Sing to the Lord a new song, for he has done marvelous deeds; he has revealed to the nations his saving power, alleluia. (NOM, Opening Prayer)

    Both liturgies in her Introit speak of God's saving power. There is just one difference. Whereas the Novus Ordo simply says God revealed His saving power, it does not state what the saving power is or entails. The Traditional Introit, being more precise, chooses the verse from Scripture which does exactly this, that saving power entails delivering His people. We are delivered from the world of evil, to salvation in Christ Jesus. The Traditional passage shows God as a far more active God in the lives of his people than does the selection of the Novus Ordo. God is just a friend in the Novus Ordo nowadays, and not an active friend who actively fights for us. If God is fighting for his people, the Catholic Church, then he is also directly opposing the errors of the false religions. Today in the Novus Ordo, the idea of condemning and actively opposing error is not in vogue with modern theology, where, if error is condemned at all, it is simply in words only.

God our Father, look upon us with love. You redeem us and make us your children in Christ. Give us true freedom and bring us to the inheritance you promised. We ask this through our Lord Jesus Christ, your Son, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever. Amen. (NOM, Collect)

   Once again, the Traditional Proper takes upon a far more precise tone. While both speak of God redeeming and saving His people, the Traditional Proper also talks about the necessity of doing good. We are to supplicate God with our intentions to resist sin, and God gives us the grace to do so. Yet if we spurn this grace, we know condemnation awaits us. The Novus Ordo mentions nothing about having good resolves or staying on the right path when one is a child of God. A disconnect is almost introduced between a faith of assent and a living faith, something we now see today that is very prominent in today's Church, as one believes they can condone the slaughter of innocent children in the womb, and still be seen as good in God's sight, since they never really doubt Him. The Traditional Rite tells us what true freedom is, we now, thanks to God's grace, have the freedom to do good, something that, without the grace of God, we could not do before, another reference to negative theology, something that has been demonstrated as vanished in the Novus Ordo. One wonders how the good of the Church is served by changing these prayers!

After Paul and Barnabas had proclaimed the good news to that city and made a considerable number of disciples, they returned to Lystra and to Iconium and to Antioch. They strengthened the spirits of the disciples and exhorted them to persevere in the faith, saying, "It is necessary for us to undergo many hardships to enter the kingdom of God." They appointed elders for them in each church and, with prayer and fasting, commended them to the Lord in whom they had put their faith. Then they traveled through Pisidia and reached Pamphylia. After proclaiming the word at Perga they went down to Attalia. From there they sailed to Antioch, where they had been commended to the grace of God for the work they had now accomplished. And when they arrived, they called the church together and reported what God had done with them and how he had opened the door of faith to the Gentiles. (First Reading, Acts 14:21-27, Verse 24 may be omitted)

    One is not really certain as to why verse 24 is omitted; perhaps it is because "reporting what God had done with them" entails a miracle, though this is not certain, so I will not focus far too much time on this text. Instead, one notices the harmony in the Traditional Collect and the Epistle. Does this harmony exist in the Opening Prayer and the First Reading in the Novus Ordo? Obviously this is not the case.

    The Traditional epistle cites James' exhortation for us to be hearers and doers of the Word. This entails doing works of charity, and not being defiled with the stains of this world, something which we have noted before the Novus Ordo never talks about. It simply acts as if we're all already saved, and nothing really need be done. This is a more Protestant mentality than anything else. The Second reading is from Revelation 21:1-5a. What do I mean when I say 5a? I mean that there are certain parts of the verse that are omitted. What is the part omitted?

The One Who sat on the throne said, "Behold, I make all things new." Then He said, "Write these words down, for they are trustworthy and true." (Revelation 21:5, bold text is optional)

    What is optional is the fact that the words John heard were trustworthy and true, upholding the fact that every word the Apostle wrote down was the inspired word of God. Due to the ambiguous statement in The Second Vatican Council's Dei Verbum, we are told that Scripture is inerrant "in all things pertaining to salvation", the modernist will say that the exact wording of Scripture outside of doctrine is not necessary to salvation, hence Scripture contains errors. Of course, those who look at the context of the Council's statement and the entirety of Tradition know full well the view that Scripture contains any errors is not acceptable. Yet the fact Scripture contains errors is a pillar of modernism and the historical critical method it employs. This is the view held all throughout Catholic seminaries and universities in America today. When we don't have to state in the Liturgy that the words recorded are absolutely true and trustworthy, we can safely say that Scripture contains errors. The modernist cannot do this. Hence, one can say the reason this portion of the verse was omitted was to make the modernists feel more comfortable in their dissent. If there is a better reason, we would love to hear it.

When Judas had left them, Jesus said, "Now is the Son of Man glorified, and God is glorified in him. If God is glorified in him, God will also glorify him in himself, and God will glorify him at once. My children, I will be with you only a little while longer. I give you a new commandment: love one another. As I have loved you, so you also should love one another. This is how all will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another." (Gospel, NOM, John 13:31-33a, 34-35)

    There are a few interesting points to make about this passage. First we must note that again, we see 33a, rather than all of verse 33. What is contained in verse 33, the entire verse?

My children, I will be with you only a little while longer. You will look for me, and as I told the Jews, 'Where I go you cannot come,' so now I say it to you.

    It has been alleged that out of all the Gospels, the Gospel of St. John is the most "Anti-Semitic." Perhaps this verse is another example of this. Now the Apostles are obviously Jews, so what is the distinction here between "You" and the Jews? Obviously Christ is speaking of the Jewish authority, and the covenant they represent. This is Christ essentially saying the Old Covenant will be set aside. It furthermore indicts those leaders of the Sanhedrin in doing what they have done. Another reason is because the verse indicates Christ predicted this. Since the modernists deny miracles as a reality, this statement would be quite problematic to explain away to the average Catholic in the pew that "Oh well they didn't mean this, Christ didn't say this, John made it up." (Though we are reaching that point where blatant heresy is regularly coming from Novus Ordo pulpits, something even our Neo-Catholic brethren must concede.)

    Both pieces of Scripture are wonderful at foretelling of the Ascension of Our Blessed Lord into Heaven. If both passages were to be included without exception, one would not find a serious objection from the Traditionalist camp. Yet we see that these options are serious omissions, and no doubt make the modernist all the more comfortable in his dissent, and it becomes easier for him to propagate his heresy to the unsuspecting people. There is nothing false or heretical in these readings (despite what the Modernist says, Scripture is inerrant!), but the choices and omissions are here for a reason. We must ask our friends who ardently defend the Novus Ordo why these omissions are there, and furthermore, how this serves the benefit of the Church, as the Council's Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy stated that if there are to be any innovations, the good of the Church requires them. We've been waiting almost 40 years for this answer.

Lord God, by this holy exchange of gifts you share with us your divine life. Grant that everything we do may be directed by the knowledge of your truth. We ask this in the name of Jesus the Lord. Amen. (NOM, Prayer over the Gifts)

    This prayer becomes more interesting when one considers what is happening at the Novus Ordo when this prayer is said. This is right around the time of the offertory, and the collection plate is passed around for those who wish to donate financially to support the Church, as we are obligated to do when we can. (Why we wouldn't want to help God's Church prosper is beyond me, so this is a good obligation.) After the offering is collected, the bread, wine, and money are given to the priest by the people. The money is also blessed in many parishes. Part of the gifts is the offering of money, and the idea that the bread and wine comes from the people. The Novus Ordo treats it as an exchange, we give God, bread, wine, and money, and He gives us Jesus. There is absolutely no mention of a Sacrifice here. If one was simply focusing on the prayers, one would have no clue this is a sacrifice, much less a propitiatory sacrifice. As Monsignor Klaus Gamber stated in his devastating critique Reform of the Roman Liturgy:

"One thing is certain: the new (liberal) theology was a major force behind the liturgical reforms. (A Good Example of this is the German Hymnal, Praising God.) Yet to assert, as is sometimes done, that the Novus Ordo Mass is invalid would be taking the argument too far. What we can say is that ever since the liturgical reforms were introduced, the number of invalid Masses has certainly increased. (Msgr. Klaus Gamber, Reform of the Roman Liturgy: it's Background and Problems, page 44, bold emphasis mine)

    We must remember this was one of the Catholic Church's most eminent liturgical scholars, the one who "truly represents the thought of the Church" as Cardinal Ratzinger stated. He was confirming what Cardinal Ottaviani had stated many years before in his famous Intervention, that due to the lack of formation the prayers give, it becomes a lot easier to not have a valid intention in offering a propitiatory sacrifice. The Traditional Rite, with all its safeguards, even those who did not subjectively believe in the propitiatory work could not destroy an objective intention if they prayed the prayers in the rubrics. This prayer of course does not ipso facto invalidate the Mass, for as Gamber said, this takes the argument too far. Yet it does leave the door open.

    The door is of course slammed shut in the Traditional Rite, as the explicit mention is present of offering of the Sacred Victim. This is to win for us grace, so we can in turn get to Heaven. That's a pretty succinct definition of the purpose of the propitiatory sacrifice. God cannot give grace unless his wrath is appeased, propitiated. These safeguards were eliminated in the name of being "good for the Church." We will let our detractors attempt to answer why eliminating safeguards such as these is a good thing. As we have covered the Prefaces before, we shall next move onto the Postcommunion verses.