Gonna Get My Picture On The Cover

Last year, Pope Francis made "Person of the Year" for Time Magazine, here at the beginning of 2014 he's made the cover of Rolling Stone Magazine...

I'll save my commentary for later...

Pregnant and Brain Dead

Currently there is no decision in the case of Marlise Munoz and her unborn child.  A judge has ruled that Munoz be removed from life support by 5pm Monday (tomorrow, as of this writing) but the hospital has made no decision to actually do so... yet.  They are citing the precedent that since there is no written advanced directives that they are not permitted to remove life support when there is an unborn child involved.


Another report is citing evidence that the child is "abnormal" and that it has hydrocephalus (water on the brain), putting into question the health of the child.


From a Catholic perspective, whether or not the child MAY be born with "abnormalities" is not really to be part of the equation.  However, it may also be argued, not taking the child into consideration, that "heroic" efforts to preserve "life" in Marlise Munoz are NOT required, from a Catholic perspective.  Now, especially since "life" has apparently left Mrs. Munoz, there can be grounds for them to remove life support from her.  Again, those who are supporting removal of life support due to the "distinct abnomality" of the child, are not gaining any ground - from a Catholic perspective.  If the life of the child is being brought into the equation, then support must be maintained.

St. Nicholas v Heretics

Since it technically is STILL the Christmas Season (until Candlemas!) I thought I would share this article on St. Nicholas that I came by today...

Starting Friday Off Right

Our Father, Who art in heaven, hallowed be Thy Name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil.  Amen.

December 6th!  The feast of St. Nicholas!  The story of St. Nicholas can never be repeated too often:
Today is the Feast of St. Nicholas, who died on December 6, ARSH 343. Saint Nicholas is well-known by his Dutch moniker, ”Santa Claus”. Don’t be fooled by the crass, commercialized image. Saint Nicholas was a stone-cold butt-kicker for Christ and His Church.
Early in the Fourth Century, there was a terrible heresy in the Church put forth by a very persuasive man named Arius. Arius contended that Christ was not fully divine, but a creature, created by the Father. This heresy was threatening to schism the Church. (Back then everyone understood the truth that any schism whatsoever was totally and completely evil and thus unacceptable – the Church is ONE. Christ has ONE Bride, not a harem. There is ONE Truth. Not multiple “”truths””. As soon as you start saying that there are ”multiple truths”, what you have done is denied Truth Itself, of which there is only ONE.)
So, the First Council of Nicea was called in ARSH 325 to hash this out and put the Arian heresy down once and for all. Arius was at the Council, of course, and was called upon to defend his position on the inferiority of Christ. Being a bishop, Nikolaos of Myra (in present-day Turkey) was naturally in attendance. Arius’ nonsensical, destructive and insulting lying contentions about Our Lord became too much for Bishop Nikolaos, who stood up and proceeded to haul off and go all Manny Pacquiao on Arius with a left jab directly to Arius’ piehole. (See image above.)
Everyone was alarmed by Bishop Nikolaos’ righteous beatdown of Arius, and he was immediately summarily stripped of his bishopric. In those days, the two things that designated a man a Christian bishop were a personal copy of the Gospels and a pallium, which is like a stole. Now you may taken aback by the “personal copy of the Gospels” thing. Well, of course! How could a bishop NOT have the Gospels? But you must remember that the printing press wasn’t invented until ARSH 1439. Before that, if you wanted a book, it had to be written out BY HAND. And what were you going to write on? Try vellum. Every piece of vellum had to be harvested from an animal and made. So you see, for a man to have a personal copy of any written text was a HUGE, and frankly EXPENSIVE, deal. So, poor Nikolaos was stripped of his Gospel and his pallium AND thrown in the hoosegow.
Now here is where it gets really good.
While Nikolaos was in the clink, he received a visit from both Our Lord and the Virgin Mary. Our Lord asked Nikolaos, “”Why are you here?”” And Nikolaos replied, “”Because I love You, my Lord and my God.”” At this, Jesus then presented Nikolaos with his copy of the Gospels, and Mary put his pallium back on him, thus restoring his rank as a bishop. When Nikolaos was discovered sitting calmly in his cell, still under guard, with his Gospel and his pallium, which the other bishops had locked away themselves far from Niklaos’ prison cell, Nikolaos was released, welcomed back by his brother bishops, and rejoined the Council. The heresy of Arianism was struck down once and for all, and the Nicene Creed (which we still recite at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass today) was authored.
The anti-Arian part is this:
”. . . Et in unum Dominum Iesum Christum,
(And [I believe] in one Lord Jesus Christ)
Filium Dei Unigenitum,
(the only begotten Son of God)
Et ex Patre natum ante omnia saecula.
(And born of the Father, before all ages.)
Deum de Deo, lumen de lumine,
(God of God: Light of Light)
Deum verum de Deo vero,
(true God of true God)
Genitum, non factum, consubstantialem Patri
(Begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father)
Per quem omnia facta sunt.”
(by Whom all things were made.)
I post this because it speaks directly to our question of love and defense of Truth and defense of those we love. Arius was attacking Christ and His Church with his heresy just as viciously as if he had been leading an army – and Nikolaos stepped into the breach to defend his Beloved. PHYSICALLY. The reason Nikolaos stepped in was because Arius was attacking CHRIST, and His Bride, the Church, which is made up of Nikolaos’ fellow human beings – whose immortal souls were being put at risk by Arius. We are in no way taught by Christ to stand by and watch as our loved ones are attacked, either their bodies or their souls. The miracle in Nikolaos’ cell is proof of this. Nikolaos did the right thing by going all Pacquiao on Arius and dropping him on his heretical keister before God and everyone.
“”Why are you here?””
“”Because I love You, my Lord and my God.””
Go Santa.

The Matter of Hell

The Matter of Hell

Fr. Barron "Is Hell Crowded or Empty?":

Michael Voris, "Fr. Barron is Wrong"

One must conclude that Fr. Barron is indeed "wrong" on this matter, as Voris points out.  There is and can be no "hope" that "all are saved," it's simply not possible and Scripture is quite clear on the matter.  While I would agree with Fr. Barron that God doesn't send anyone to Hell and that those who find themselves there actually sent themselves to this eternal damnation the fact remains "many are called but few are chosen" (Matt 22:14).  Fr. Barron does not commit to a complete apocatastasis (complete restoral of all free souls to grace, including the fallen angels and Satan himself) but he explicitly states there can be "hope" to that end, and that, my friends, is scandalous at best and perhaps even heretical.  Why would I go as far as to say it may be heretical?  Apocatastics is formally condemned at the Second Council of Constantinople:
The Anathemas Against Origen.
  I.   If anyone asserts the fabulous pre-existence of souls, and shall assert   the monstrous restoration which follows from it:  let him be anathema.
It is that "monstrous restoration" which is apocatastasis and thus there can be no "hope" that "all souls" will one day be restored, period. Fr. Barron argues that such hope can exist because of the "dramatic thing that God did through the life, death and resurrection of Jesus." We cannot hold to this hope when we find one of the primary sources in Scripture to speak of Hell is Jesus Christ Himself!
Matt 5:22  Matt 5:29-30  Matt 10:28  Matt 11:23   Matt 13:41-43  Matt 16:18  Matt 18:9  Matt 23:15 Matt 25:31-46  Mark 9:43-47  Luke 10:15  Luke 12:5  Luke 16:22-28   Revelation 20:15 (Angel of the Lord) 
(Hover over the above verses to read them)
Why speak of and teach of Hell if there is a possibility that no one is going there?  Simple logic defies Fr. Barron's "hope" here.  No one who accepts the Scriptures above can reasonably hold a theologically sound position that there is hope for the salvation of all people.  

Let this article be a plea to Fr. Barron to publicly retract what he said in the above video and express with the same conviction not only for the existence of Hell, but also that it is impossible for it to be "empty."

The Principle Interview

Last week two of The Principle's principle supporters were interviewed on Michael Voris' "Mic'd Up" webcast/program, which you can watch here:


We celebrate the baptism of Jesus on this Sunday Mass and so seems appropriate to have a look at what the Baptism that Jesus instituted as a sacrament really does to those who accept it in faith.

Let’s start with Old Testament book of Ezekiel which states:I will sprinkle clean water upon you to cleanse you from all your impurities, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. …I will put my spirit within you . (Ez 36:25-27)

“I will sprinkle clean water” – And so with this outward sign using water we see that God gives us His spirit. What else does God promise us? He promises us that through this sprinkling we will be cleansed of all our impurities. Is this prophecy truly made alive in the New Testament through the sacrament of Baptism? Let’s compare what God said through Ezekiel to what God said through Peter at Pentecost.

Peter (said) to them, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” (Acts 2:38).

Ezekiel said: “I will sprinkle clean water
Peter said: “be baptized

Ezekiel said: “[I will] cleanse you from all your impurities
Peter said: “for the forgiveness of your sins

Ezekiel said: “I will put my spirit within you
Peter said: “you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit

It seems quite undeniable that Ezekiel’s prophecy is perfectly fulfilled in the sacrament of Baptism. Because of His promise from Ezekiel we now know that the Grace of God comes during the sacrament of Baptism but what else does baptism do?

We know through Scripture that baptism makes us members of the Body of Christ. For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, slaves or free persons, and we were all given to drink of one Spirit.” (1 Cor 12:13)

Baptism brings us in communion with each other by becoming members of the One Body of Christ.
For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. (Gal 3:27)

We are brought into the Body of Christ, the Church.

And he is the head of the body, the church (Col 1:18)


And God placed all things under his feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church, which is his body, the fullness of him who fills everything in every way. (Eph 1:22-23)

Since we are baptized into the one body of Christ and we now know that Christ’s Body is the Church means that baptism brings us into the Church. And this is why there is no salvation outside the Church because there is no salvation outside of Christ.

Baptism is the New Covenant fulfillment of the Old Covenant symbol of circumcision. As the Hebrews circumcised those for entrance into God’s Covenant with Israel, so too does the New Covenant fulfillment of circumcision bring entrance into the New Covenant of God to His Church through baptism.

In him you were also circumcised with a circumcision not administered by hand, by stripping off the carnal body, with the circumcision of Christ. You were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the power of God. (Col 2:11-12)

If eight-day old children could enter the Old Covenant through circumcision via the faith of their parents how much more so can infants become adopted children of God through the New Covenant circumcision, baptism? The New Covenant is much more inclusive than the Old seeing as the New can include the gentiles as opposed to those of the line of Abraham.

We have seen that baptism fulfills the Old Covenant practice of circumcision (Col 2:11-12). Baptism was prophesied by Ezekiel to bring graces through the sprinkling of water (Ez 36:25-27) and washes away sins (Ez 36:26; Acts 2:38).

What else is baptism for? Well, is baptism necessary for salvation? The answer, very plainly is YES. “…eight in all, were saved through water. This prefigured baptism, which saves you now.” (1 Pet 3:20-21). Pretty simple. As plain as it can get. Jesus taught this also in the Gospel of John

Jesus answered and said to him, "Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can see the kingdom of God without being born again." Nicodemus doesn’t understand and so Jesus repeats himself, He says "Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit." (John 3:3-5)

One is born again through baptism, and that through baptism one can enter the kingdom of God, the Church…

Remember though, that the Church also teaches that it“…does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are "reborn of water and the Spirit." God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.(CCC 1257)

And that is why the Church can teach that “"Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery."63Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.” (CCC 1260)

And so we see that baptism brings Graces from God (Acts 2:38), washes away sins (Acts 2:38), we enter into a covenant with God through baptism (Col 2:11-12), and we become Christians through baptism (1 Cor 12:13) by becoming members of the Church as through a door (Eph 4:4). And baptism is instituted by Jesus Christ Himself when He sent out the disciples to “make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.” (Mat 28:19)

God Bless

Horus and Christmas

On the 11th Day of Christmas...  I happened across BeggarsAll and saw this "Lutheran Satire" video which is pretty good at debunking Atheist claims that Christianity (Catholicism) has stolen the traditions of Christmas and basic teachings of Christ from ancient mythologies.  There are even some Catholic undertones, especially when "the preacher" brings out the fact that there were 193 popes before the stories of Norse god Baldur were written down.

Keep Mass in Christmas

A campaign was started a few years ago in a bit of a response to the "Keep Christ in Christmas" campaign being promoted by many Christian organizations. The goal was to draw attention to the fact that "Christmas" is named for the "Christ Mass" - which is the celebration of Christ's birth.  The earliest I have found in my own articles supporting the Christ Mass is 2003.  Unfortunately, I cannot locate earlier archives (I started online apologetics for the Catholic Faith back in 1988).   I am pleased to see many others are using the slogan of "The best way to keep Christ in Christmas is to keep Mass in Christmas."  The point being is that where the non-Catholics using "Keep Christ in Christmas" are doing so in name only, whereas in the Mass, and especially the Christ Mass, the Real Presence of Christ is truly found in Christmas!  Every Mass is Christ centered, with the Eucharist being the re-presentation of Jesus' ultimate sacrifice on the Cross - and the Christ Mass is celebrated in honor of His birth while not losing focus on why He was born.  He was born to redeem the world, which He did in the week of His Holy Passion culminating on Good Friday.  He ultimately arose victorious over sin and death on what we now celebrate as Easter Sunday. 

An Episcopalian blogger named Holly responds to the "Keep Mass in Christmas" campaign (in 2012):
However, I was only mildly puzzled. Why is "Keep Mass in Christmas" a Catholics Come Home campaign? I know full well I'm one of the ones that they hope to persuade to go back to the Roman Catholic Church. What's the deal with Catholics Come Home, though? I already feel like I'm home. I'm still Catholic. We have Mass. And I feel like I can be a thinker AND a full member of the Church at the same time, which is nice. (Reasonable minds can disagree, obviously.) I also rather like hanging out with radical liberal feminist priests.
It must be noted how Holly puts her own feelings over truth and even reality.  No Holly, you're not "still Catholic," you're Episcopalian - which is a schism from the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.  You have what is "called" a "Mass," but it is not - as your priests lack the authority to validly consecrate the Eucharist into the real body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ.  We don't go to Mass just to "feel good" or to be a "free thinker."  We go to Mass to worship and adore our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ in the Real Presence of the Eucharist.  I realize you "think" the Episcopalians have a "real presence" too - but thinking it does not make it so.

Holly continues:
Anyway. "Catholics Come Home" is a nice campaign, but admittedly, I don't foresee myself going back until they've made some fundamental changes to the church, which I don't see happening anytime soon.
Look at what you have done, Holly.  Look at what your cult has done (and I don't use the word "cult" in a disrespectful manner).  Jesus didn't build the Anglican/Episcopal Church... He built the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.  Anglicanism changed things and the foundation of those changes are rooted in King Henry VIII who pleaded for the annulment of his marriage so that he could marry Ann Bolin.  He, who only a few years earlier was declared by the Pope to be "Defender of the (Catholic) Faith," rejected the Catholic Faith for his own personal desires.  One might say he wanted to be a "free thinker."  Anglicanism lead the way to artificial contraception in 1930, which has lead to an acceptance of abortion by many "free thinking" and supposedly "Christian" churches.  Anglicanism/Episcopalianism is a deterioration of the Catholic Faith.  Likewise the acceptance of women priests (and primates) is a corruption of what Jesus Christ Himself founded upon the Twelve Apostles, our first "primates" (bishops).  No, what needs to "change" is not the Catholic Church, but your expectations/demands.  When you are ready to submit yourself to Christ and the authority He left in charge of His People, we will welcome you back with open arms and you can again celebrate the Real Mass with His Real Presence.

Catholic Memes (2013):

A Catholic response (2013):

CathApol Christ Mass Memes (2012):

Greek Orthodox (2011):

A Catholic blogger in 2008 "Campaigns":

Another Catholic blogger in 2008:

Former Evangelical, then Anglican priest now Catholic priest, Fr. Longenecker wrote in 2008:
Even an Atheist site mentions the fact that Protestants, who argue for keeping Christ in Christmas, have already taken Mass out of Christmas (not dated, but referenced by Fr. Longenecker  in 2008):
Conservative evangelical Christians complain about people taking the "Christ" out of Christmas, but they seem to forget that they have already taken the "Mass" out of Christmas (Mass being a service including Holy Communion). When was the last time a prominent figure on the Christian Right has argued that Americans should remember to attend Mass on this Holy Day? I've never seen it and I don't expect to ever do so. This is just one of many masses that have been excised from the season.
 (I also think that this Atheist may have gotten at least some of his information from Steve Kellmeyer, see link below).

A Catholic blogger in 2006:
CathApol Blog article on the Christ Mass ( December 2005):

Steve Kellmeyer wrote this nice article on November 30, 2005:

ACTS article on St. Nicholas which also discusses the Christ Mass, December 6, 2003:

Another "Campaign" of Mine:

Some of you may be asking, "why are you writing this now?  Christmas was a week ago!"  Well, yes, the Christ Mass was a week ago, but the Season of the Christ Mass lasts at least until Epiphany (January 6th) or even until Candlemas (February 2nd) which is the last mentioning of the Christ Mass for the liturgical year.  Candlemas is the celebration of the Purification of the Blessed Virgin Mary as well as the Presentation of Jesus at the Temple.  So have yourself a Merry Little Christ Mass now... and a bit longer!

Is a Crucifix Necessary for Mass?

Well, the short answer is YES!  According to the GIRM:

308. There is also to be a cross, with the figure of Christ crucified upon it, either on the altar or near it, where it is clearly visible to the assembled congregation. It is appropriate that such a cross, which calls to mind for the faithful the saving Passion of the Lord, remain near the altar even outside of liturgical celebrations.

On the USCCB site we find this:  
the revised Instruction speaks always of “a cross with the figure of Christ crucified upon it.” (308, 122) This cross, “positioned either on the altar or near it,” should be clearly visible not only during the liturgy, but at all times recalling “for the faithful the saving passion of the Lord, [and] remain[ing] near the altar even outside of liturgical celebrations.” (308) A liturgical procession is a sign that the people of God form the pilgrim church on earth, it is fitting that such processions should be preceded by the Cross.

ROME, DEC. 20, 2011 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Legionary of Christ Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university.

 Q:   My parish has a beautiful crucifix mounted on the wall behind the altar that has been a great aid in my prayer life. Unfortunately, I must pray without this aid during the seasons of Christmas and of Easter, as during these seasons the crucifix is completely covered. During Christmas, a star is placed above the crucifix with a tail that hangs down to completely cover it. Likewise, during Easter, a banner of the Risen Christ is hung over the crucifix so that it is hidden from view. I realize that "a cross, with the figure of Christ crucified upon it, [be] either on the altar or near it" during Mass (General Instruction of the Roman Missal, No. 308), and I considered the processional cross, which is placed beside the sanctuary during Mass, to fulfill this requirement when the crucifix behind the altar is covered (cf. GIRM, 122). However, upon further reflection, I now question if the processional cross fulfills this requirement as it is beside the sanctuary during Mass and not "next to the altar" (GIRM, 122); and, it is not "clearly visible to the [entire] assembled congregation" (GIRM, 308). As well, it does not "remain near the altar even outside of liturgical celebrations" (GIRM, 308). Is it appropriate that the crucifix mounted on the wall behind the altar be covered during any liturgical season? -- R.G., Leduc, Alberta
 A:   While I don't think it is a good idea to cover the cross during these liturgical seasons, it does not appear to be illicit.
It is illicit, however, not to have any crucifix presiding over the altar during the celebration. The processional cross could fulfill this function, but only if it is placed on a stand beside the altar during the celebration.
Indeed, the indications in the norms referenced by our reader are that the processional cross is only carried out of sight in those cases where a crucifix is already present on or near the altar. If there is no cross, then it should be placed near the altar and serve as the altar cross.
Another possible solution, if the wall cross is covered or absent, is to place a crucifix upon the altar proper. In this case the processional cross should be carried away to one side so that only one cross presides over the altar.
While there may be no absolute prohibition to substituting the main crucifix for a smaller one during these liturgical seasons, I am of the opinion that it is not a felicitous idea.
As the U.S. bishops' conference recommends in its document "Built of Living Stones":
"§ 123 § The tradition of decorating or not decorating the church for liturgical seasons and feasts heightens the awareness of the festive, solemn, or penitential nature of these seasons. Human minds and hearts are stimulated by the sounds, sights, and fragrances of liturgical seasons, which combine to create powerful, lasting impressions of the rich and abundant graces unique to each of the seasons.
"§ 124 § Plans for seasonal decorations should include other areas besides the sanctuary. Decorations are intended to draw people to the true nature of the mystery being celebrated rather than being ends in themselves. Natural flowers, plants, wreaths and fabric hangings, and other seasonal objects can be arranged to enhance the primary liturgical points of focus. The altar should remain clear and free-standing, not walled in by massive floral displays or the Christmas crib, and pathways in the narthex, nave, and sanctuary should remain clear."
In the case described, the crucifix as an important, albeit not primary, liturgical point of focus is obscured rather than enhanced.
While a star is a frequent symbol of Christmas, and even of Christ, placing it right behind the altar places too much emphasis upon a secondary symbol.
While the figure of the risen Christ might appear more justified, nothing would be lost and much gained by placing the image in some other part of the sanctuary.
I hope that this practice is not an attempt to deliberately remove the crucifix from sight during these seasons. This would be a grave error. The Church insists that a crucifix must always be present for Mass during all seasons of the year in order to remind us of the presence of Our Lord's infinite sacrifice.
It is through the infinite sacrifice that Christ's entire saving mystery, from the annunciation to the ascension, is made present in each and every celebration. Even though we designate certain times and seasons to underline specific mysteries, the cross remains at the heart of the mystery of God's total self-giving for our salvation.

Addendum 1/5/2014:
When I was first asked about this the actual question was about "validity" of a Mass without the crucifix.  My findings made it clear that while there is a requirement in "law" (GIRM 308) there was no statement regarding validity - so I did not make a statement regarding validity initially.  My assumption was then, based upon this evidence, that Mass celebrated without a crucifix present would be illicit, but not "invalid."  The matter of validity would be centered upon the Sacrament of the Eucharist.  Regarding the Eucharist, if matter, form and intent are correct - it is a "valid" consecration (such as the Masses celebrated by SSPX, which don't have explicit permission of the local bishop, are "valid" but "illicit.")  A Eucharist which is valid, but illicit still does suffice for satisfying ones "Sunday Obligation."  So even if there is no crucifix present the Eucharist itself may be valid.

This same question was asked of Catholic Answers and while they do not provide reference material for their answer beyond the GIRM (they cite 270, which is an older version of the GIRM, in the current version it's 308 - as quoted above), their conclusion is the same as mine:

Must a crucifix be present at the altar for the Mass to be valid?

Full Question

I would like to know if it is necessary for a crucifix to be present at the altar in order for the Mass to be valid.


Masses are not valid or invalid, they are licit (in conformity with the law) or illicit (not in conformity with the law). It is the consecration of the Eucharist within the Mass that can be valid or invalid.
Whether a crucifix is present at the altar has no bearing on whether the Eucharist is valid or invalid (the absence of a crucifix will not cause the Eucharist to be invalid), but it does have a bearing on whether the Mass is licit or illicit.
The law requires that "There is to be a cross, clearly visible to the congregation, either on the altar or near it" (General Instruction of the Roman Missal [GIRM] 270). The revised General Instruction—which has not yet gone into effect—clarifies that the cross in question should have a corpus (representation of Christ’s body), meaning that it should be a crucifix rather than a bare cross.
If there were no cross by on or near the altar (or, once the new GIRM goes into effect, no crucifix) then the Mass would be illicit, or not celebrated in accord with the requirements of the law.
However, a Mass celebrated in this manner would still have a valid consecration of the Eucharist. Furthermore, it would still fulfill one’s Sunday obligation.

I hope this helps...


Feast of the Assumption

 The Feast of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary - another example of "not-so-ordinary" days! These are COUNTING days - and...