Geremia,

Some answers to your observations:

ch. iv: for one, the "old Roman Canon" Eucharistic Prayer I is a mutilated form of the ancient Roman Canon, changed for the sake of ecuмenism; thus it is certainly not a traditional or organic development (as is the case with the rest of the New Mass). Even more so, the other Eucharistic Prayers cannot be considered as having any part with the authentic Roman Canon.

ch. v: some priests do render certain things in silence, but I would need to look up the new GIRM to see if this is actually prescribed or considered an option... that being said, I could actually care less, because the issue of the voice is essentially a matter of praxis and not of doctrine - thus in comparison to the doctrinal deficiencies of the New Mass, such accidentals pale in comparison.

ch. vii: the mixing of the water and wine is prescribed in the GIRM of the New Mass.

ch. viii: it actually does not *condemn* the use of the vernacular, but simply *proscribes* it - in fact, the Council Father discussed this point in depth, and it was ultimately decided that the introduction of the vulgar tongue for pastoral reasons was "not expedient" at the time, due to the proximity of the Protestant Reformation. What it does condemn are those who asserted that the entire Mass should be said in the vernacular and not in Latin. But ditto as above, this is again an accidental matter in the whole scheme of things - nonetheless, I would agree, the Mass should not be entirely in the vernacular, and personally, I think Catholics should just learn their Latin!

can. vi: you might be able to apply this anathema to the most strident of the liberal liturgical revolutionaries who felt the Canon was in error for being a "stumbling block to ecuмenism" - but the violation of their Oath against Modernism would have already done this!

can vii: actually, there is something to be said about the "noble simplicity" of the traditional Roman Mass, as seen in monastic communities (who avoid "sumptuous display" so one can concentrate on the supernatural, rather than the natural - which can draw us down to earth or even consist of vanity), so your conclusion is not completely accurate. What is incorrect though is the notion that we should not use anything of special material value for the Holy Sacrifice - I presume that is what you meant?

can ix: okay... but what's the point - we already know this.

Session XXII starts off with:

The sacred and holy, ecuмenical and general Synod of Trent--lawfully assembled in the Holy Ghost, the same Legates of the Apostolic Sec presiding therein--to the end that the ancient, complete, and in every part perfect faith and doctrine touching the great mystery of the Eucharist may be retained in the holy Catholic Church; and may, all errors and heresies being repelled, be preserved in its own purity; (the Synod) instructed by the illumination of the Holy Ghost, teaches, declares; and decrees what follows, to be preached to the faithful, on the subject of the Eucharist, considered as being a true and singular sacrifice.



The thing that gets me is that Trent declares right up front, right at the very beginning of Session XXII that the Holy Ghost guided them in the proper matter, form and intention - so we not only are absolutely assured of validity, we are also assured that this Holy Sacrifice is the only Holy Sacrifice which is pleasing to God - and because the Holy Ghost guided Trent, we know it was this Unbloody Sacrifice of Calvary which was meant to be celebrated for all time.

Because God guided Trent, unless we are foolish enough to think that God would have guided Trent into codifying  a Mass that He really did not want, we can be assured that the TLM is the manner in which God Himself wants us to worship Him, as such, it stands to reason that when the Mass was replaced, that act in and of itself displeased God, add to that, it was replaced with a thing (the NOM) that God does not want, which, to say the least, only adds to His displeasure.

Comparing canons and notes between the TLM and the NOM is one thing, but when it comes right down to it, the act of replacing the TLM with the NOM is the height of diabolical audacity.  



 

What is Catholic Mass then - the Mass of Pius V only?
What about other rites' ( non Latin ) masses?
Where's the refuge in the devastated vineyard, so to speak?

The Mass of Pope St. Pius V is to be the only Mass - notwithstanding the exceptions as declared below.............

Quo Primum: This new rite alone is to be used unless approval of the practice of saying Mass differently was given at the very time of the institution and confirmation of the church by Apostolic See at least 200 years ago, or unless there has prevailed a custom of a similar kind which has been continuously followed for a period of not less than 200 years, in which most cases We in no wise rescind their above-mentioned prerogative or custom. However, if this Missal, which we have seen fit to publish, be more agreeable to these latter, We grant them permission to celebrate Mass according to its rite, provided they have the consent of their bishop or prelate or of their whole Chapter, everything else to the contrary notwithstanding.

All other of the churches referred to above, however, are hereby denied the use of other missals, which are to be discontinued entirely and absolutely; whereas, by this present Constitution, which will be valid henceforth, now, and forever, We order and enjoin that nothing must be added to Our recently published Missal, nothing omitted from it, nor anything whatsoever be changed within it under the penalty of Our displeasure.

We specifically command each and every patriarch, administrator, and all other persons or whatever ecclesiastical dignity they may be, be they even cardinals of the Holy Roman Church, or possessed of any other rank or pre-eminence, and We order them in virtue of holy obedience to chant or to read the Mass according to the rite and manner and norm herewith laid down by Us and, hereafter, to discontinue and completely discard all other rubrics and rites of other missals, however ancient, which they have customarily followed; and they must not in celebrating Mass presume to introduce any ceremonies or recite any prayers other than those contained in this Missal.

Furthermore, by these presents [this law], in virtue of Our Apostolic authority, We grant and concede in perpetuity that, for the chanting or reading of the Mass in any church whatsoever, this Missal is hereafter to be followed absolutely, without any scruple of conscience or fear of incurring any penalty, judgment, or censure, and may freely and lawfully be used. Nor are superiors, administrators, canons, chaplains, and other secular priests, or religious, of whatever title designated, obliged to celebrate the Mass otherwise than as enjoined by Us. We likewise declare and ordain that no one whosoever is forced or coerced to alter this Missal, and that this present docuмent cannot be revoked or modified, but remain always valid and retain its full force notwithstanding the previous constitutions and decrees of the Holy See, as well as any general or special constitutions or edicts of provincial or synodal councils, and notwithstanding the practice and custom of the aforesaid churches, established by long and immemorial prescription - except, however, if more than two hundred years' standing.