Please let me begin be saying that I like going to the Tridentine Mass, but, truth be told, the Tridentine Mass is liable to criticism. And I believe those criticism take all the force out of arguments against the Catholocity of the Novus Ordo.

Now, it must be admitted that the Novus Ordo mentions the sacrifice several times; and yet it does not specifically say it is propitiatory. However, the first Offertorty prayer of the TM starts out by saying this "spotless host" is offered for the sins of the priests. But does not say it is propitiatory for anyone else. It does not mention a sacrifice of Jesus, let alone the one on the Cross. The wine is not mention there in relation to atonment, so that sacrifice of Calvary, effected by the separation of the blood from the body, is not even implied within the TM. Nowhere does the Tridentine mass say the sacrifice during the mass is the same as that of Calvary. Since it was promulgated in the face of the Reformation, that is quite an ommision.

Standing alone, this first prayer of the Offertory can easily be interpreted to be a denial of the real presence by apparently stating the the unconsecrated host wipes away sin. The NO is clearer, when it begins the second half of the Mass by asserting that the gifts are the "work of human hands" which will "become the bread of life" and "our spiritual drink". The Tridentine Canon first asks God to bless "these offerings, these holy and unspotted oblations which, in the first place, we offer You for Your Holy Catholic Church, that You would deign to give her peace and protection." So the oblations are already present?? Of course, the Novus Ordo says "this, our sacrifice" before consecration, but this confusion is much more explicit in the TM.

However, the Tridentine Mass says several times that it is offered for "our salvation", while the Novus Ordo merely once says for "our good". Good for the TM!!

Nonetheless, in the Commemoration of the Living, the TM speaks of a "sacrifice of praise" which "we offer to You, OR who themselves offer to You". The Tridentine Mass does not distinguish the manner in which the priests offers the sacrifice vs the way the laity do. In fact, the pray right after the consecration of wine says "we Your ministers, as also Your holy people, offer to You...".  

The "all-perfect victim" is then mentioned, but is lower-cased in the Latin missals, and the next prayer mentions Melchisedec's "spotless victim" as well.

Finally, much ado is made over Ottaviani's Intervention?? However, not many seem to be aware that Rome gave Ottaniani a critical rebuttal. I wonder if anyone on here knows where that can be found on the internet.

God love you!

If you actually read what I wrote, you would see that I said the Mass is the unbloody sacrifice at Calvary. Nonetheless, differents rites have their individual merits, and some demerits at times. The Church has never said there can't be ambiguity or ommisions in the rite of the Mass. The Tridentine Mass is not the only Catholic Mass. There are the Eastern Masses, and others that have been used in the West at different times in history. The Mass promulgated by Pius V replaced other local rites because he thought they had some imperfections. His own rite is not above analysis.

The Church is protected against issuing a heretical or invalid mass, however, which is a different issue. The SSPX are caught between a rock and hard place by saying a valid Pope approved of a "Protestant mass"

It is a mass designed for Protestants by modernists.  That's the reality.

The subversion and destruction of Catholic worship is not of the Church.  From that one must draw the necessary conclusions.  

Something tells me this guy is aquinasg on another account. Whoever he is, he is nothing but a troll who signed up to start trouble.

The Church has always believed that the Mass is a memorial of the Last Supper.

Wrong. Get your facts straight.

I am not trying to get into a debate. I am just saying that Paul VI is not treated fairly on forums like this. Contrary to what ulta-traditionalist say, he promoted Marian devotion. Here are just some docuмents:

http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P6MARIAL.HTM
http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P6GREAT.HTM
http://www.ewtn.com/library/ENCYC/P6MONTH.HTM
http://www.ewtn.com/library/ENCYC/P6CHRIST.HTM

But I digress. On November 20th of this year, the daily reading at the Novus Ordo made it clear the that sacrifice on the altar was the same as that on Calvary. Even if similar prayers could be found in the daily readings for the Tridentine Missal, they are all said in Latin; the laity would have to look them up in the back of their missals, instead of hearing it proclaimed on that day by the priest.

Before Vatican II there was a lot of private devotions going on during Mass. This was most foreign to the Protestants sensibilities. There is nothing wrong with desiring to bring them into the fold by making things more comfortable, so to speak, for them.

Lastly, for Cupertino, before communion for the faithful during the Tridentine Mass, the priest says "May the Almighty and Merciful Lord grant you pardon, absolution and remission of your sins." Now the abuse of "general confessions" were common after VII. If the TM has remained, would not it have been abused by the Modernist as well, who would say "during Mass you get the sacrament of confession as well"? Would that abuse make the Tridentine Mass invalid??

I am not trying to get into a debate. I am just saying that Paul VI is not treated fairly on forums like this. Contrary to what ulta-traditionalist say, he promoted Marian devotion. Here are just some docuмents:

http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P6MARIAL.HTM
http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P6GREAT.HTM
http://www.ewtn.com/library/ENCYC/P6MONTH.HTM
http://www.ewtn.com/library/ENCYC/P6CHRIST.HTM

But I digress. On November 20th of this year, the daily reading at the Novus Ordo made it clear the that sacrifice on the altar was the same as that on Calvary. Even if similar prayers could be found in the daily readings for the Tridentine Missal, they are all said in Latin; the laity would have to look them up in the back of their missals, instead of hearing it proclaimed on that day by the priest.

Before Vatican II there was a lot of private devotions going on during Mass. This was most foreign to the Protestants sensibilities. There is nothing wrong with desiring to bring them into the fold by making things more comfortable, so to speak, for them.

Lastly, for Cupertino, before communion for the faithful during the Tridentine Mass, the priest says "May the Almighty and Merciful Lord grant you pardon, absolution and remission of your sins." Now the abuse of "general confessions" were common after VII. If the TM has remained, would not it have been abused by the Modernist as well, who would say "during Mass you get the sacrament of confession as well"? Would that abuse make the Tridentine Mass invalid??

LOL, EWTN? Seriously? Get real, that station is so modernist. You're definitely aquinasg on another account, right? Be honest. And Paul VI gets what he deserves on this forum, he was a flaming liberal and an antipope.

People who believe Catholicism is the One True Faith understand what is wrong with conciliarism.  Those who don't aren't Catholics.

Telesphorus, Pius X himself tried to get people to start praying the mass together instead of simply doing private devotions. With the Mass in English, this communal worship was much easier. But enough, I done for now. you guys are attacking crazy