent III that the words "the mystery of faith" were in the Latin Rite consecration form from the very beginning would be obliged to show when, where and by whom these words were inserted at some later date. Such evidence cannot be found, and in quest of it one would in vain search the Apostolic Constitutions, the Decretals, the writings of the Apostolic Fathers and the Doctors, all extant official ecclesiastical records, or even the Apocrypha.

(Taken from http://www.sedevacantist.net/newmass/mystfide.htm )

I am not entirely convinced that the above is truly accurate.  There is no Mystery of Faith in Eastern consecrations.  Thus, it is not absolutely necessary in all rites of the Church.  One might even suppose that the Novus Ordo is actually a brand new Eastern Rite.

On the other hand, the Latin Rite must have Mystery of Faith to be valid, for that is part of the form of the consecration.  

The claim that the traditional Mass and the Novus Ordo are two forms of the same Roman rite is simply ludicrous.  The claim is without merit as anyone who has eyes to see can see that the two are completely different rites and differ as much as all the various rites of the Church vary.

The faulty English translation of the Novus Ordo consecration formula, however, did render the Novus Ordo invalid in my opinion.  I really don't know anything about the changes recently made nor do I intend to research the matter as I believe that the Conciliar establishment is really just another Protestant sect.  Further, I have positive doubts about the validity of the Conciliar rites of ordination of priests and consecration of bishops.  Even if the form of consecration at the Novus Ordo is valid, if they are spoken by a layman, the consecration itself is still invalid no matter what anyone desires or thinks.

In as much as any person who is part of the Conciliar establishment believes the Catholic faith, is a Catholic and not an idolitor even if he mistakenly believes the bread and wine to be the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ.  While he is objectively not worshipping Christ, he is not guilty of a sin of idolatry any more than any Catholic is guilty of idolatry who prays before a statue of the Blessed Virgin.

TKGS,

With regard to your post,
Again, from Henry Patrick Omlor's "No "Mystery of Faith" : No Mass",



                                                        IV. The Powerful Backing Of De Defectibus

18. There is yet another most weighty authority supporting our position that the entire form for the wine consecration is required for validity. De Defectibus in Celebratione Missarum Occurrentibus (abbr. as Si vero aliquid adderet, quod significati"De Defectibus") is a section of the official rubrics for the celebration of Holy Mass, and it is to be found printed among the introductory pages of all legitimate (ante-NOM) altar missals.
19. In Part V of De Defectibus we read: "Verba autem Consecrationis, quae sunt forma hujus Sacramenti, sunt haec: 'Hoc est enim Corpus meum.' Et: 'Hic est enim Calix Sanguinis mei, novi et aeterni testamenti: mysterium fidei, qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum.' Si quis autem aliquid diminueret, vel immutaret de forma consecrationis Corporis et Sanguinis, et in ipsa verborum immutatione verba idem non significarent, non conficeret Sacramentum. onem non mutaret, conficeret quidem, sed gravissime peccaret."
20. The English version of this reads: "The words of Consecration, which are the form of this Sacrament, are these: For this is my Body. And: For this is the Chalice of my Blood, of the new and eternal testament: the mystery of faith, which shall be shed for you and for many unto the remission of sins. Now if one were to omit, or to change anything in the form of the consecration of the Body and Blood, and in that very change of the words the [new] wording would fail to mean the same thing, he would not consecrate the Sacrament. If in fact he were to add something that did not change the meaning, it is true he would consecrate, but he would sin most gravely."
21. Could anything be clearer? Anything more incapable of being misunderstood? It begins by saying "The words of Consecration, which are the form of this Sacrament, are these:" Then the entire form, both for the Consecration of the Body and of the Blood -- including, of course, the words "the mystery of faith" -- is set down precisely.
22. Having specified the sacramental form in its entirety, the prescription then warns that if the priest-celebrant should omit anything at all (aliquid) of this form -- for example, omit the words "the mystery of faith" -- or use different wording that would change the meaning of the prescribed words, then "he would not consecrate the Sacrament"; he would celebrate no Mass at all.

Pope Pius V proves that if the priest leaves out the words "Mysterium Fidei" there is no transubstantiation.

In the Novus Ordo, the words "Mysterium Fidei" are deliberately omitted.

Therefore it is idolatry. To worship an ordinary piece of bread is idolatry.

The Traditional Latin Mass has the true words of consecration, and therefore, if it is celebrated by a validly ordained
Catholic priest, transubstantiation occurs.

I'm sorry.  The arguments are only persuasive for the Roman Rite, which the Novus Ordo clearly is not.

This does not mean that the Novus Ordo is necessarily valid.  I am just not persuaded that the lack of the Mystery of Faith in the consecration formula invalidates a rite.

Please note that I am morally certain that the following statements are true:

1.  Benedict 16 is not a Catholic, therefore, he cannot be pope.
2.  John Paul 2 was not a Catholic, therefore, he cannot have been pope.
3.  Paul 6 was not a Catholic, therefore, he cannot have been pope.

The arguments against the new rites of ordination and consecration have great appeal, but I cannot say that I am morally certain that they are correct.

I do not know enough about John Paul 1 to make any judgment.  John XXIII may have been a valid pope.  I've never seen the compelling evidence that he was certainly an heretic.

All this being so, arguing against the New Mass because of the lack of the Mystery of Faith is a dead end.  There are simply too many good arguments that should be employed against it and the Conciliar church to waste time on this line of reason.

No, santo subito, that is not correct.

The novus ordo consecration is over by then. It has been completed, and is invalid according to Pope Saint Pius V.

Also, the priest does not say solely "Mysterium Fidei" in the novus ordo.

Instead, the priest in the novus ordo says "Let us proclaim the mystery of faith:"

Note the colon, which is actually in the rubrics. They are not referring back to the invalid consecration. They are referring forward to what is said next, by both the priest and the people.

Santo Subito, the fact that after the consecration, he says: “let us proclaim the mystery of faith” is irrelevant. The consecration is over. So the consecration was invalid. Secondly, the words “let us proclaim the mystery of faith” are about proclaiming “the mystery of faith”. They are not about confecting the Sacrament.

This is proved from the rubrics:

Do this in memory of me.
An acolyte may ring a bell when the chalice is elevated.
If incense is used, an acolyte incences the chalice when it is raised.
 He shows the consecrated chalice to the people, places it on the corporal, and genuflects in adoration. Then he sings or says:
Stand (except in the U.S.)
Celebrant alone
Let us proclaim the mystery of faith:
People with celebrant and concelebrants:
A.   Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again.
B. Dying you destroyed our death, rising you restored our life. Lord Jesus, come in glory.
C. When we eat this bread and drink this cup, we proclaim your death, Lord Jesus, until you come in glory.
 D. Lord, by your cross and resurrection you have set us free. You are the Savior of the world.

http://www.catholicliturgy.com/index.cfm/FuseAction/Text/Index/4/SubIndex/67/ContentIndex/22/Start/9

Note the fact that the rubrics even put a colon after the words, "Let us proclaim the mystery of faith:"
The colon is actually in the rubrics.
That colon even more clearly demonstrates that the words are not part of the consecration.
They apply to what is said next by the priest and the congregation.

It is another example of the dishonesty of those who wrote the New Mass. And of those who support it.

An invalid consecration, if it was invalidated in that way, cannot be remedied. It must be repeated.

Your comment about The Divine Mercy is not logical.

The Divine Mercy received many Imprimaturs from the Catholic Church during the Pontificate of Pope Pius XII.

It was invalidly banned by Antipope John XXIII. The ban was lifted by Paul VI ( for anyone who is concerned by Antipope John XXII 's invalid ban).

So a Sedevacantist would not have a problem with The Divine Mercy.

Secondly, what I said is still true about the novus ordo attempt to pretend that they have rectified the consecration.

The words "Mysterium Fidei" are still not part of the consecration in the novus ordo.
So the consecration is still invalid.
When an invalid consecration is made, it is not somehow made valid if the priest then speaks the words that he left out at a later part of the ceremony.

"Christ has Died, Christ is Risen, Christ will come again" was replaced

Edit: Replaced with "we proclaim your death, oh Lord, and profess Your Resurrection until you come again."

The problem still remains. The words are not being said as part of the consecration, even retroactively. They are being said in reference to what will be said next. As your own words show.

Bishop Pivarunas, in an article about the Novus Ordo, quoted Moral Theology, Book 4, Tract 3 by St. Alphonsus Liguori, Doctor of the Church:

In practice, it is certain that a priest would sin gravely if he did not pronounce all the words which are had in the consecration of the chalice; and if perhaps he had said the first words only (For this is the Chalice of My Blood), he is bound at least to repeat the entire form conditionally....

So according to Saint Alphonsus Liguori, if the words are left out, the entire form must be repeated.

You cannot just throw the omitted words in later on, and hope it will be alright. It won't.  

Pope Saint Pius V proves that if they leave out the words "Mysterium Fidei" then: "non conficeret sacramentum".

They are part of what is called "the necessary form" of the Sacrament.

Yes! At last, someone has joined the thread who understands what Pope Saint Pius V and Saint Alphonsus meant.