Mass Destruction

 

My spiritual father, Fr. Gommar A. DePauw, lived an extraordinary life. The religious, political, and other personages he knew, combined with his myriad unusual experiences in a unique era of the world, would make for an unapparelled priest of intrigue. In his early years, Father was taken prisoner at the Battle of Dunkirk, and was wounded while escaping (successfully) from a Nazi concentration camp. After Belgium was liberated from Nazi tyranny on February 4, 1945, young Fr. DePauw, less than three years a priest, became good friends with many of the American soldiers stationed there. 

The Nazi command (including Hitler himself) knew the days of their "Thousand Year Reich" were numbered. Nazi Germany would unconditionally surrender to the Allies just over three months later, on May 8, 1945 (one week after Hitler committed suicide). During those months before Germany's surrender, several high-ranking members of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party, would try to escape to South America. More than a few of them had planned for this when the tide of the war turned against them. As was the case with certain spies meant to wreak havoc in the United States (Operation Pastorius), they knew they would need to pretend to be Americans to get past certain U.S. check-points.  

These Nazis had learned to speak perfect, fluent English without a trace of a German accent. They made sure to know American idioms, pop culture, important figures, and even minutiae about where they allegedly lived in the United States. They would present themselves as American soldiers with fake papers (identification), and once past the check-point, they could use various means to escape to South America. Father was friends with a certain American sergeant, whose job it was to check the papers of any soldier seeking to leave and verify they were legitimate. 

One day, a Catholic chaplain with the U.S. Army arrived at the sergeant's check-point. Something about this chaplain just "didn't seem right" as he later told Fr. DePauw. He couldn't put his finger on what was wrong, so he detained him for over two hours asking question after question. All his answers checked out. At this point, the sergeant's Commanding Officer intervened. Pulling Father's friend aside, he asked him if he was out of his mind. "You're detaining a Catholic chaplain and an officer [all Chaplains start off with the rank of second-class lieutenant]. And you're basing this on..what? Some strange hunch? We're not the Nazis; this priest has rights. You release him now, and ask his forgiveness. Hopefully, he won't file a complaint against you leading to your court martial." (Dialogue from my memory and notes---Introibo). 

He went back and apologized to the priest. "That's OK young man, you're just doing your job! No hard feelings; I'm a priest and I forgive you." The sergeant--a devout Catholic from childhood-- boldly asked, "Father, may I ask just one last question, and I promise you may leave immediately?" The priest sighed. "Well, I've been here over two hours now, but go ahead--ask me your final question." The young sergeant looked straight into his eyes and asked, "Please tell me Father: What's the correct response to Introibo ad altare Dei?"  The "priest's" mouth dropped open; he was speechless. He was arrested and detained. Two days later it was revealed that the sergeant had successfully captured a high-ranking Nazi trying to escape. Fr. DePauw then said to me, "This should serve as a reminder that the test of a true priest--indeed--any true Catholic, is how well they know and love the True Mass." 

Many times in the more than ten years since I started this blog, readers have commented asking, "How could so many priests, theologians, bishops, etc., have gone along with the Vatican II sect?" Fr. DePauw gave the answer that day. By the 1950s, "country club Catholicism" had taken hold. People no longer took the study of the Integral Catholic Faith seriously--and the Mass was the most beautifully clear and concise exposition of that same Faith. You had priests offering Mass in a hurried and slovenly manner, without devotion and never giving sermons on the truths of Faith. Their vocations became little more than jobs they performed begrudgingly. The laity attended Mass out of habit, and would choose the aforementioned priests who offered Mass quickly and slovenly just to "get it over with" and do more important things--like watching sports or going shopping. The theologians who weren't Modernists, had rationalized what was happening post-1958 because they didn't want to accept the truth about what was going on. As for most of the rest, they never even realized what they lost--the greatest gift in the universe; the One True Faith. 

The lack of knowledge of the Faith continues to be exemplified today, in those holding themselves out to be "teachers" and even "saviors" of the Church.  Two such examples will suffice to make my point:

• $teve $kojec, of the site "One Peter Five," is the owner of a "theology-free" zone. His basic contention is that the Church can (and has) defected, and the "pope" can be a heretic. He makes six-figures from donations so people can listen to him explain why they should follow his teachings over that of the man he acknowledges as "pope." He offers very little more than his own ipse dixit for his assertions. What can this man possibly know of the True Faith? 

• David L. Gray of davidlgray.info, has a Masters degree in theology, and no discernable credentials in history, yet promotes himself as both a "theologian" and a "historian." His articles and videos are little more than his (badly informed) opinions on various topics such as sedevacantism and the Novus Bogus "mass." 

A few weeks ago, an acquaintance gave me a self-published book by one Adam S. Miller, and wanted my opinion on it. Miller is a "Vatican II sect Feeneyite"--- he accepts the Vatican II sect which teaches universal salvation, while simultaneously holding the Feeneyite heresy which denies Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood. Don't try to make sense of it, because you really can't. His book is entitled Is the New Mass (sic) of Pope (sic) Paul VI Invalid?, (second edition, 2010). At 114 pages, it is a short (and very painful) read. One of the stated purposes of his book is to be "A refutation of the arguments denying the validity of the N.O.M." ["Novus Ordo Missae" or "New Order of Mass (sic)"]. This post will show just how badly he fails in this endeavor, with a virtually citationless rambling devoid of even a basic understanding of Catholic theology. 

Miller: Wrong in Even His Basic Contentions

From the back cover: Whether traditional or progressive, conservative or liberal in orientation, all Catholics will benefit from this work, for the Eucharistic sacrifice of the Mass is the center piece (sic) of Catholic life.

While the Sacrifice of the Mass is indeed the "centerpiece of Catholic life," you are either Catholic or not. In the Vatican II sect, there are divisions just like in Anglicanism. You can be "High Church," "Low Church," or "Broad Church," although they are all pretty much Marxists these days. Is Miller implying there are four divisions in the Church? Is traditional the same as conservative and progressive the same as liberal? What is an "orientation"? What is the "conservative" orientation on transubstantiation versus the "liberal" orientation? This is an outgrowth of the heretical ecclesiology of Vatican II. You are either (a) Catholic and accept all Church teachings or (b) you are not Catholic by way of heresy, schism, or apostasy (assuming a valid baptism). 

Miller barely mentions the "elephant in the room." 

Most of his tome is dedicated to showing that the Novus Bogus "mass" is valid despite the corrupted Consecration Form over the Wine. He spends most of his pages "refuting" Fr. James Wathen (ordained 1958, d. 2006), Patrick Henry Omlor (d. 2013), and Dr./Fr. Rama Coomaraswamy (d.2006). Fr. Wathen was a "recognize and resist" (R&R) Feeneyite. Both Omlor and Coomaraswamy were sedevacantists from the early days (1960s). Only briefly does Miller address sedevacantism. This is analogous to writing a critique of Dwight David Eisenhower and Douglas MacArthur and only briefly mentioning they were army generals. Sedevacantism also explains much which his book doesn't even try to defend:

• If Montini wasn't pope (Paul VI), then his service must be rejected outright since Canon 1257 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law states that "Only the Apostolic See has the right to regulate the liturgy [i.e., the ritual of public worship] and to approve liturgical books." (See canonists Abbo and Hannon, The Sacred Canons, [1952], 2:512).  

• Miller devotes seven pages to an addendum "Was the New Mass Legally-Canonically Promulgated?" (pgs. 103-109). He correctly proves that Montini went through all the procedures necessary to promulgate the Novus Bogus. He also correctly states that the Church cannot give that which is evil, citing to Canon VII on the Mass from the Council of Trent. Finally, he gets it right that the only way to claim the so-called "New Mass" is evil is to be a sedevacantist because to hold Paul VI to Benedict XVI as real popes, and claim the new Rite evil, would involve a contradiction. 

• Where Miller goes seriously wrong is when he states on page 104, One reason that we know that the sedevacantist position cannot be sustained is that Pope Paul VI did  properly and legally approve and promulgate the N.O.M., despite what some say about its legality. Huh? I don't know of any sedevacantist who holds that Montini wasn't pope because he didn't properly promulgate the Novus Bogus and thereby ceased to be pope. It is morally certain that Montini was not pope from at least November 21, 1964, when he signed the heretical document Lumen Gentium. If he were truly pope, the Holy Ghost would have prevented him from signing it. (I am of the opinion Montini never attained to the papacy). A pope falls from office by Divine Law if--as a private theologian--he professes heresy. That Miller could write such drivel in 2010, with so much information about sedevacantism on the Internet alone, is deplorable. 

It's All That Matters

For a Sacrament to be valid, five things are necessary: proper minister, correct matter, correct form, proper intention on the part of the minister, and no invalidating obex ("obstacle") on the part of the recipient. (See theologian Tanquerey, Dogmatic Theology, [1959], pgs. 183-213). In the Eucharist, which can only come about through the Mass, the proper minister would be a valid priest or bishop. Correct matter is unleavened bread (in the Latin Rite) and wine; correct form is the Words of Consecration over both bread and wine. Proper intention means the offering priest or bishop must intend to do what the Church does, and in the Eucharist there can be no invalidating obex on the part of the one who receives. (An example of an invalidating obex would be Holy Orders performed on a woman). 

In the form of a sacrament, the form will be held as invalid where there is a substantial change in meaning. Hence, if the priest said, "THIS IS A SYMBOL OF MY BODY" instead of "THIS IS MY BODY," the Mass is invalid. Likewise, were he to say "THIS IS A BODY," it would also be invalid. Matter and form must be certainly valid, and doubtful matter must never be used. A doubtful sacrament is treated as invalid in the practical order. (See theologian Jone, Moral Theology, [1961], pgs. 308-309).  The International Commission on English in the Liturgy (ICEL) charged with translating the Novus Bogus into English changed the Words of Consecration over the Wine from: FOR THIS IS THE CHALICE OF MY BLOOD OF THE NEW AND EVERLASTING TESTAMENT: THE MYSTERY OF FAITH: WHICH SHALL BE SHED FOR YOU AND FOR MANY UNTO THE REMISSION OF SINS--to---FOR THIS IS THE CUP OF MY BLOOD, THE BLOOD OF THE NEW AND ETERNAL COVENANT; IT SHALL BE SHED FOR YOU AND FOR ALL MEN UNTO THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS. 

Several changes were made: the chalice is now a "cup," the phrase "the mystery of faith" was removed, and "many" was rendered as "all men"--and later to be politically correct---as "all." The problem with this "translation" (even a first year Latin student knows pro multis means "for many"), is that it substantially changes the meaning of Our Lord's own words. (The "correct translation" was produced by Joachim Jeremias, a Protestant theologian--See The Eucharistic Words of Jesus, [1977], pgs. 178-182; 225-231; his translation was later definitively proven wrong by myriad Biblical scholars). 

The Catechism of the Council of Trent tells us Christ said many not all and explained why:

With reason, therefore, were the words for all not used, as in this place the fruits of the Passion are alone spoken of, and to the elect only did His Passion bring the fruit of salvation. And this is the purport of the Apostle when he says: ‘Christ was offered once to exhaust the sins of many’; and also of the words of our Lord in John: ‘I pray for them; I pray not for the world, but for them whom Thou hast given Me, because they are Thine. (Emphasis mine). Christ was speaking of the efficacy of His Sacrifice, the many who would cooperate with His grace and actually achieve salvation. It is true that Christ died for all--that His Sacrifice was sufficient for all to be saved--but all do not believe and live good lives so only many will be saved. Hence, by changing "many" to "all" the Vatican II sect introduced the heresy of Universalism (that all go to Heaven) into the very Words of Christ, falsely making Our Lord speak a lie. This alone made the service dubious, and hence to be avoided. (The Vatican II sect actually changed "all" back to "many" in 2008--after most valid priests had passed away). 

Miller attempts to tell us that either word (many or all) is valid. The reasons he gives are incredibly flawed. Before going through his attempted defense of the Consecration, there are two independent reasons the Novus Bogus is invalid, yet since he dismisses sedevacantism, Miller doesn't even address them. 

1. Invalid Minister of the Sacrament. Montini's new Rites of priestly ordination and episcopal consecration are invalid. Without a valid priesthood, it doesn't matter what the so-called priest says, it will be null and void. Therefore, after 40 years of invalid Holy Orders starting in 1968, the sect changed the words back. Secondly, the idea of Universalism had sufficiently permeated all aspects of the Vatican II sect, so they could throw a bone to "conservative" members to show they are "interested in preserving Catholic truth." 

2. Invalid Intention. The Words of Consecration are now called the Words of Institution, and recited within an "Institution Narrative" in the "Eucharistic Prayer." In the Canon of the Mass, the priest must stop, bend over the host or chalice to be Consecrated, and speaking in a secret (low) voice, he must say the words attentively and devoutly without interruption. This is to show that the priest is not simply repeating the Words of Our Lord spoken almost 2000 years ago in some narration of a historical event, but he intends to perform the action of Consecration effectuating transubstantiation here and now. In reciting the Words of Institution in an Institution Narrative, the "priest" does the exact opposite. He reads it as one big historical story, thereby vitiating his intention to consecrate, according to some theologians like rubrician O'Connell. It is analogous to baptizing a baby within the context of reading the Gospel of St. Matthew Chapter 28--is the intent to baptize here and now, or are you simply reciting what took place in the time of Our Lord's life on Earth? 

Many Defenses--All Fail

Miller offers the following arguments to prove that the Words of Consecration over the wine are valid with the word all replacing many:

1. The word "all" does not necessitate the heresy of Universalism, because it can be interpreted as meaning "many."

Scripture. Despite the clear teaching of the Council of Trent that the word "all" was specifically not used, Miller claims that "all" can be used in place of "many" without substantial change. He cites verses of Scripture to (allegedly) prove his point:

Romans 3:23 For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. (Emphasis mine). Yet Christ and His Mother never sinned, so all is not entirely inclusive. 

Philippians 2:21 For all seek the things that are their own; not the things that are Jesus Christ's. (Emphasis mine).  Obviously, some do seek the things of Christ, only many do not.

Two problems. (i) It is the Magisterium that decides the meaning of Scripture, not Adam Miller. The Catechism of the Council of Trent decided Christ said (and meant) "many," not "all" when He consecrated the wine--and explained why; case closed. (ii) There are times many means many in Scripture. How would Miller render these passages:

St. Matthew 7:13 Enter ye in at the narrow gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there are who go in thereat. (Emphasis mine). Many cannot mean all, unless everyone goes to Hell.

St. Matthew 24: 4-5  And Jesus answering, said to them: Take heed that no man seduce you: For many will come in My name saying, I am Christ: and they will seduce many. (Emphasis mine). Are we to read this as "For ALL will come in My name saying, I am the Christ; and they will seduce ALL"? 

2. Three Eastern Rite Liturgies Have Included the Word "All"

Miller describes the Anaphora of St. John the Evangelist (without citation) as saying:

This is the Chalice of My Blood of the New Testament: Take, drink ye of it: this is shed forth for the life of the world, for the expiation of transgressions, for the remission of sins to ALL that believe in Him forever and ever. (Emphasis in original; pg. 15). I have no idea where Miller got this as no citation is provided. Yet assuming, ad arguendo, it's legitimate, the phrase "That believe in Him [Christ] forever and ever" after the word ALL modifies the phrase so as to read, "ALL those who believe in Christ forever and ever" an expression signifying all the elect for which Christ's Blood was shed; the efficacy of Christ's Sacrifice about which the Council of Trent spoke. No such qualifying phrase exists in the Novus Bogus.

Miller then describes the Anaphora of St. Mark (again without citation) as saying:

This is the Blood of the New Testament: Take, drink ye all of it, for the remission of sins of you and of ALL the true faithful, and for eternal life. (Emphasis in original; pg. 15) Once more, assuming ad arguendo, that this is legitimate, the phrase "the true faithful" modifies all so as to read, "ALL the true faithful" i.e., the elect. 

Interestingly, I was unable to find these Anaphoras in my pre-Vatican II books on the Eastern Rite Liturgies. I did , however, find them online as part of Eastern Schismatic Liturgies. 

(See syriacorthodoxresources.org/Liturgy/Anaphora/John.html; See also syriacorthodoxresources.org/Liturgy/Anaphora/Mark.html). 

Lastly, Miller claims the Maronite rite used to have the word "ALL" in the Consecration of the Wine. However, for his sources he lists an "Eparchial Liturgist" from Brooklyn (without citation to where he got this information) and even the "Liturgist" admits, "The original Syriac texts from our Liturgy [was] translated 'For Many.'" (See Miller's book pg. 16). He also cites an Eastern Rite priest of the Vatican II sect "from a private correspondence with an associate of the author." Basically, "a friend of a friend told me..." That's not exactly, "the sources of scholars." As this source is unverifiable, of dubious expertise, and not unbiased, I will simply dismiss it. 

3. The "Principle of Supplied Catholic Understanding." 

 

You've never heard of the Principle of Supplied Catholic Understanding (PSCU)? Don't feel bad; neither has anyone else. Adam Miller made it up. On pg. 19 of his book, Miller writes:

At Vatican Council I, the Church infallibly declared that what She puts forth is "to be believed and held by all the faithful according to the ancient and continual faith of the Universal Church" (Pastor Aeternus, Denz:1821 [DS:3052]; italics added).

He then tells his readers The Church, then, requires the faithful to understand the approved new form, as she does for all the others, according to Catholic teaching, according to what she means by the terms. No, Adam, She does not. The term in magic tricks "hocus pocus" is an anti-Catholic slur. The Words of Consecration over the bread (in the true Mass) are HOC EST ENIM CORPUS MEUM (FOR THIS IS MY BODY). Protestants said it was "pope-ish magic" changing bread into God by "Hoc-est Poc-est." That became corrupted to "hocus pocus" and was to be associated with magic. According to Miller's PSCU, if  "hocus pocus" replaced the traditional form, Catholics would be required to understand it as the valid Form. Maybe he should call his invented principle "The Principle of Orwellian Newspeak" where war is peace, freedom is slavery, and many is all. 

Miller's only citation for his made up PSCU is part of a sentence twisted out of context from the 1870 Vatican Council's infallible decree on the primacy and infallibility of the Roman Pontiff. Here's what Pastor Aeternus says in context:

We, for the preservation, safe-keeping, and increase of the Catholic flock, with the approval of the Sacred Council, judge it to be necessary to propose, to be believed and held by all the faithful according to the ancient and continual faith of the Universal Church, the doctrine of the institution, perpetuity, and nature of the sacred Apostolic Primacy, by which the strength and solidity of the entire Church is established, and at the same time to proscribe and condemn the contrary errors, which are so harmful to the flock of Christ. (Emphasis mine). The Vatican Council of 1870 was teaching that the doctrine of the Apostolic Primacy was "to be believed and held by all the faithful" because it was always held "according to the ancient and continual faith of the Universal Church." It has absolutely nothing to do with the interpretations concerning the forms of sacraments. That's why there isn't a single approved theologian or canonist who teaches the "PSCU." It doesn't exist.

Finally, why does Miller even care what words are used in the Consecration at Mass? In October of 2001, the Modernist Vatican published a document entitled Guidelines for Admission to the Eucharist between the Chaldean Church and the Assyrian Church of the East. It declared as valid a liturgy that contains no Words of Consecration at all. The Anaphora makes reference to the Body and Blood of Christ, and even says that we offer to God the Body and Blood of Christ, but there is nowhere to be found anything that even comes close to what the Modernists call an "Institution Narrative" and what Catholics call the Words of Consecration. Why does the Vatican II sect consider it valid? "...the words of Eucharistic Institution are indeed present in the Anaphora of Addai and Mari, not in a coherent narrative way and ad litteram, but rather in a dispersed euchological (!) way, that is, integrated in successive prayers of thanksgiving, praise, and intercession." This overthrows all Catholic teaching on the matter and form of the Sacrament since the founding of the Church. Miller should have used this made up "euchological way" to argue for validity, which sounds more impressive (but makes no more sense), than the PSCU.

4. The Words "This is My Body" and "This is the Chalice of My Blood" are sufficient for Consecrating the Eucharist.

The Church has never defined whether those words alone suffice. Some theologians agree, some teach more than those words are necessary. Since there can be no doubt in confecting the sacraments, the "Long Form" using all the words is necessary to ensure against invalidity.

What the Church Teaches

Theologian Halligan teaches:

The form of consecration of the bread is: “Hoc est enim corpus meum,” of the wine: “Hic est enim calix sanguinis mei, novi et aeterni testamenti, mysterium fidei, qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum.” The word “enim” does not pertain to validity and its omission is a venial sin. The words which precede these formulas, viz., “Qui pridie… Simili modo…” in no way pertain to the form. It is commonly taught today that the essential words of the form of the Eucharist—and their omission would invalidate the form—are: “Hoc est corpus meum,” “Hic est calix sanguinis mei” (or “Hic ast sanguis meus”). Some hold that the remaining words “novi et…” are essential. In practice it is gravely prescribed to pronounce the entire form; if any of the words from “novi et…” on are omitted, the whole form is to be repeated conditionally. (See The Administration of the Sacraments, [1962], pg. 103). 

The words must be repeated conditionally because since the Church has not settled the matter, the whole form (not just "This is the Chalice of My Blood") must be used to remove doubt because they may be necessary to validity. The old axiom, "A doubtful sacrament is no sacrament at all," holds true.

Why would those other words be necessary? According to theologian Wengier:

That is why His consecration or transubstantiation had to be and was sacrificial or propitiatory. And He clearly expressed that propitiatory character of His consecration by the words: “quod pro vobis tradetur” —“which shall be delivered for you” and “qui pro vobis, et pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum” —”which shall be shed for you and for many unto the remission of sins.” Consequently, we, too, must use the same words or their equivalent. We must clearly express the propitiatory or sacrificial character of our consecration, because our Mass is the same Sacrifice as that of Christ renewed by us, as the Council of Trent teaches and as it is clear from the institution itself. A simple formula demonstrating the presence of Christ’s Body and Blood under the species does not tell us whether that which Christ did or what we do is a sacrifice or not. Therefore, besides the demonstrative words, our consecration form needs other words determining the purpose of the Blood’s effusion, which is the destruction of sin. This doctrine of St. Thomas and his followers, Henricus Henriquez, Amicus, and others, is in perfect harmony with the nature of our Mass.

It is not necessary to express that teleology in both consecrations. Our Latin formula omits the ‘quod pro vobis tradetur’ in the consecration of the bread. It prefers to give to the teleology its formal place, namely, in the consecration of the wine, which being changed into Blood apparently separated (in the species only!) from the Body, formally signifies its death — death which subsequently our formula determines, adding the purpose of this death: ‘pro vobis… pro multis … in remissionem peccatorum.’

The transubstantiation, then, is not sufficient by itself for a Mass. It must be a sacrificial transubstantiation, expressing an oblation made to God for sins. This peculiar expression must be verbal (not only mental), because it is an integral part of the form of the Eucharistic Sacrifice, and every sacrifice (in the strict sense) is an external act of worship, signifying the internal dedication. (See The Eucharistic Sacrifice, [1955], pg. 157). 

Conclusion

When people don't understand the Mass and the Integral Catholic Faith, you get a 114 page tome that uses a made up principle, and a false understanding of Sacramental Theology, to convince you a Modernist bread and wine service performed around a table is a valid "mass." It's no wonder Adam Miller is in the Vatican II sect and a Feeneyite. Had people only understood and loved the Faith and Mass, the Great Apostasy may not have happened as it did back in 1964. 

To this day, I have yet to meet a priest who offered the Mass with more love and devotion than Father DePauw. In the sacristy, he had a plaque from a Church destroyed in Belgium during World War II. It read, "Priest of Christ: Offer this Mass as if it were your First Mass; as if it were your Last Mass; as if it were your Only Mass." Father read it every day, and lived by those words. For those of us lucky enough to still have access to a Traditionalist Church or Chapel, let's never take what we have for granted. Rather, as Lent winds down, let's resolve as follows--"Member of Christ's One True Church: Attend this Mass as if it were your First Mass, as if it were your Last Mass, as if it were your Only Mass." 

ADDENDUM--3/24/21

A member of the Vatican II sect has been commenting below in an attempt to prove the Novus Bogus to be valid. I'm adding this addendum since it is more appropriate and beneficial to my readership to see the objections he raises and my replies together as an addendum.---Introibo 

Preliminary remark: As a member of the Vatican II sect, my interlocutor accepts the Pauline Ordination and Consecration Rites of 1968 as valid, so he does not address the lack of proper minister. He has not touched upon defect of intention arising from an "Institution Narrative." He believes Montini (Paul VI) had the right to change the Mass as he was allegedly "pope." Hence, I will only defend my assertion of defect in form. I will paraphrase his objections which can be read in the original comments below. 

Objection #1:  The Novus Bogus signifies the passion in the consecratory prayer of the bread, "which is given for you." Likewise, it is indicated by the short phrase "which is shed for you." The sacrificial nature is also indicated in the phrase "shed for you." The fruits are being applied to those receiving the sacrament. The translation issue between "for many" and "for all" doesn't negate that.  If the bread can be transubstantiated without sacrificial terminology, then so can the blood.

Indeed the sacrificial character and the fruits of the mass are indicated by "shed for you" just as much as "given for you." Both of which are contained in the Novus Bogus. The "short form" is therefore sufficient for a valid Mass. 

Reply: From theologian  de la Taille, Mysterium Fidei (1931):

It is quite certain, as all admit, that the words: This is My Body, This is the chalice of My Blood (or other equivalent words), by which is demonstrated the presence of the Body and the Blood of Christ under the appearance of the bread and the wine, are essential to the form of consecration. But a further question arises: whether, in addition to this indication of the Body and the Blood of Christ, there is necessary, as a part of the form, and as an essential part of it, a determination of the propitiatory end in view, as, for example, by words which indicate that what is enacted in symbol is done for us, unto the remission of sins.

“St. Thomas, after Innocent III (whose words are quoted below), in 3 S. 78,3, and more positively still in I Cor., II, lect 6, together with all his early disciples, whom the Salmanticenses quote with approval, maintains that such words are essential (De Euchar. Sacram., disp. 9, dub. E, para. 2, n. 22). Modern theologians for the most part, following St. Bonaventure (4 D. 8,2,1,2), deny that such words are essential.

“Two main arguments are given for this denial: one resting on intrinsic principles; the other drawn from positive dogmatic sources.

“The first line of reasoning is as follows: the conversion of the bread into the Body and the wine into the Blood is quite sufficiently signified without any further determination of the kind mentioned: therefore it is effected without this further determination; because in the Sacraments the words effect what they signify.

“The second reason is this: neither the Scripture narratives nor the liturgies agree as to the precise tenor of these determinative words. Therefore they are outside the ambit of the form.

“However, neither of these reasons seems convincing.

“Taking the second argument first, we find a sufficient refutation of it in the following fact: in every one of the liturgies, with the exception of a few very corrupt Ethiopian ones (some of which are known aliunde to be invalid), as well as some very degraded productions of the Syrian schismatics, we find invariably conveyed, besides the separate demonstration of the Body and Blood, an indication of the propitiatory intention for which the symbolic separation of Body and Blood, or the blood-shedding designated by it is made. So we have, in every case, an equivalent sense in the formulae; and this, we maintain, is all that is necessary to secure the necessary uniformity of the form, as will be sufficiently proved by what we have to say immediately in refutation of the first objection proposed above, by the development of our own intrinsic argument, derived from the nature of things.

“Coming, then, to the first argument of our adversaries, we think that it is sufficiently refuted by the development of our own argument. But first we must presuppose that there is no question here of what Christ could have done, if He willed, but only of what He did will to do. And it is quite plain that He willed to offer sacrifice. Again the question is not, here, whether the indication of the Body and Blood of Christ under the appearance of bread and wine would of itself sufficiently signify (and accordingly would avail, if our Lord so instituted, to accomplish effectively) some real presence or not; but the question is: would such an indication signify a real presence in the condition of immolation whereby the sacrifice would be enacted? And this, it seems, we must deny. For the real presence of the Body and Blood of Christ could undoubtedly be realized by the actual effective words without any sacrifice whatever; just as Christ could, without sacrifice, change into His Body and Blood any other kind of material (corporeas) substances, such as stones, water and so on. Certainly just as Christ could have died without His death having the proper character of a sacrifice (as is the case with the martyrs); so, too, He could have left us some symbol of His death in His Body and Blood, even to be partaken of by us at a common banquet by way of food, for instance for the sole purpose of fostering charity amongst us, and all this without dedicating a victim to God, or without any propitiatory action. But Christ did in fact will that this conversion of the bread and wine into His Body and Blood should be a sacrifice; by transubstantiation He willed to offer sacrifice, He willed to offer the transubstantiation, but to make a transubstantiation whence He Himself would issue as God’s Victim or Theothyte.

“This being His will, the mere indication of His Body and Blood would not suffice for His purpose in the line of sacramental form: for it would not express this purpose, as we have said above; it was necessary that a further determination should be added to this demonstration of the Body and Blood, by which it would be plain that what was done was sacrificial, immolative. And for this it would be sufficient if the work done were plainly designated as propitiatory.

“That is to say, it would suffice if it were plainly indicated that for us the Blood was asked from the Body, and that the death so brought about availed for us before God unto the remission of sins, whether this be expressed as in the formula of our Missal (qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum), or by any other equivalent formula, as already explained by us in III (Vol. I)…

“Amicus, S.J., is even more clear and explicit (De Sacram., disp. 24, n. 46): You will urge: at least the words for you, for many are not necessary, seeing that the sacrificial character is sufficiently declared by the words shall be shed. But we deny the consequence. For unless the end to which the blood-shedding is directed be expressed, THE SACRIFICIAL CHARACTER IS NOT EXPRESSED, SINCE THE BLOOD COULD BE SHED, AND STILL NOT BE SHED BY WAY OF SACRIFICE: IF, FOR EXAMPLE, IT WERE SHED NOT AS AN ACT OF WORSHIP ON THE PART OF ANYONE NOR FOR THE BENEFIT OF ANY ONE” (Emphasis in the original).

As was pointed out by one of my readers, Aquinas believes "This is My Body" alone expresses a sacrificial character:

Summa Theologica, Third Part, Question 78, Article 3, Reply to Objection 2:

As was said above (ad 1; 76, 2, ad 1), the blood consecrated apart expressly represents Christ's Passion, and therefore mention is made of the fruits of the Passion in the consecration of the blood rather than in that of the body, since the body is the subject of the Passion. This is also pointed out in our Lord's saying, "which shall be delivered up for you," as if to say, "which shall undergo the Passion for you."

Hence, the sacrificial nature was expressed twice. Yet the Church demands that the ENTIRE form be recited, because the Church did not settle the question. Theologian de la Taille, approvingly quoting another eminent theologian (Amicus), does not agree that "shall be shed" suffices--as seen above. 

Objection #2: But if it is morally certain that the "short form" suffices, isn't that proof the "long form" is not needed, just "This is My Body" and "This is My Blood...which shall be shed"?

Reply: No. It was the teaching of many theologians that the short form would suffice, but IN PRACTICE the long form must be used BECAUSE THE CHURCH HERSELF HAS NOT DECLARED IT SUFFICIENT AND DEMANDS RECITATION OF THE ENTIRE FORM. When something is declared morally certain by the Church you may do so. The controversy over the handing over the instruments of Sacrifice for Holy Orders is a good example. Most theologians declared it morally certain that it was not necessary, citing to the Eastern Rites that did not do it, but had valid orders. Nevertheless, the Church had not decided, and if there was a defect in the traditio instrumentorum, it had to be conditionally repeated, and the priest could not function until it was corrected. 

It wasn't until 1947 when Pope Pius XII settled the issue in Sacramentum Ordinis. Although the pontiff agreed that the Eastern Rites were valid without the traditio instrumentorum, it may have been necessary to validity by ecclesiastical precept in the Latin Rite. "If it was at one time necessary even for validity by the will and command of the Church, every one knows that the Church has the power to change and abrogate what she herself has established...It follows as a consequence that We should declare, and in order to remove all controversy and to preclude doubts of conscience, We do by Our Apostolic Authority declare, and if there was ever a lawful disposition to the contrary We now decree that at least in the future the traditio instrumentorum is not necessary for the validity of the Sacred Orders of the Diaconate, the Priesthood, and the Episcopacy." (para. # 3 & 4). 

Until the Church authoritatively settles what exact words are necessary, we must keep Her command to repeat the ENTIRE FORM, for She has declared it so by Pope St Pius V and Pope Benedict XIV. 

Objection #3: If a sacrament needs to be repeated even one has moral certainty regarding its validity that would put sedevacantists in a precarious position regarding the sacrament of confession. Overlooking the fact that supplied jurisdiction only applies when common error prevails, and since the majority of sedevacantists explicitly deny there are bishops with ordinary jurisdiction (or have doubtful jurisdiction), then supplied jurisdiction doesn’t apply.

Reply: I addressed jurisdiction here: http://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2016/07/the-church-can-supply-jurisdiction-but.html. His objection fails because the Church has not decided the issue and the Church requires the long form. We have moral certainty for Penance. The analogy is therefore inapposite and fails.  The problem with this Vatican II sect apologist is that he wants to decide the issue with his (non-existent) Magisterial authority.

(I asked the V2 apologist if he accepted Wojtyla's Mass without the Words of Consecration. The following Objection summarizes what he claims). 

Objection #4:  "Do you not accept the decision ratified by John Paul the Great Apostate that NO WORDS OF CONSECRATION ARE NECESSARY?" Have you ever examined the anaphora of St. Sixtus II? What is required is that a substantial change occurs. This may be indicated in various ways. Likewise, the sacrificial nature of the mass may be indicated in various ways also.

Reply: Yes I have. The anaphora of "St. Xystus" is from the Schismatic EO and has never been declared  valid. Uniates (Eastern Rites in union with Rome) were required to ADD THE WORDS OF CONSECRATION to many of their anaphoras before Vatican II. Proof: On May 23, 1957, The Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office declared invalid the concelebration of the Mass by priests who, whatever their intention may be and even wearing all the Sacred Vestments fail to pronounce the Words of Consecration. (See Acta Apostolicae Sedis 49, [1957], pg. 370).

In this post I have demonstrated that the Church cannot change the substance of the Sacraments. Yet we have a service which they approved --an Eastern Schismatic/heretical  Nestorian service that contains NO WORDS OF CONSECRATION. 

Ad arguendo,  let's assume Wojtyla was a true pope (John Paul II). The fact that he has dispensed with the Words of Consecration, the Form of the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist, we would have to conclude one of two things:

• Christ's words at the Last Supper pertain to the substance of the sacrament AND the Church can change the substance of the Sacraments--OR---
• Christ's words at the Last Supper do NOT pertain to the substance of the sacrament

Either conclusion is: (a) against ALL Catholic teaching and practice on the subject, and (b) goes against the unanimous teaching of the approved theologians, canonists, and Doctors of the Church. 

Like so many other members of the Vatican II sect, my interlocutor makes bold statements that can't be backed up. He states: "What is required is that a substantial change occurs. This may be indicated in various ways. Likewise, the sacrificial nature of the mass may be indicated in various ways also."

Says who? By who, I mean what pope has declared that a service devoid of the words "This is My Body" and "This is My Blood" (let alone the Long Form!) can confect the Sacrament? Certainly no valid pope pre-Vatican II. Not the Holy Office or any other Roman Congregation. No Doctor of the Church, approved theologian or canonist HAD EVER TAUGHT THOSE WORDS COULD BE ABSENT AND NOT SPOKEN "IN THE PERSON OF CHRIST" (in persona Christi).

The fact my interlocutor does not want to face is that Vatican II started a new sect with a false pope.

Wojtyla was one of them. I pray to God he may wake up and convert to the One True Church of Christ.