While critiquing the Eucharistic Prayers of the Novus Ordo Missae, Sedevacantist priest Anthony Cekada listed the following results of the Mass introduced by Paul VI:
Effects of the Changes. The principal changes that the consecration of the Mass underwent in the new Eucharistic Prayers may be summed up as follows:
(1) Change in the terms and concept applied: from consecration to institution narrative, and from words of consecration to words of the Lord. The notion of the “form of Sacrament” was dropped altogether.
(2) Change in the liturgical text itself: from a true sacramental form to a quote in a historical narrative.
(3) Removal of “mystery of faith” and change in its meaning: from an affirmation of faith in Real Presence here and now to an expression of faith in eschatological events. (Anthony Cekada, Work of Human Hands: A Theological Critique of the Mass of Paul VI [West Chester, Ohio: SGG Resources, 2010], 346)
With respect to nos. 2 and 3, Cekada wrote:
In 2001, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (then headed by that “watchdog of orthodoxy,” Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger) decided that one of the anaphoras (canons) used or Mass by the schismatic Assyrians was valid, even though it did not contain the words of consecration. (Ibid., 346-47, emphasis in original)
In a footnote (p. 347 n. 127) to the above, Cekada wrote (emphasis added):
CDF, “Guidelines for Admission to the Eucharist between the Chaldean Church and the Assyrian Church of the East,” 20 July 2001. For a discussion, see Donald Sanborn, “O Sacrament Unholy,” http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=34&catname=15. “By the admission even of the Vatican itself, the Nestorians do not have a consecration formula in their anaphora (canon) of the Mass. Their priest never recites the words of consecration, ‘This is My Body,’ nor ‘This is the chalice of My Blood . . . ‘ with the subsequent words. Nor does he recite anything even similar to the.m” The CDF declaration maintains this is not necessary because “the words of Eucharistic Institution” are contained “in a dispersed euchological way, that is, integrated in successive prayers of thanksgiving, praise, and intercession.” This principle entirely—entirely—overthrows Catholic doctrine on essential sacramental forms.
As Donald Sanborn, a Sedevacantist Bishop (part of the Thuc line) noted the theological significance of this declaration from the CDF and the Vatican in his article referenced above:
Defection a Sign of False Religion
The Catholic Church is indefectible. This means that by the special protection of her Invisible Head, Our Lord Jesus Christ, she can never defect from her true purpose and goal, can never teach a false doctrine, or give her children evil disciplines or invalid sacraments. It is this assistance of Christ which gives the Church her very authority.
Despite regrettable human failures on the part of her prelates in the past, the Catholic Church has never defected. She has never taught error. She has never approved of an evil discipline or and invalid sacrament. Never.
Indeed we might wonder if the failure of a few of her prelates was not permitted by God in order to prove that she is not subject to human vicissitudes and misconduct, but is guided by the assistance of Her Divine Founder, who is with her all days even to the consummation of the world.
Since Vatican II, however, we have witnessed defection after defection. In a mere thirty-five years we see the unmistakable signs of a false religion: the teaching of false doctrine, the promulgation of evil disciplines, the universal legalization and use of false rites, and now the approval of an unquestionably invalid sacrament, and the destruction of the Church’s sacramental teaching.
This sad fact should teach us two things:
(1) to appreciate the two thousand year old record of indefectible truth and rectitude in discipline as a sign of Christ’s assistance to His Church;
(2) to immediately recognize that the defection which has so characterized the Vatican II religion is an infallible sign of its falsehood and wretchedness, and that despite whatever appearances they may have, the authors of this defection, Wojtyla and his minions, are phonies.
An early critic of the New Order of Mass noted that its theological implicitly and explicitly downplayed the main function of the Mass—a sacrifice of propitiation that re-presents the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross. Commenting on the General Instruction of the New Order of Mass, Cardinal Ottaviani wrote:
The Instruction uses many different names for the Mass, such as:
· Action of Christ and the People of God
· Lord’s Supper or Mass
· Paschal banquet
· Common participation in the Table of the Lord
· Eucharistic Prayer
· Liturgy of the Word and Liturgy of the Eucharist
All these expressions are acceptable when used relatively—but when used separately and absolutely as they are here, they must be rejected.
It is obvious that the authors of the Novus Ordo obsessively emphasized “supper” and “memorial” instead of the unbloody renewal of the Sacrifice of the Cross.
Even the phrase in the Instruction describing the Mass as a “memorial of the Passion and Resurrection” is inexact. The Mass is the memorial of the unique Sacrifice, redemptive itself, while the Resurrection is the fruit which follows from that sacrifice. (The Ottaviani Intervention: Short Critical Study of the New Order of Mass [rev ed.; trans. Anthony Cekada; West Chester, Ohio: Philothea Press, 2010], 45-46, emphasis in original)
While I disagree with Sanborn, Cekada, et al., they are correct in noting that much of Catholicism from Vatican II, from the perspective of historical Roman Catholicism, is in a state of apostasy—they place the Great Apostasy around 1962-1965 (Vatican II) or earlier; in reality, it happened much earlier, as Latter-day Saints believe, but that is a topic for another day.