Eucharist: Traditional vs. Post-Vatican II

I ran across a website that has a table comparing the traditional Catholic and post-Vatican II Catholic view of the Eucharist (or the Mass). It can be found by going to and clicking on “The Mass: Old vs New” page on the right column.

Is it the truth?

ABSOLUTELY NOT!!! At least not at the Novus Ordo Church (St Gabriel’s Connersville, Indiana) where I have gone.

Both wine and bread are blessed

Both are DEFINITELY considered the Body and Blood of Christ.
Those that dont believe this drink damnation on themselves

Kneelers are in full use both before and after Communion

I would be suprised if teh new Eucharistic prayers are written by Protestants.
It sounds like ultra Traditionalists trying to scare everyone :shrug:

Believe me I’d love to see it go back to the old way, (Im only 18 and not officially Catholic yet) but I believe that the Holy Catholic Church by guidance of the Most Holy Spirit cannot be led astray. The Chair of Peter cannot be empty…if it is in fact empty…then where is the Catholic Church? Christians must be in allegiance to the Holy See

i find the texts to be very schismatic. they reject Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI and claim that Pope Pius XII is the last good Pope

their views aren’t the views or true Traditional Catholics who are faithful to the Catholic Church, which includes its visible head, the Vicar of Christ, the Pope

read some more and this is a true sedevacantist parish. they even question the SSPX for issuing a statement on the validity of new bishops, which they reject.

That’s not a Catholic church, the one you linked to, although they call themselves one. Its a separate schismatic denomination run by sedevacantists. The whole site is utter drivel.

sadly a lot of schismatics still refer to themselves as Catholic, which would confuse a lot of people

If anyone couldn’t tell they’re not faithful Catholics, here’s a snippet.

[quote=The Website]Faulty Eucharistic Prayers:
Four different man made versions written by 6 Protestants and a Mason.

Excuse me while I get my tin foil hat. :cool:

I read the St. Joseph’s site under “Traditional Church”.

It’s sedevacantist. (sede vacante, Latin for empty seat) sedevacantists believe Pius XII was the last Pope and the “Chair of St. Peter” is still vacant. Later Popes ( John XXIII to Benedict XVI) considered as “antipopes”.

The pastor is a former Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) member. SSPX under Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, went schismatic from the Holy See in the mid 1980’s. Pope B XVI and the Holy See have been in dialogue to bring SSPX toward full communion.

Another sedevacantist site is Most Holy Family Monastery (New York State) by the Dimond brothers.

Fraternity of the Society of St. Peter (FSSP) is in union with their respective dioceses and Holy See on Tridentine Latin Masses.

There are many critiques of the the revised liturgy of Paul VI compared ot what went before. Some have good points. However, this paricular comparison is among the most idiotic I have seen.

To quickly address the point: (1), (2) and (3) are unnecessary dichotomies. I will say though, that sometimes the new liturgy is celebrate din such a way that confirms those points. Not that it should be celebrated like that, but it is.

Latin ha not been used worldwide since then - but much later, and within the Western Churches.

“Offertory+ Consecration = Communion”. I have a feeling they were trying to say something else here, and I have a good idea what it was. But as it stands, this idea is not correct. Furthermore, the offertory prayers came in at a later date. A formal “offertory” has never been required as a sine qua non of the Eucharist.

The new Eucharistic Prayers were not composed by the Protestants but by a group of Catholic scholars. There is a tendency, because the Protestant observers were invited later to meetings of the Concilium, to assume that they stuck they fingers in every piece of the pie. Actually, many of the subgroups worked indepedantly, and there is good evidence on record that the Protestants weren’t involved, not only because the schema (draft documents) list the names of those who were, but because the basis of the prayers was written before the Protestants were invited.

The Word of Consecration argument takes the cake as the silliest argument ever. Not only is the wording found in other liturgies, ancient and modern, but one could apply the same argument then to the consecration of the Chalice (“which will be poured out for you…”)

The last one might indeed be the impact of the type of preachign and theology found in some places but the liturgical texts do not objectively mediate this impression in any significant way.

I checked your diocesan website.

Savannah: Cathedral of St. John the Bpatist
222 East Harris St.
Savannah, GA 31401

                  Sunday Latin Mass 1:00 P.M.

Macon: St. Joseph
830 Poplar St.
Macon, GA 31201

             Sunday Latin Mass  FIRST SUNDAY OF THE MONTH 2:00 P.M.

God bless.

By the way, I haven’t yet found an exception to the rule that states that if an allegedly Catholic church’s website gives a dress code (and in this case also “decorum” code), they’re in fact schismatics and or sedevacantists.

Just a useful clue if you’re ever poking around somewhere and start wondering.

No kidding!

Men and boys should wear suit coats and ties. (Except in very hot weather)

My suit comes out like 2 times a year (because someone in an ivory tower decided that the only acceptable way to ever get a job is to wear a suit to an interview. Yet I still only ever manage to get jobs with phone interviews anyways). I hate wearing a suit. Usually I try to wear something plain (with no sports logos or anything), and dress codes go out the window when it’s -40 outside (big bunnyhugs come out because I’d rather not freeze).

i know what you mean. last time i wore my suit was when i got my current job. and i’m not sure if that suit fits anymore. i wonder if i’ll get away with a shirt and a tie during summer? :shrug:

Mark, are true Catholic Churches not supposed to give out a dress code?

the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines has issued a dress code for the country. not a strict one, but more of something to encourage modesty. they haven’t banned jeans, but they did ban short skirts and the likes, which i totally agree with.

I don’t know, it would probably be up to the ordinary. I’m willing to be shown an exception, but thus far it’s proven to be a handy rule of thumb that a dress code on the website --> schismatics.

the CBCP did it in the Philippines, and i think some other Bishops conferences in other country did it as well. its not a strict dress code similar to the site the OP posted, but at least it clearly states that any immodest clothing is not allowed, which is good

That really should be common sense (like guys shouldn’t be wearing shorts and women shouldn’t be wearing something that shows that much leg :eek:).

But when you start to get into things like mandatory suits for men and dresses for women then that’s going way overboard.

well, sometimes people have to be told even though its common sense
not just in the church but in everything today

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit