Problem With New Rites of Vatican II

                     Antipope John Paul II with Invalid Host of Eucharist

   Antipope Paul VI gave a Banner of Lepanto or Battle flag which seized from a Turkish ship as a gesture of Bad will to remove Pius V's Promulgation. 

 

As we know, that Antipope Paul VI also gave a Lepanto Banner for Saracens. Why it can be happened? The simple answer is Betrayal and Apostasy. 

A Lepanto Banner or Battle Flag from Ottoman was proposed or suggestion from Pope Pius V as Symbol of Holy League Greatness. So that Flag was used by Pope St. Pius V to repulse Ottomans from East of Europe back to Islambul and until World War I, Ottoman Empire with Islambul (prev. Constantinople) was conquered by 3 Catholic Generals, Somerset Gaugh Calthorpe, Carlo Sforza, and Louis d'Esperey on 12 November 1918.

Now, since the Second Vatican Council, why did Antipope Paul VI remove the Flag of Lepanto that was seized from the Turks?

The answer is as a form of resistance to what was promulgated, what was perfectly standardized by Pope St. Pius V, especially regarding the Tridentine Mass.

Why? because the Tridentine Mass is a very militant Mass, a Mass where the homily is full of firmness, full of Church militancy. Even though the Satanic French Revolution tried to eliminate the ideology of Theocracy in the Catholic Monarchy, it still did not dampen the spirit of the true Catholic Faith which is still very enriched with Licitly Sacraments and even most of it comes from the very clear Apostolic Succession.

                                                              Lepanto Flag

                                  Pope St. Pius V

Pope Pius V was an inquisitor and is venerated as a saint of the Catholic Church. He is chiefly notable for his role in the implementation of the Council of Trent, the Counter-Reformation, Anti-Protestantism, Church Militancy, and the standardization of the Roman Rite within the Latin Church, known as the Tridentine mass. Pius V declared Thomas Aquinas a Doctor of the Church.

He also arranged the formation of the Holy League, an alliance of Catholic states to combat the advancement of the Ottoman Empire in Eastern Europe. Although outnumbered, the Holy League famously defeated the Ottomans at the Battle of Lepanto in 1571. Pius V attributed the victory to the intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary and instituted the feast of Our Lady of Victory. Biographers report that as the Battle of Lepanto ended, Pius rose and went over to a window, where he stood gazing toward the East. "...[L]ooking at the sky, he cried out, 'A truce to business; our great task at present is to thank God for the victory which He has just given the Christian army'." (Source: " Pope St. Pius V" Catholic Encyclopedia) 

Accordingly, to implement a decision of that council, he standardized the Mass by promulgating the 1570 edition of the Roman Missal. Pius V made this Missal mandatory throughout the Latin Church, except where a Mass liturgy dating from before 1370 was in use. This form of the Mass remained essentially unchanged for 400 years until Antipope Paul VI's revision of the Roman Missal in 1969–70, after which it has become widely known as the Tridentine Mass.

                Tridentine Mass at St. Gertrude The Great Roman Catholic Church

 

        Tridentine Mass at Congregation of St. Pius V in Ohio. 

But, Antipope Paul VI evilly changed many forms and materials of the Sacraments, as well as changing many Intentions in the Sacraments as a form of resistance and betrayal of the Vatican against Pope Pius V. These actions were making invalidating changes to the Mass, the Rites of Ordination and Episcopal Consecration, as we covered already, Paul VI changed the rites of all five other sacraments. To continue from this post : https://romancatholictraditional.blogspot.com/2025/06/antipope-paul-vi-his-counter-church.html?m=1 , we will explain to all of you, what's wrong with Vatican II Rites of Sacraments. 

New Rites of Ordination

On June 18, 1968, Anti-Pope Paul VI promulgated a new rite for the priestly ordination.

           

The matter and the form of the sacrament remained almost the same as in the rite promulgated by Pope Pius XII in November 1948. There are only two small changes in the form, which do not however affect the meaning of the sacrament; in fact, they specify it better. 

The novelty and danger of the new rite consists especially in the abolition of the two ceremonies by which the bishop clearly explains the powers of the Catholic priest:

1)   In relation to the power to offer Mass:

Old Rite	New Rite
“Receive the power to offer the Sacrifice to God and to celebrate Masses for the living and the dead.”	“Let our Lord Jesus Christ, whom the Father anointed by the Holy Ghost and by fortitude, guard you in order that you may offer the sacrifice to God and sanctify the Christian people.”

2)   In relation to the power to hear confession:

Old Rite	New Rite
The second imposition of hands along with a quote of Our Lord Himself:  “Receive  the Holy Ghost, whose sins you  shall  forgive, they are forgiven them, and  whose  sins you shall retain, they are retained.”(John 20:22)	Abolished completely

These two ceremonies in the traditional rite of ordination indicated clearly that the priest has two powers:

1.   The first, on the physical Body of Christ, consisting in offering the Sacrifice for the living and the dead.

2.   The second, on the mystical Body of Christ i.e. the sanctification of the faithful, especially by the forgiveness of sins in the sacrament of Confession.

While these two powers are mentioned in the new formulas, it is not done very clearly:

-  The Sacrifice is no longer for the living and the dead.

- The sanctification of the faithful does not come firstly by the forgiveness of sins, which puts souls in the state of grace.

In addition to having invalidating changes made to the Mass, the Devil knew that he had to tamper with the rite of ordination so that the priests of the New Church would be invalid as well.

The New Rite of Holy Orders (bishops, priests, deacons) was approved and imposed by Paul VI on June 18, 1968. The following information is crucial for all Catholics to know, since it concerns the validity of essentially every “priest” ordained within the diocesan structure since approximately 1968; and consequently, it concerns the validity of countless confessions, indult Masses, etc.

                                    Pope Pius XII

On Nov. 30, 1947, Pope Pius XII issued an apostolic Constitution called “Sacramentum Ordinis.” In this Constitution, Pope Pius XII declared, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, the words that are necessary for a valid ordination to the priesthood.

TRADITIONAL FORM FOR ORDINATION OF PRIESTS

Pope Pius XII, Sacramentum Ordinis, Nov. 30, 1947: “But regarding the matter and form in the conferring of every order, by Our same supreme apostolic authority We decree and establish the following: … In the ordination of priests, the matter is the first imposition of the bishop’s hands which is done in silence… But the form [of Ordination] consists of the words of the preface of which the following are essential and so required for validity:

“Grant, we beseech You, Almighty Father, to these Your servants, the dignity of the Priesthood (presbyterii dignitatem); renew the spirit of holiness within them, so that they may hold from You, O God, the office of the second rank in Your service and by the example of their behavior afford a pattern of holy living.”

Here is the form of the New Rite of Ordination of Priests:

 “Grant, we beseech You, Almighty Father, to these Your servants, the dignity of the Priesthood; renew within them the spirit of holiness. May they hold from You, the office of the second rank in Your service and by the example of their behavior afford a pattern of holy living.”

The difference between the two forms is that the Latin word “ut” (which means “so that”) has been omitted in the New Rite. This may seem insignificant, but in Sacramentum Ordinis Pius XII declared that this word was essential for validity. Further, the omission of “so that” gives rise to a relaxation of the naming of the sacramental effect (conferring the office of the second rank). In other words, removing “so that” presupposes an ordination which has already taken place, but is not taking place as the words are being pronounced.

Since the new rite purports to be the Roman Rite, this removal of “ut” (so that) renders the new rite of questionable validity. 

Catholic theology teaches that in every sacrament this outward sign consists of two elements joined together:

• Matter: some thing or action your senses can per-

ceive (pouring water, bread and wine, etc.)

• Form: the words recited that actually produce

the sacramental effect (“I baptize you…” “This is My

body…,” etc.)

Each sacramental rite, no matter how many other prayers and ceremonies the Church has prescribed for it, contains at least one sentence that either Catholic theologians or authoritative Church pronouncements have designated as its essential sacramental form. (Source: Absolutely Null and Utterly Void The 1968 Rite of Episcopal Consecration, by Rev. Anthony Cekada. For more know, you can visit this website : https://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/NewEpConsArtPDF2.pdf )

Michael Davies: “As the previous section made clear, every prayer in the traditional rite [of Ordination] which stated specifically the essential role of a priest as a man ordained to offer propitiatory sacrifice for the living and dead has been removed [from the New Rite of Paul VI]. In most cases these were the precise prayers removed by the Protestant reformers, or if not precisely the same there are clear parallels.”

Michael Davies: “… there is not one mandatory prayer in the new rite of ordination itself which makes clear that the essence of the Catholic priesthood is the conferral of the powers to offer the sacrifice of the Mass and to absolve men of their sins, and that the sacrament imparts a character which differentiates a priest not simply in degree but in essence from a layman… There is not a word in it that is incompatible with Protestant belief. (Source: Michael Davies, The Order of Melchisedech, Harrison, NY: Roman Catholic Books, 1993) 

Here are some of the specific prayers and ceremonies which set forth the true nature of the priesthood in the Traditional Rite which have been specifically eliminated from the New Rite of Ordination of Paul VI. The following information is found in Michael Davies, The Order of Melchisedech, pp. 79 and following.

In the Traditional Rite, the bishop addresses the ordinands and says:

► “For it is a priest’s duty to offer sacrifice, to bless, to lead, to preach and to baptize.”

This admonition has been abolished.

The Litany of the Saints then follows in the Traditional Rite. It has been cut short in the New Rite. The New Rite abolishes the following unecumenical assertion:

 “That Thou wouldst recall all who have wandered from the unity of the Church, and lead all believers to the light of the Gospel.”

Later on in the Traditional Rite, after pronouncing the essential form, which has been changed in the New Rite (see above), the bishop says another prayer, which includes the following:

 “Theirs be the task to change with blessing undefiled, for the service of thy people, bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Thy Son.”

This prayer has been abolished.

In the Traditional Rite, the bishop then intones the Veni Creator Spiritus. While anointing each priest he says:

 “Be pleased, Lord, to consecrate and sanctify these hands by this anointing, and our blessing. That whatsoever they bless may be blessed, and whatsoever they consecrate may be consecrated and sanctified in the name of Our Lord Jesus Christ.”

This prayer has been abolished. And this prayer was so significant that it was even mentioned by Pius XII in Mediator Dei #43:

Pope Pius XII, Mediator Dei (# 43), Nov. 20, 1947: “… they alone [priests] have been marked with the indelible sign ‘conforming’ them to Christ the Priest, and that their hands alone have been consecrated, ‘in order that whatever they bless may be blessed, whatever they consecrate may become sacred and holy, in the name of Our Lord Jesus Christ.’"

Notice that Pope Pius XII, in speaking of how the priests have been marked in ordination, makes reference to this very important prayer which was specifically abolished by Paul VI’s new 1968 Rite. It meaning that New Rite of Ordination is Invalid, and New Rite of Ordination which was promulgated by Paul VI is less more same like Anglican Ordination. 

               Traditional Rite of Ordination at St. Gertrude The       Great Roman Catholic Church

 In an October 14, 1966 memo, Bishop Juan Hervásy Benet (1905-1982), the Ordinary of Ciudad Real (Spain) and a promoter of Opus Dei, wrote to fellow study group members:

“It would be necessary to establish undeniably that the new form better and more perfectly signifies the sacramental action and its effect. That is to say, that it should be established in no uncertain terms that it contains no ambiguity, and that it omits nothing from among the principal charges which are proper to the episcopal order.… A doubt occurs to me concerning the words ‘Spiritus principalis’; do these words adequately signify the sacrament? "

Dom Botte’s explanation of Spiritus principalis was

essentially as follows:

• The expression “raised several difficulties” and

led to various translations.

• It occurs in Psalm 50:14, but its meaning there is

not necessarily linked to what the expression in the

consecration prayer meant for the 3rd-century Christian.

• “Spirit” designates the Holy Ghost.

• But what did the Greek word hegemonicos and its Latin equivalent principalis mean in the Christian vocabulary of the 3rd century?

• It meant this: Each of the three Holy Orders has a gift of the Holy Ghost, but not the same for each. Deacons = “spirit of zeal and solicitude,” priests =“spirit of counsel.” Bishops have the “spirit of authority.”

• The bishop is both leader who must govern and

high priest of the sanctuary. He is the ruler of the Church. So the word hegemonicos/principalis is understandable.

• Spiritus principalis therefore means the “gift of the Spirit proper to a leader.”

After this statement appeared, various vernacular translations were adjusted, and the official English translation became governing Spirit.

After the obscuration of the meaning of what was done by Antipope Paul VI. So from the word " Spiritus Principalis " which was obscured, this also influenced the development of the New Rite Consecration of the Bishop which was also Invalid.

New Rites of Episcopacy Consecration :

 “So now pour out upon this chosen one that power which is from you, the governing Spirit whom you gave to your beloved Son, Jesus Christ, the Spirit given by Him to the holy apostles, who founded the Church in every place to be your temple for the unceasing glory and praise of your name.”

This new form does not unequivocally signify the power of the episcopacy. The phrase “governing Spirit” is used to refer to many things in scripture or tradition (e.g. Psalm 50:14), but it doesn’t unequivocally signify the powers of the episcopacy. Therefore, the new form is of gravely doubtful validity.

In addition to the devastating change to the essential form, many other things have been deleted. In fact, there is not one unambiguous statement about the intended sacramental effect of Episcopal Consecration that can be found. In the Traditional Rite of Consecration, the consecrator instructs the bishop elect in the following terms:

”A bishop judges, interprets, consecrates, ordains, offers, baptizes and confirms.”

This has been abolished.

In the Traditional Rite, the bishop-to-be is asked to confirm his belief in each and every article of the Creed.

This has been abolished.

In the Traditional Rite, the bishop to be is asked if he will “anathematize every heresy that shall arise against the Holy Catholic Church.”

This has been abolished. The deletion of this requirement to anathematize heresy is significant, for this is indeed one of the functions of a bishop.

In the Traditional Rite, after the consecratory prayer, the functions of a bishop are once again specified in these words:

”Give him, O Lord, the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven... Whatsoever he shall bind upon earth, let it be bound likewise in Heaven, and whatsoever he shall loose upon earth, let it likewise be loosed in Heaven. Whose sins he shall retain, let them be retained, and do Thou remit the sins of whomsoever he shall remit... Grant him, O Lord, an Episcopal chair...”

This entire prayer has been abolished in the New Rite.

Conclusion: Paul VI’s New Rite of Episcopal Consecration has a radically different form from what Pius XII declared was necessary for validity. The new form does not unequivocally signify the powers of the episcopacy. The New Rite of Episcopal Consecration cannot be considered valid, since doubtful matter or form is considered invalid.

Cardinal Reginald Pole

Cardinal Reginald Pole said on 8 March 1554, distinguished two classes of priests :

" the first, those who had really received sacred orders, either before the secession of Henry VIII, or, if after it and by ministers infected by error and schism, still according to the accustomed Catholic Rite; the second, those who were initiated according to the Edwardine Ordinal, who on that account could be promoted, since they had received an ordination that was null" (For more know about Anglicanism, read it : https://romancatholictraditional.blogspot.com/2025/05/history-of-anglican-heretic-sect.html?m=1 ) 

                                    Pope Leo XIII

Pope Leo XIII reaffirmed what Cardinal Pole shared, 

Pope Leo XIII, Apostolicae Curae, Sept. 13, 1896: “When anyone has rightly and seriously made use of the due form and the matter requisite for effecting or conferring the sacrament he is considered by that very fact to do what the Church does. On this principle rests the doctrine that a sacrament is truly conferred by the ministry of one who is a heretic or unbaptized, provided the Catholic rite be employed. On the other hand, if the rite be changed, with the manifest intention of introducing another rite not approved by the Church, and of rejecting what the Church does, and what by the institution of Christ belongs to the nature of the sacrament, then it is clear that not only is the necessary intention wanting to the sacrament, but that the intention is adverse to and destructive of the sacrament.”

Here we see Pope Leo XIII teaching that if a minister uses the Catholic rite in conferring the Sacrament of Order, with the correct matter and form, he is considered for that very reason to have intended to do what the Church does – intending to do what the Church does is necessary for the validity of any sacrament. On the other hand, he tells us, if the rite is changed with the manifest intention of introducing a new rite not approved by the Church, and of rejecting what the Church does, then the intention is not only insufficient, but is destructive of the Sacrament.

And what were the things that Pope Leo XIII described as showing the destructive intention of the Anglican rite of Ordination?

Pope Leo XIII, Apostolicae Curae, Sept. 13, 1896: “For, to put aside other reasons which show this to be insufficient for the purpose in the Anglican rite, let this argument suffice for all: from them has been deliberately removed whatever sets forth the dignity and office of the priesthood in the Catholic rite. That form consequently cannot be considered apt or sufficient for the sacrament which omits what it ought essentially to signify.”

Pope Leo XIII, Apostolicae Curae, Sept. 13, 1896: “So it comes to pass that, as the Sacrament of Orders and the true sacerdotium [sacrificing priesthood] of Christ were utterly eliminated from the Anglican rite, and hence the sacerdotium [priesthood] is in no wise conferred truly and validly in the Episcopal consecration of the same rite, for the like reason, therefore, the Episcopate can in no wise be truly and validly conferred by it; and this the more so because among the first duties of the Episcopate is that of ordaining ministers for the Holy Eucharist and sacrifice.”

Pope Leo XIII, Apostolicae Curae, Sept. 13, 1896: “Being fully cognizant of the necessary connection between faith and worship, between ‘the law of believing and the law of praying,’ under a pretext of returning to the primitive form, they corrupted the liturgical order in many ways to suit the errors of the reformers. For this reason in the whole Ordinal not only is there no clear mention of the sacrifice, of consecration, of the sacerdotium [sacrificing priesthood], but, as we have just stated, every trace of these things, which had been in such prayers of the Catholic rite as they had not entirely rejected, was deliberately removed and struck out. In this way the native character – or spirit as it is called – of the Ordinal clearly manifests itself. Hence, if vitiated in its origin it was wholly insufficient to confer Orders, it was impossible that in the course of time it could become sufficient since no change had taken place.”

New Mass (Novus Ordo Missae)

The Words of Consecration: What is Essential?

Most argues that since the words “for many” (Pro Multis) are omitted in the accounts of the Last Supper given in the Gospel of St. Luke and in the First Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians, and are also lacking in the writings of some early Church Fathers on the Mass, these words must not be essential in the words of Consecration (the form of the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist). Now, in fact, none of the Gospels, Epistles, or the writings quoted by Most state any intention of giving the precise words of the Consecration (although the fact that St. Matthew and St. Mark do have the words “for many” proves conclusively that Our Lord actually spoke them).

What really matters, though, is the Church’s teaching on the forms of the Sacraments. Put very simply, the Church teaches that both the matter and form of any Sacrament must signify what the Sacrament effects. This doctrine is explained and practically applied in the Bull of Pope Leo XIII, Apostolicae Curae (on the Invalidity of Anglican Orders):

“All know that the sacraments of the New Law, as sensible and efficient signs of invisible grace, ought both to signify the grace they effect, and effect the grace they signify. Although the signification ought to be found in the whole essential rite — that is to say, in the matter and form — it still pertains chiefly to the form… the words which until recently were commonly held by Anglicans to constitute the proper form of priests Ordination — namely, ‘Receive the Holy Ghost,’ certainly do not in the least definitely express the Sacred Order of the Priesthood, or its grace and power… That form consequently cannot be considered apt or sufficient for the sacrament which omits what it ought essentially to signify.”

Actually, the matter was settled long ago when the Church defined, the Decree to the Jacobites (to be quoted later) and in the De Defectibus Decree, that the form of the Holy Eucharist is the full form as given in the Missale Romanum. Concerning the form it states:

“Defects may arise in respect of the form, if anything is wanting to complete the actual words of the consecration. The words of consecration, which are the formative principle of this Sacrament, are as follows: ‘For this is My Body,’ and ‘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.’ If any omission or alteration is made in the formula of consecration of the Body and Blood, involving a change of meaning, the consecration is invalid. An addition made without altering the meaning does not invalidate the consecration, but the celebrant commits a grave sin.”

Thus, to omit the word “for” (enim) does not involve a change of meaning, but this is not the case with other words, and especially, “which shall be shed for you and for many unto the remission of sins.” For these words clearly signify the grace which is conferred. On the contrary, the words, “For this is the Chalice of My Blood,” standing alone, do not signify the conferring of the grace of the Sacrament.

That which is really in question in regard to the Novus Ordo is whether the change from “for many” to “for all men” involves a change of meaning or not. 

Many False Traditionalist argue it does not. They reason that the Greek word “polloi,” used by the Evangelists in the accounts of the Last supper (meaning “for many”), is used in other parts of Scripture to mean “all of a large group” (or “all who are many,” as Most puts it); thus, to translate it “for all” is really the same as “for many.” 

But, if we examine the actual usage in the Novus Ordo, we find “for all men” in English. We do not find “for all who are many,” but “for all men,” period. Now by no stretch of the imagination can “for all men” mean the same as “for many” or even “for all who are many.” The last two phrases refer to the members of a large exclusive group; “for all men” is exclusive of no one. “For all men” is the official English translation of the Vatican II church.

The Catechism of the Council of Trent explains why “for many,” i.e., the exclusive group, must be used:

“Looking to the efficacy of the Passion, we believe that the Redeemer shed His Blood for the salvation of all men; but looking to the advantages which mankind derive from its efficacy, we find, at once, that they are not extended to the whole, but to a large proportion of the human race… With great propriety, therefore, were the words, ‘for all,’ not used, because here (in the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist) the fruit of the Passion is alone spoken of, and to the elect only did His Passion bring the fruit of salvation.”

Now it becomes even more obvious that “for all men” bears no relation to the effect of the Sacrament; all men’s souls do not receive the fruit of the Passion. Here is a clear illustration from another Sacrament: if a priest were to say, in baptizing an infant, “I baptize all men, in the Name of the Father, etc.,” even though he had the right intention, would the Baptism be valid? Assuredly not, and Most would be the first to say so. This point should be obvious then: in the Novus Ordo, the words “for all men” do not signify those for whom the Holy Eucharist effects grace; thus, for this defect alone, it is invalid.

To the editor’s thinking, the most damning evidence against the Novus Ordo is its official definition: “The Lord’s Supper or Mass is a sacred meeting or assembly of the People of God, met together under the presidency of the priest, to celebrate the memorial of the Lord (No. 7, Institution Generalis, c. 2: De Structura Missae).”

Most claims that he can show us the references to sacrifice in the Novus Ordo, few though they may be. But in the Critical Study of the Novus Ordo Missae (submitted by Cardinal Ottaviani to Paul VI as a protest against the New Mass), there is asked, “Which sacrifice is referred to? Who is the offerer?” No answer is given to either of these questions.

Let us examine these few references to the “Eucharistic Prayers.” In Prayer I (called the “Roman canon” because it is the least heretical), there are about a half dozen references to sacrifice of some sort. But what sort of sacrifice is it one of propitiation for sins, which the true Mass must be? Assuredly not; there is not one mention of the remission of sins. In Eucharistic Prayer II there is only, “… we offer you, Father, this life-giving bread, this saving cup.” In Eucharistic Prayer III, which sounds like a Baptist service, the “offering” has already “reconciled” us to the Father. It has already “made our peace” with God. Is this a sacrifice of propitiation? It is not; it is a Protestant “salvation rally.” Eucharistic Prayer IV is even worse; now, the “sacrifice” brings “salvation to the whole world” (to “all men”).

Pope Eugene IV affirmed the words ‘pro multis’ (not pro omnibus or for all) inserted in the words of consecration for suitable with Gospel. And Many Vatican II Sect reason that they must have been frequently omitted before, but they replied, “Did Christ so desert His Church as to let many Masses be invalid before the 15th century and Pope Eugene?” This is a clever bit of sophistry. For Eugene IV did not order these words like ": Mystery Faith " inserted in the Catholic Mass, but rather issued these decrees in union with the Council of Florence, to the schismatic Greeks, Armenians and Jacobites. These decrees (particularly those to the Jacobites) demand that these schismatics be questioned as to their orthodoxy in a number of areas before they could be reconciled to the true Church. In fact, the Decree to the Jacobites defined:

“In the consecration of the Body of the Lord is used this form of words: ‘For this is My Body’; but for the Blood: ‘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.’”

So, this conclusion is that the Novus Ordo Mass is Invalid and Protestant Liturgy. (For more know about Protestantism, read it : https://romancatholictraditional.blogspot.com/2025/04/catholic-church-with-council-of-trent.html?m=1 ) 

These pictures will show you, How similarities between Lutheran "Mass", Anglican " Mass ", and Novus Ordo "Mass" :

        Lutheran "Mass" with Ad Populum Rubric at  Alsike Church in Sweden, which This "Priest" elevated the "Big Host" like what Anti-Pope John Paul II did, you can give attention to what Antipope John Paul II's Host 

       Antipope John Paul II with Ad Populum and he raised the "Big Host"

       Ascension Lutheran Church with Invalid Mass, Ad Populum

      Lutheran "Mass" with Modernism Style, for pleasure to Mankind in Finland

   High Church Lutheran with "Women deaconess" and "women priest", like Novus Ordo Ordinarium 1 with Ad Orientem style

    Female altar servers on Lutheran High Church

Antipope Benedict XVI with Altar Girls

Antipope John Paul II with Female Altar Servers

Female Altar Servers at St. Matthew Novus Ordo Church

Anglican "Mass" with Ad Populum, Male "Priest" and Woman "Priest" . Behind of them, there are many Female Altar Servers and Choirs. 

Anglican woman "Priest" with male "Co-Conselebrator Priests" celebrated Invalid Anglican Mass, which this Woman elevated "Big Host" like Antipope John Paul II

           Novus Ordo Ordinarium 1, Ad Orientem. 

 Novus Ordo Ad Orientem in Vatican

Novus Ordo Mass, Ad Populum, by Antipope Francis

             Novus Ordo Missae Ad Populum in Philippine. 

             Novus Ordo Missae, celebrated by Antipope Benedict XVI with Ad Populum

Anglican "Mass" for King Charles " the Martyr " with Ad Orientem 

Africa Anglican "Mass" with Ad Populum

Lutheran " LGBT Mass " 

Lutheran "Sodomite Mass"

Novus Ordo "Sodomite Missae" in Mexico

Anglican "Clown Mass"

Lutheran "Clown Mass"

Novus Ordo "Clown Mass"

Above masses are pleases only for man. Are Invalid masses and Protestants. They are same, not different. 

BAPTISM

The New Order of Baptism was promulgated on May 15, 1969.  The questions “Do you renounce Satan?” and “Do you believe…?” are now directed toward the “parents and godparents”; they are no longer directed toward the candidate for baptism.  In the new rite, the candidate for baptism is not even asked if he believes.

In the new rite, the newly baptized child no longer receives the lighted candle – instead it is given to a parent or godparent.  Also, the newly baptized child no longer receives a white garment – it is only mentioned symbolically.  The candidate for baptism is no longer required to make a baptismal vow.

In addition, all the exorcisms of the Devil are omitted in Paul VI’s new rite of Baptism!  Why would one remove the exorcism prayers?  Although Satan is mentioned in the texts, he is not banished.

Conclusion: As long as the person (People who has Priesthood or Layman) baptizing in the Novus Ordo Church pours water and uses the essential form – “I baptize thee, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost” – with the intention to do what the Church does, then the baptism is valid,  despite these other problems in the surrounding rite. Need to be noted, Whatever the Baptist is Priest, Bishop, or Layman, can baptize someone. Catholic Priests, Eastern Schismatic Priests, and Novus Ordo Old Priests (who were ordained before Paul VI's Ordination Rite) are Valid Priests, while Novus Ordo "Priests" (After Paul VI's Ordination Rite), Protestant ministers and other Heretics who have no Valid Priesthood are considered as laymen, also can baptize someone whatsoever they did, during it's suitable with form and matter on Catholic Church. But these changes to the rite of Baptism, although not essential to validity, serve to reveal the true character and intentions of the men who have implemented the Vatican II revolution. About Licit or Illicit Baptism will be posted on another post. But, if these form and matters aren't suitable with what Catholic Church taught, like not use Trinitarian Form or with Wrong Subject for example " I " was replaced with " We ", this is Invalid. 

CONFIRMATION

The New Order of Confirmation was promulgated on Aug. 15, 1971.  The form and the matter of the sacrament have been changed.

The traditional form for the sacrament of confirmation is:

 “I sign you with the Sign of the Cross, and I confirm you with the Chrism of salvation.  In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.  Amen.”

The new form in the New Rite for the sacrament of confirmation:

• “N., receive the seal of the Gift of the Holy Spirit.”

As we can see, the traditional form of Confirmation has been fundamentally changed.  The new form actually uses the form that is used in the Eastern Rites. Why would Paul VI replace the traditional form in the Roman Rite with the form of the Eastern Rite?  We will see the significance of this change when we look at the matter of Confirmation, which has also been changed.  Most theologians traditionally regard the imposition of hands and the signing and anointing of the forehead as the proximate matter of Confirmation, and the chrism of olive oil and balm consecrated by the bishop as the remote matter.  In Paul VI’s New Rite of Confirmation, the imposition of hands has been abolished, and other vegetable oils may replace olive oil, and any spice may be used instead of balm!

In the New Testament, the imposition of hands was always present in confirmation (see Acts 8:17, Acts 19:6).  But there is no imposition of hands in the New Rite of Confirmation.  It has been abolished.  This alone renders Paul VI’s New Rite of Confirmation highly doubtful.  Further, in the Eastern Rite of Confirmation, when the form is pronounced by the bishop, he imposes his hands, thus completing by his action the words of the form.  In the new rite, however, even though the Eastern Rite form is used, the words are not completed by the action of imposition of hands, as in the Eastern Rite, thus rendering it highly doubtful.

Conclusion: All the changes considered, the validity of the new Confirmation is highly doubtful or Invalid if it uses wrong matters. 

CONFESSION

The Sacrament of Penance has been changed into a “Celebration of Reconciliation.” The New Order of Penance or Confession was promulgated by Paul VI on Dec. 2, 1973. The essential form necessary for a validly ordained priest to absolve someone are the following words:

“I absolve you from your sins in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” (Council of Florence, “Exultate Deo,” Denzinger 696.)

Perhaps this will come as a surprise, but this essential form has not been changed in the New Rite of Confession. There are some Novus Ordo priests who do not say “I absolve you from your sins in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,” but use new forms such as: “I free you from every bond of sin that you are under.” If one of these different forms is used, then the confession would be doubtful.

As we’ve shown, however, the “priests” at the Novus Ordo/Vatican II churches that have been ordained in the New Rite of Ordination (promulgated on June 18, 1968) are not validly ordained. This means that even if Novus Ordo “priests” use the essential form, “I absolve you from your sins in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,” if they were ordained in the New

Rite they are not valid priests (they are laymen)and it makes no difference, with other words this is Invalid Confession.

Conclusion: The New Rite of Confession is valid, but only if the priest was ordained in the Traditional Rite by a bishop consecrated in the Traditional Rite – and if he adheres to the words “I absolve you of your sins in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.”

EXTREME UNCTION

The New Rite of Extreme Unction was promulgated on November 30, 1972. The New Rite of Extreme Unction is now called the “Anointing of the Sick,” which is to be administered to those who are seriously ill. The term “in danger of death” is avoided. The new rite addresses itself much more to the healing of illness rather than to the preparation for the hour of death. The new consecration of the oil and the thanksgiving for the oil contain many passages concerning physical recovery. The prayer for Satan’s expulsion is abolished. And no longer are the angels, Guardian Angels, the Mother of God and St. Joseph invoked.

THE TRADITIONAL FORM OF EXTREME UNCTION

The traditional form of Extreme Unction is:

►May the Lord forgive you by this holy anointing and His most loving mercy whatever sins you have committed by the use of your sight (hearing, sense of smell, sense of taste and power of speech, sense of touch, power to walk).

THE NEW FORM OF “ANOINTING OF THE SICK” (CALLED EXTREME UNCTION IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH)

• Through this holy anointing and His most loving mercy, may the Lord help you by the grace of the Holy Spirit (Penitent: Amen) so that when you have been freed from your sins, He may save you and in His goodness raise you up.

One can see that after the change the new form has acquired a considerably different emphasis. The emphasis is now on deliverance from illness. The fact that the new rite is called only “Anointing of the Sick” already suggests that one is to think of physical recovery. Consequently, the new rite is administered many times to the sick and elderly who are not in danger of death.

The new form is also ambiguous about when the forgiveness of sins is granted. The old form clearly indicated that the Lord is forgiving sins by this anointing. The new form mentions “when you have been freed of your sins,” which could mean sometime in the future.

The matter in the new rite has also been changed. Throughout the history of the Church, olive oil was the matter of the Sacrament of Extreme Unction. In the new rite, however, instead of olive oil any other vegetable oil may be used. Instead of six anointings, only two are prescribed.

According to most theologians, the use of whatever vegetable oils one chooses renders the sacrament invalid. Not knowing whether the matter used in the New Rite is olive oil is enough to cause doubt.

Conclusion: The new rite of Extreme Unction is of doubtful validity.

MARRIAGE

The new order of marriage was promulgated on March 19, 1969.  With the new celebration of marriage, almost all the prayers have been changed. In the traditional rite of marriage a reading from Ephesians (5:22-33) was prescribed, stipulating the subordination of the wife to the husband.  In the new rite, a selection can be made from ten different readings, one of which is the Ephesians verse, but the reading specifically omits the verses that address the subordination of the wife to the husband!  In the questioning of the bride and groom on their commitment to lead a true Christian marriage, they are not questioned separately, but together.

The nuptial Blessing has been changed; the wording has been altered.  Also, mixed marriages are now very prevalent, many of which are invalid.

Despite these problems, the form and matter of the Sacrament of Matrimony cannot be changed, because the matter is constituted by the people getting married, and the form is their mutual consent. However, the changes to the rite of the Sacrament of Matrimony show again the character and intention of those who have implemented the Vatican II revolution.

Conclusion: The new rite of marriage is valid, but a traditional Catholic cannot be married according to the new rite. Many of the mixed marriages which are allowed are invalid. The new rite of marriage doesn’t invoke God. The new rite of marriage is used to corrupt Catholic teachings and enforce a false understanding to the married couple. Since a priest is the witness of the church in marriage, a Catholic should not get married in front of any priest, even validly ordained, who is not 100% Catholic.