CathInfo.com

So does this mean it is morally permissible for us to attend "non-Catholic" services for purposes of "observation"?

The NO labels itself Catholic, so it's slightly different scenario I suppose. Though really, you're using a straw-man argument. He never said it was ok to attend non-Catholic services.

While this is true of many NO Masses, the NO Mass can be said with fiddle-backs, incense, ad orientam, altar rails, male only altar servers, no lay readers or EM's, and Gregorian Chant. Thus his beef is with the optional derivations of his local parish and not the Mass of Paul VI itself.

The "Mass" of Paul VI abolished almost all of those things you have listed.

I admit this was pretty funny.

First of all I thought the joke was cheesey (typical from the Bogus Ordo anyway), and secondly you aren't supposed to be telling jokes at Mass. It's Church for crying out loud, not a comedy club. The NO has almost completely turned the celebrator into nothing but a stage actor.

Is there any proof the six Protestant observers had any official decision making role in the Mass?

Yes, there is proof.

The CCC and the current NO Missal define the Mass as a sacrifice.

The NO represents a meal (the Last Supper to be exact). They can define it as a sacrifice all they want. But everyone touching the Eucharist as if it's a potato chip and drinking from the Chalice isn't exactly the best way to make a sacrifice. It comes off as a meal.

The consecration is a sacramental action, doesn't matter that it is within a narrative.

So it's fine if Mass is a narrative of the Last Supper when it's supposed to be an un-bloody re-enactment of Christ's Death on the Cross?

So a Mass given to us and approved by a Pope and the CDF is not a Catholic liturgy? And Mr. Vennari gets the authority to declare this from where? How does he know why it was constructed? The Mass will always be the worship of God. It is impossible for the Catholic Church to approve a non Catholic Rite.

Exactly why, when one looks at this fact, one must either accept Vatican II and the NO or say that Vatican II and its "popes" are frauds. The Church could not possibly approve a sacreligious liturgy such as the NO.

Why doesn't he ever produce the rest of this docuмent so we can read it in context?

What else is there to read? He means exactly what he says, Santo. The meaning is very clear. Anyone who can't understand doesn't have good reading comprehension. And it's not John Vennari who doesn't produce "the full docuмent" of Bugnini's quote. No one has cited what Bugnini said before or after that, though it hardly matters.

Guitton's opinion.

Really? A man who was a close friend of his and yet that was just his opinion? If I state a fact about a close friend or family member of mine, one that I know personally, would it make sense to say it's "just my opinion"? Come on Santo. You take drastic measures to defend anything and everything about Vatican II and its "popes".

What makes a Mass valid? What has the Church actually taught in Her official capacity as to what makes a Mass valid?