Almighty and ever-living God,give us new strength from the courage of Christ our shepherd, and lead us to join the saints in heaven, where he lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever. Amen. (NOM, Opening Prayer)

    One wonders if this is what the Novus Ordo means by "reforming" something. Is there absolutely any resemblance between the Traditional Prayer and the Novus Ordo? The Traditional Collect states that Christ, by His death, has saved us from certain death, and that life everlasting is what the faithful receive. The faithful are the sheep. The shepherd, Christ, saves them from death. For if the sheep wanders away, he is guaranteed to be devoured by the wolves.

    The only problem in today's world is that what were once wolves 40 years ago are now great spiritual instructors, to the point where Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz in his "Sermon A la Carte" program, encourages the faithful to hear sermons from Protestant ministers. That's right, the shepherd is telling the sheep to visit the wolves, and that this is a beneficial experience. Let us remember that his Excellency is lionized as the staunch conservative in America. Compared to the rest of the Bishops, he most certainly is. Yet is one really a staunch defender of tradition when he tells his faithful to go listen to those teachers who believe that very Tradition is a man-made corruption? One cannot say prayers such as that of the Traditional collect, and then think the programs being pushed such as the one described above is a good idea. One can garner these ideas out of the Novus Ordo based on solid catechesis, but who is going to look at me with a straight face and say that the Novus Ordo is a catechesis machine today? Has anyone read the New Catechism of the Catholic Church - all 800 pages? Better yet, does anyone understand it considering all the gray areas and ambiguous baffle-gab? How simple with everything in black and white was the Baltimore Catechism.

    Before we start fuming more over how the Modernist destructionists have so deconstructed the basic catechetical truths, let us move on to the Epistle/First Reading.

Paul and Barnabas continued on from Perga and reached Antioch in Pisidia. On the sabbath they entered the synagogue and took their seats. Many Jews and worshipers who were converts to Judaism followed Paul and Barnabas, who spoke to them and urged them to remain faithful to the grace of God. On the following sabbath almost the whole city gathered to hear the word of the Lord. When the Jews saw the crowds, they were filled with jealousy and with violent abuse contradicted what Paul said. Both Paul and Barnabas spoke out boldly and said, "It was necessary that the word of God be spoken to you first, but since you reject it and condemn yourselves as unworthy of eternal life, we now turn to the Gentiles. For so the Lord has commanded us, I have made you a light to the Gentiles, that you may be an instrument of salvation to the ends of the earth." The Gentiles were delighted when they heard this and glorified the word of the Lord. All who were destined for eternal life came to believe, and the word of the Lord continued to spread through the whole region. The Jews, however, incited the women of prominence who were worshipers and the leading men of the city, stirred up a persecution against Paul and Barnabas, and expelled them from their territory. So they shook the dust from their feet in protest against them, and went to Iconium. The disciples were filled with joy and the Holy Spirit. (First Reading, Acts 13: 14, 43-52, verse 46 may be omitted)

    What I'd like everyone to do is read all of Acts 13, first and foremost. This selection, like the traditional epistle from Peter, stresses the necessity of conversion, and that Christ saves us, and only Christ. There are some rather interesting events the Novus Ordo leaves out when it goes from verse 14, skipping all the way to verse 43. Besides the always present aversion to miracles (and there is one very prominent one Paul performs on one who resists God's teaching), this also features Paul giving the Gospel to the Jews in the synagogue. He explicitly spells out the Gospel, and gives the identity of the Messiah as Jesus, whom they crucified. Eventually, this message entails a near riot, and Paul and Barnabas state explicitly that since they have rejected the teaching, "we now turn to the Gentiles." This specifically states a shift in emphasis, and also alludes to the fact that God no longer works through one country, but His Church comprises of people from every nation.

    Yet the big idea today - the heretical concept so liberally set forth by the New Order is that Jews still have a salvific relationship with God, so this would obviously have to go. The specific fact that they turned to the Gentiles, turning their backs on the Jews there is quite significant. If omitted, one could simply say the Gentiles were just grafted in, but there was a purpose, this was more of condemning the man-made religion, the corruption of God's truth that these men participated in. Yet that's a little too anti-Semitic for today's world, isn't it? There is not much to mention in the Second Epistle, so let us move onto the Gospel Accounts of the Good Shepherd.

Jesus said: "My sheep hear my voice; I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish. No one can take them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one can take them out of the Father's hand. The Father and I are one." (John 10:27-30, verse 28 may be omitted)

    Given what we had focused upon in the last reading, one can see why they didn't choose the Traditional Reading of the Good Shepherd. Christ has some rather nasty things to say about those in power during His day, and how they were deserting their flocks and leaving the sheep to the wolves, an obvious reference to the Pharisees and the Sanhedrin of Christ's day. He furthermore states that there are sheep not of this fold that Christ must bring into the fold, a reference to the Gentiles. Implicitly, He is stating that those of the Pharisees (on the majority, as there are exceptions such as Nicodemus who did follow Christ) are not His sheep, because they do not hear His voice. But of course, this is far too anti-Semitic, and has to go, after all, liberal historical-critical Biblical scholars tell us so, and they have PhD's, they must be right! And, because we have no St. Athanasius types in the modern church to stand up and speak out against these heretical thoughts, the lie only permeates further down to the parish level. "We don't do that any more, or we don't have to believe that anymore" is common-speak in Novus Ordo circles.

    Optional in the Novus Ordo is the fact that Christ gives His sheep eternal life. The Traditional Gospel stated specifically that Christ lays down His life for His sheep, and only His sheep receive eternal life. Omit this from the Novus Ordo, and well, Christ can give eternal life to just about anyone, or everyone. Is not universalism, all religions lead to salvation, a prominent thought today? While of course this omission is not mandatory, depending on who your priest is, your liturgy either instructs you in the faith, or leaves you to your own devices, limited as they could very well possibly be. As a friend told me, "The Novus Ordo is to liturgical Reform what the Enola Gay was to urban development."