I took my children to see our local parish church's architecture and statuary this morning; unfortunately, we walked in to find a funeral just beginning. We quickly left the sanctuary, and took a back exit out of the building. As we left through a back door, I noticed, on the table where church bulletins and holy cards, etc are left for the taking, a booklet called "Revised Roman Missal; Understanding the New Mass Texts, Second Edition". I took it home and scanned through it; revised, maybe. Changed, definitely. Traditional, not on your life, although there are some significant changes to VERY important parts of the text, including the Words of Consecration.

I will post some examples of the former Novus text and the revised text below. If there are any parts I don't post that you'd like to see, let me know and I will post them as well.

_____________________________________________________________________________

GREETING:
P: The Lord be with you.
OLD R: And also with you.
NEW R: And with your spirit.

_____________________________________________________________________________

New CONFITEOR includes "through my fault, through my fault, through my most grievous fault; THEREFORE I ask blessed Maryevery-Virgin, etc
_____________________________________________________________________________

The NEW 'GLORIA':

Glory to God in the highest, and on earth, peace to people of good will.
We praise You,
We bless You,
We adore You,
We glorify You,
We give You thanks for Your great glory,
Lord God, heavenly King,
O God, almighty Father.
Lord Jesus Christ, Only Begotten Son,
Lord God, Lamb of God, Son of the Father,
You take away the sins of the world, have mercy on us.
You take away the sins of the world, receive our prayer;
You are seated at the right hand of the Father, have mercy on us.
For You alone are the Holy One,
You alone are the Lord,
You alone are the Most High, Jesus Christ,
with the Holy Spirit in the Glory of God the Father. Amen.
_____________________________________________________________________________

The Niceo-Constantinopolitan Creed may, at certain times, be replaced with the Apostles' Creed.
_____________________________________________________________________________

The 'Preparation of the Altar and the Gifts' remains the same; it's the business about 'it will become for us the bread of life' and 'it will become our spiritual drink'.
_____________________________________________________________________________

The Invitation to Prayer now includes:

P: Pray brethren (or, brothers and sisters),
that MY SACRIFICE and YOURS may be acceptable to God, the almighty Father.

R: May the Lord accept the sacrifice at your hands for the praise and glory of His Name,
for our good and the good of all His HOLY Church.
_____________________________________________________________________________

The phrase 'Let us give thanks to the Lord our God' will now be responded to with:
'It is right and just'.
_____________________________________________________________________________

The Words of Consecration are now:

P: TAKE THIS, ALL OF YOU, AND EAT OF[/i] IT; FOR THIS IS MY BODY, WHICH WILL BE GIVEN UP FOR YOU.

P: TAKE THIS, ALL OF YOU, AND DRINK FROM IT, FOR THIS IS THE CHALICE OF[/i] MY BLOOD, THE BLOOD OF THE NEW AND ETERNAL[/i] COVENANT, WHICH WILL BE POURED OUT FOR YOU AND FOR MANY FOR THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS[/i]. DO THIS IN MEMORY OF ME.
_____________________________________________________________________________

The priest then says :THE MYSTERY OF FAITH, rather than 'let us proclaim', etc.
_____________________________________________________________________________

There are more changes, but those seemed to be the most significant ones as relates to the core of the text. Again, there are other parts that have been changed; please let me know what parts of the text you'd like to see if I have not posted them here.

All in all, I think there is a lot more faithfulness to the Latin in certain places, but I am also still totally convinced that this is an attempt to solemnize a far-too-liberal 'new mass' text rather than to bring the Novus Ordites anywhere NEAR adherence to the traditional FAITH, let alone the traditional TEXT of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

In other words, I think this new text is like the teenage girl you always see at someone's funeral; overly made-up, in a dress she has no idea how to sit in, struggling to walk in 'girl shoes' because she's used to her blue jeans and sneakers. This 'revised text' is just the NO trying to stuff their indifferent pew-sitters into some formal-sounding language. It's basically because the hierarchy is starting to realize that their old texts and their old uncaring attitude towards liturgical abuse are coming back to bite them in their rear ends in the form of declining attendance, near-total disappearance of anything resembling daily spiritual discipline in their parishioners' lives, and a loss of any right or prerogative to speak authoritatively to the secular culture. It's just too bad that they're trying to so assertively slam the barn door shut after the horse is not only long gone, but dead and rotting.

St. John Vianney, pray for us and for HOLY priests to uphold tradition.

Sacred Heart of Jesus, have mercy on us.

I too was very glad when I saw it.

Take it easy with the 'too', there, friend. I, for one, was not 'very glad'. There certainly are some changes for the better, but this is still the compromised, relativistic and fractured Novus Ordo we're talking about.

It follows Pope John Paul II's direction in "Liturgiam Authenticam" for there to be "formal equivalence" between the Roman Missal in Latin and the translated texts.

It's just too bad people didn't RUSH to make THOSE changes when Wojtyla wrote that; people were certainly willing to adopt his heretical stance on inter-'faith' prayer and making kissy-face with the Mohammedans and Jєωs, though, weren't they?

While I understand the umbrage over the present, poorly translated version, still, I don't expect the leaders of the Church to be multi-linguistic experts skilled in every dialect known to man.

The leaders of the Church need to be EXPERTS in ONE language; the language of the Church, which is Latin. Of course, if they had stayed busy with maintaining Tradition instead of hurrying off to embrace their Prot heretic friends, we might not have this crisis today.

The ICEL preferred "dynamic equivalence" at the time, and some measure of the light of Faith was, by their action, on a human level, no doubt obstructed.

The light of Faith was obstructed long before these guys tried to write a new missal; as soon as they made it up in their minds to try to change Tradition, the lights went out.

They could completely revert to the TLM, even as it was before 1962, and attendance at it would still be a problem if the priests saying it were ordained after 1968, when the new rite of ordination was established.

@Nishant2011:

Sorry, friend, but I am going to have to call you on that one: No Magisterial act was compromised? I'm pretty sure that

'Let's promulgate a NEW Missal'

is a direct violation of and in blatant disregard of

'No one may promulgate a new Missal; THIS one is the one the Roman Church will use, period'.

That said, I DO believe there were people at Vat2 that WANTED to refresh, strengthen and encourage the faithful WITHOUT compromising Tradition... they were, however, completely bulldozed by the heretics acting according to the 'spirit of the times', which also just happens to be 'the spirit that now works in the sons of disobedience', according to the holy Apostle St. Paul.

St. Joseph of Cupertino, pray for us and elevate our hearts with yours in the Presence of the Eucharistic Christ.

Sacred Heart of Jesus, have mercy on us.

The Church has taught [that] the LONG FORM of consecration is necessary for validity in the Roman Church.

Roman rite. :wink:

From what I've read, the short form is at least doubtful.

http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/newmass/mystfide.htm

5. The school of opinion that the "short form" of words "This is the Chalice of my Blood" suffices for validity also includes theologians of repute. The matter has not been decided definitively by the Church.

But how can validity possibly be one thing in the East and another in the West? Surely, the form of consecration does not depend on accidental geographic locations, but must by its very nature, be the same in all times and places. Therefore, if Mysterium Fidei belonged to the substance of the sacrament, Eastern rites are invalid.

Besides, Papal sanctions apply to individual transgressing priests and do not bind future Pontiffs. The Greek schismatics used a similar argument in saying the Pope could not add the Filioque to the Creed, relying on a canon in Ephesus and Chalcedon.

The form of ordination for priests only changes one word, "Ut" with no essential change in meaning. The form of consecration for Bishops relies on the fact that the Apostles were Bishops, which is not a doubftul thing anyway.

they were, however, completely bulldozed by the heretics acting according to the 'spirit of the times'

I agree there were tensions in the Council and afterward, with many prelates wanting to foist a liberal agenda on the Church. But I don't believe they succeeded. The late Archbishop Fulton Sheen commented on this in Treasure in Clay.

Besides, the widespread dissent generated in response to Humanae Vitae shows that, even by that time, in 1968, most professing Catholics had lost much, if not all, sense of Christian faith and morality. Obviously, it was only going to get worse in time, as immorality actually abounded everywhere.

But how can validity possibly be one thing in the East and another in the West? Surely, the form of consecration does not depend on accidental geographic locations, but must by its very nature, be the same in all times and places. Therefore, if Mysterium Fidei belonged to the substance of the sacrament, Eastern rites are invalid.

Besides, Papal sanctions apply to individual transgressing priests and do not bind future Pontiffs. The Greek schismatics used a similar argument in saying the Pope could not add the Filioque to the Creed, relying on a canon in Ephesus and Chalcedon.

The form of ordination for priests only changes one word, "Ut" with no essential change in meaning. The form of consecration for Bishops relies on the fact that the Apostles were Bishops, which is not a doubftul thing anyway.

Quote

they were, however, completely bulldozed by the heretics acting according to the 'spirit of the times'

I agree there were tensions in the Council and afterward, with many prelates wanting to foist a liberal agenda on the Church. But I don't believe they succeeded. The late Archbishop Fulton Sheen commented on this in Treasure in Clay.

Besides, the widespread dissent generated in response to Humanae Vitae shows that, even by that time, in 1968, most professing Catholics had lost much, if not all, sense of Christian faith and morality. Obviously, it was only going to get worse in time, as immorality actually abounded everywhere.

In other words how can the Church rule definitively on a matter? By the Authority of God entrusted to it.

Well, do tell me what heresy you find in any of the docuмents of the Second Vatican Council or the Magisterium in general. I don't mean that there haven't been actions borne out of misplaced human respect, of course, which do nothing good and rather hinders God's will.

The finding of actual heresy is not necessary. The rule of faith for a Catholic is the preaching of the ecclesiastical magisterium. Here is the manualist Van Noort explaining:

The rule of faith. It seems timely to add here a few remarks on the rule of faith. This term signifies the standard or norm according to which each individual Christian must determine what is the material object of his faith.

Protestants claim that the written Word of God, Holy Scripture, and that alone, is the one rule of faith. Catholics, on the other hand, even though they, too, admit that our faith must be regulated in the final analysis by the Word of God — including tradition as well as Scripture — hold that the proximate and immediate rule of faith — that rule to which each of the faithful and each generation of the faithful must look directly — is the preaching of the Church. And so, according to Catholics, there exists a twofold rule of faith: one remote and one proximate. The remote rule of faith is the Word of God (handed down in writing or orally), which was directly entrusted to the Church's rulers that from it they might teach and guide the faithful. The proximate rule of faith, from which the faithful, one and all, are bound to accept their faith and in accordance with which they are to regulate it, is the preaching of the ecclesiastical magisterium.(27) The following assertions concern the proximate rule of faith.

1. The Church's preaching was established by Christ Himself as the rule of faith. This can be proved from Matthew 28:19—20 and Mark 16:15—16; the command to teach all nations certainly implies a corresponding duty on the part of the nations to believe whatever the apostles and their successors teach, On the other hand, there is no notice anywhere of Christ's having commanded the apostles to give the people the doctrine of salvation in writing, and never did He command the faithful as a whole to seek their faith in the Bible.(28)

2. The Church's preaching is a rule of faith which is nicely accommodated to people's needs. For (a) it is an easy rule, one that can be observed by all alike, even the uneducated and unlettered. What could be easier than to give ear to a magisterium that is always at hand and always preaching? (b) It is a safe rule, for the Church's teaching office is infallible in safeguarding and presenting Christ's doctrine. (c) It is a living rule, in accordance with which it is possible in any age to explain the meaning of doctrines and to put an end to controversies.