As promised, in this post we’re going to take a more detailed look at the Novus Ordo relative to the recent SSPX video (featuring Fr. Steven McDonald, SSPX) and Michael Voris’ reaction to it.
Before we begin, know this:
– First, it’s not possible to do justice to a topic such as this in a couple of videos and a handful of blog posts. Those who really want to come to a fully informed understanding are going to have to dig deeper than that.
Even so, this is going to be, by necessity, a lengthy post, so grab a cup of coffee (or a cold beer or whatever suits your fancy) and settle in, this is going to take some time.
– Secondly, my purpose in this post is to explain more fully the argument put forth by the SSPX (and others) as I understand it. It’s going to be up to individual readers to educate themselves further, to evaluate the Society’s argument for what it actually is, and then to decide its merits for themselves.
– Lastly, under discussion here are matters concerning a liturgical crisis the likes of which the faithful have never experienced; ever, in nearly 2,000 years!
It’s simply not possible without great effort to fully form one’s conscience and intellect in this environment so each might serve as a reliable guide in determining how best to respond. Along the way, we can well expect sincere Catholics, each and every one a victim of the same crisis, to disagree with one another.
For many of the commenters here, this post may have a “preaching to the choir” feel.
Please understand, however, that commenters are but a small fraction of our readership. A large number of readers do not necessarily consider themselves “traditionalists,” but they are agitated enough by the crisis at hand to visit this space (and most certainly others) in their search for answers.
With this in mind, I’m going to be somewhat meticulous in spelling things out (as best I can anyway); perhaps even a bit more so than necessary for some of you.
OK, with all of that having been said, Michael Voris did his best to get his viewers incensed over the following comment made in the video by Fr. McDonald:
The New Mass is to be completely avoided as they understand it is an offense against God.
Voris, in his attempt to incite outrage, is treating this as a clarion call for all Catholics to avoid the New Mass completely, telling his viewers:
You are instructed not to go to Mass on Sunday if you must go to a Novus Ordo, New Mass..
That’s not entirely so. I can tell you firsthand that this is not how Society priests counsel individuals who currently participate in the Novus Ordo.
In my experience (and that of close friends), SSPX priests realize that sincere people have been led astray by their sacred pastors for a very long time. They know that many of us simply don’t know what we don’t know, and so they provide gentle guidance without compromising the truth.
If you’ve had a different experience and wish to use that as an excuse for sticking your fingers in your ears and blubbering “lalalalalalalala” so as to not even consider the possibility that there may be some merit to the Society’s position on the new Mass after all, so be it.
Incidentally, a friend of mine, also named Mike, wrote to me in the aftermath of Voris’ latest rant to say:
I’m sure he (Voris) would be delighted to know that an FSSP priest has forbidden me — because it’s a danger to the Faith — from attending a new Mass.
I am certain that my friend isn’t alone; so let’s not pretend that SSPX priests are the only ones that understand the Novus Ordo as an offense against God to be avoided; even if they are unique in being willing to invite persecution for speaking their convictions in public.
In any case, there’s an important qualifier in Fr. McDonald’s statement that Michael Voris overlooked; namely, “as they understand it…”
Later in the video, the nature of that qualifier is made plain when Father states (with the words printed onscreen), “Knowledgeable Catholics should avoid the New Mass.” [emphasis added]
Did you get that?
He said knowledgeable Catholics.
Please allow me to break this down further for those who as yet don’t fully grasp what Fr. McDonald is saying here and why.
This, incidentally, is a service that people like me are compelled to provide since Voris is apparently scared to death to allow the Society to provide its own detailed explanations on this complex topic firsthand.
Maybe that will change. We’ll see…
Look, all concerned (His Vorexcellency included) recognize the importance of avoiding, for the good of our souls, any activity that we understand to be an offense against God. That’s just plain Catholic common sense.
If one understands the Novus Ordo as be offensive to God, why would they participate therein? (We’ll examine the excuses momentarily.)
It’s important to note that sincere people often, in ignorance, engage in activities that are, objectively speaking, an offense against God; unaware that they are participating in something that should be avoided.
What happens in such instances?
Many if not most of us know firsthand that God, in His benevolence, does not cease to pour out His grace upon such persons; on the contrary, He continues to bless them and call them ever closer to Himself, even as they engage in an activity that they really should avoid.
When we see evidence of this either in our own lives or that of others, we must be careful not to confuse God’s generosity toward individual souls with His approval of their activities. One does not necessarily follow the other.
For example, a young man may come to discern the Lord’s call to the priesthood while serving as lead guitarist in the parish Rock-n-Roll Mass.
It would be wrong to conclude that the blessings bestowed upon this individual soul are an indication that the Lord has deemed the Rock-n-Roll Mass inoffensive, and furthermore, that we would do well to celebrate them more often.
This kind of mistaken logic is commonly applied in support of all manner of liturgical deviations that, objectively speaking, are offensive to God.
This same line of argumentation often surfaces in conversations about the Novus Ordo in general, as those who frequent it (or in the case of priests, celebrate it) are often quick to become defensive, as if the very real blessings that may have been received therein (or dispensed therein by the priest acting in persona Christi) are being discredited. They are not.
It’s important to be clear on this point:
To say that the new Mass is an offense against God (an admittedly stunning proposition) is not tantamount to declaring that those who participate therein have not been blessed in the process, much less, subjectively speaking, that they are personally guilty of offending God.
In other words, if you frequent the Novus Ordo, it’s not all about you, sweetheart, so stay focused; the present discussion primarily concerns the rite itself.
Continuing with our analogy, imagine that this guitar playing young man eventually comes to understand that the Rock-n-Roll Mass is indeed an offense against the Lord, even as he recognizes the good that came to him and others via their participation therein.
He then has a decision to make:
Does he continue participating in those Masses in spite of their offensiveness in order to secure for himself whatever blessings may remain, or does he avoid it?
The answer is obvious enough; he must avoid that Mass completely.
This is an illustration of what Fr. McDonald stated, “The New Mass is to be completely avoided as they understand it is an offense against God … Knowledgeable Catholics should avoid the New Mass.”
Of course, we all know that Fr. McDonald wasn’t talking about the Rock-n-Roll Mass specifically (which, incidentally, may be entirely valid) but more broadly of the Novus Ordo itself.
The million dollar question then is this: Is the Novus Ordo Missae, objectively speaking, an offense against God?
I realize that the question alone is enough to take one’s breath away. It’s a terrible thing to consider, but don’t allow your emotions to stifle your intellect; stick with me here.
Often, the mere suggestion that the new Mass could possibly be an offense against God invites yet another question:
How can this Mass be an offense against God given that it is valid, which means that the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of His Son is offered to Him in atonement for our sins therein, and furthermore the Most Holy Eucharist is truly confected and received by His people in this Mass?
We might summarize the arguments expressed herein (essentially the same that were put forth by Michael Voris in his Boretex) as follows – the Novus Ordo cannot be an offense against God because:
A) It is valid
B) It is the true Sacrifice of Christ offered to Our Heavenly Father
C) The Most Holy Eucharist is truly confected and received therein
D) It has been approved by the popes; i.e., it is given to the faithful by the Church
Let’s begin by addressing yet another question that lies at the heart of much of this discussion:
Is it possible for something (in this case, the new Mass) to contain that which is both exceedingly good (the true Sacrifice, the Eucharist made available, therefore pleasing to God), and yet also that which is truly bad (an offense against God and therefore displeasing to Him) at one and the same time?
The answer is yes, one thing may contain that which is both pleasing and offensive to God; the finest and most appropriate example imaginable being the shedding of Our Lord’s Precious Blood on Calvary – the same Sacrifice that is offered in an unbloody manner at Holy Mass.
Clearly, the Crucifixion was the greatest offense against God ever committed, and yet it was also the most pleasing of all offerings ever given to God – the same that yielded the greatest blessing ever to be bestowed upon mankind.
Another example is death. Imagine a devout and holy woman dying and leaving behind small children. Her death is at once good (in her passing into eternal bliss) and bad (in leaving her children motherless).
With this in mind, it must be acknowledged, at least theoretically at this point for the sake of proceeding, that the new Mass need not be either entirely pleasing, or entirely offensive to God; it can be both.
To arrive at a more specific answer to the objections raised above to the idea that the new Mass may be an offense against God, it is necessary to remind ourselves that the Novus Ordo is entirely unique in the life of the Church.
Our conservative friends have long recognized this truth as summarized so very clearly by Cardinal Ratzinger who said:
“One cannot manufacture a liturgical movement … but one can help contribute to its development by striving to reassimilate the spirit of the liturgy and by defending publicly what one has thus received … What happened after the Council was something else entirely: in the place of liturgy as the fruit of development came fabricated liturgy. We abandoned the organic, living process of growth and development over centuries, and replaced it–as in a manufacturing process – with a fabrication, a banal on-the-spot product.”
This being the case, those who wish to grasp the reality of the new Mass must view it for what is truly is – a “fabrication” that is best understood as a departure from that which is normal in the life of the Church; namely “the organic, living process of growth and development over centuries” that brought about the so-called Traditional Latin Mass. (For expedience sake, we’ll refer to it as the TLM.)
As such, any discussion of the Novus Ordo that does not include at the very least a basic understanding of that which it supplanted will lack the perspective necessary for uncovering the truth.
Now, I realize that many readers have but a limited understanding (and perhaps even no firsthand experience) of the TLM. This, however, need not render their reading here fruitless.
By all means, come to know the Mass of Ages (as it is also called) more deeply moving forward, but for now it will suffice to recognize that the TLM, the Roman rite codified by Pope St. Pius V in 1570, after having existed in the same substantial form for more than 1,000 years; the rite repeatedly praised for its Heavenly perfection by the Saints, the Doctors of the Church and the popes throughout the ages, in part, for its efficaciousness in communicating the Catholic faith in all integrity via its magnificent sacred signs, both collectively and individually, forming the faithful in such way as to exemplify the principle lex orandi, lex credendi…
This rite contains absolutely nothing whatsoever that could in any way be considered an offense against God.
If there should be any who find this statement disagreeable, it would perhaps be best for that person to leave now; to fast and to pray and to beg the Lord for a sensus Catholicus – an authentic Catholic sense.
For those who remain, with this most acceptable premise as an agreeable starting point, let’s consider one of Voris’ retorts:
Sure, there are abuses that occur in the New Mass owing to all kinds of issues that we point out here on the Vortex all the time. But those abuses are just that — abuses.
The suggestion here is that the Novus Ordo – meaning, the rite itself – when done by the book, is devoid of any offense against God.
This simply is not true as the statement from Cardinal Ratzinger – one that all but the fringe leftwing accepts as true – makes rather plain.
To say otherwise is to say that God is not offended by a “banal on the spot [liturgical] product” that was not only “fabricated … as in a manufacturing process,” but was also forced upon the faithful in place of that rite that had been faithfully handed down throughout the ages and very rightly received the glowing praise of so many Saints.
The very notion is positively ludicrous!
More specifically as to the content of the Novus Ordo, ask yourself:
Is it reasonable to consider an “offense against God,” a rite, the contents of which (meaning the letter of the missal) reveals very clearly that it was created by deliberately stripping away from the most venerable rite that it supplanted, by force, many of those sacred signs that are known to cause Protestants discomfort (which is often the spark that leads to their conversion) with respect to the sacramental priesthood, the Mass as a true Sacrifice, and the propitiatory nature of said Sacrifice?
One with a truly Catholic sense can hardly deny that such a rite is indeed an offense against God.
This rite would be an offense against God if it only effectively reassures Protestants in their errors, but the Novus Ordo doesn’t stop there; it also leads Catholics to adopt those errors as well!
Obviously, such a rite, which has the effect of leading souls away from the fullness of faith and the one true Church, is a grave offense against the Lord.
Only the truly ignorant (the ubiquitous presence of whom is understandable given the degree to which our churchmen have misled us over these past 50 years) or the deliberately evil (which is another matter altogether) will deny that this is precisely the case with the Novus Ordo; not due to deviations from the missal (otherwise called liturgical abuse), but because the rite itself is crafted in such way as to have precisely the effect outlined above.
The results of the Novus Ordo are in, folks. It’s not a riddle as yet unsolved. The evidence is all around us; the majority of Catholics in our day, including many a daily Communicant, have a Protestant understanding, not just of the Mass, but of many fundamental doctrines of the faith.
Lex orandi, lex credendi isn’t just a slogan; it’s a reality.
Consider yet another aspect of the Novus Ordo wherein the offensiveness to God is entirely plain; the Mass of Christian Burial. (Please follow the link for details.)
Ask yourself:
Would a rite that when followed strictly “by the book” assures survivors that they will see their deceased loved one in Heaven (something that none of us can know), thereby discouraging them from offering Masses and making sacrifices for the good of the departed person’s soul, be rightly considered offensive to God?
Of course it would!
Well, this too is part and parcel of the Novus Ordo Missae; not thanks to abuse, but thanks to the missal itself.
At this, let’s consider (or recap as the case may be) individual points A – D raised above in defense of the Novus Ordo.
A) It is valid
This argument betrays both ineptitude and hypocrisy when it is offered by those who, like Michael Voris, readily admit that the Masses offered by the SSPX are valid, and yet have no problem saying that they must be avoided.
Either “validity” is the be all end all, or it’s not. Well, the truth is, it’s not.
Validity, in fact, is a very low bar, one that does not necessarily render the rite inoffensive to God (as has already been demonstrated), and this in spite of its merits.
B) It is the true Sacrifice of Christ offered to Our Heavenly Father
Indeed, but as noted above, the Crucifixion is also the true Sacrifice, and yet the greatest offense against God ever committed. The assumption that the presence of the true Sacrifice necessarily equates to the absence of offense against God is, therefore, demonstrably false.
C) The Most Holy Eucharist is truly confected and received therein
Indeed, and yet, as we have already established, one is not free to participate in that which offensive to God, simply in order to avail oneself of a good. (Ends justifying means.)
The moral obligation to avoid that which is offensive to God, in spite of the availability of good, might also be well illustrated if we consider the example of Catholic participation in a Protestant Bible study.
While one might derive real blessings in such a setting, a program such as this – one that necessarily draws souls away from the one true Church – is undoubtedly an offense against God. It therefore must be avoided by those who recognize it as such, if for no other reason than the risk of leading others to do the same, thereby putting their relationship with the Church and their understanding of the true faith in jeopardy.
The new Mass is very much the same.
At this, let’s spend a bit more time on the topic of the Eucharist, as many sincere Catholics seem to believe that our ability to receive Holy Communion trumps all other concerns.
If we take this near exclusive focus on the Eucharist to its logical conclusion, we arrive at a point where the rite itself loses all importance, in which case one is tempted to see a Communion service or a sick call as the equal of Holy Mass. We know, however, that this is not true.
At this, let’s consider the precept concerning Holy Communion. The new Catechism states:
“You shall humbly receive your Creator in Holy Communion at least during the Easter season.”
Is it possible to uphold this precept while avoiding participation in the Novus Ordo?
For most of us, it certainly is, even if not without effort; either by finding a TLM, or perhaps a Divine Liturgy of the Eastern Rite Catholic Churches.
If such is not possible, the question remains, are we then to participate in that which is offensive to God simply in order to uphold a precept?
We’ll explore this question in detail when we discuss the Holy Day obligation below.
D) It has been approved by the popes; i.e., given to the faithful by the Church
This is an important topic; one that reflects some misunderstanding as to the Novus Ordo’s character.
First, approval by the pope doesn’t necessarily mean that no offense against God is present. If nothing else, that has become entirely evident in the post-conciliar period.
Consider, for example, the Assisi events.
There isn’t a Catholic worthy of the name (Voris included, I presume) that doesn’t plainly recognize that these events were offensive to God, in spite of having been approved by the popes and celebrated by the popes (John Paul II and Benedict XVI – the former even being presented to the world as a “Saint”).
That leaves the suggestion that the Church would not give to her children a rite – the Novus Ordo – that is offensive to God.
This topic deserves more treatment than I can give it here, but know this:
“The Church,” meaning, Holy Mother Church who nurtures her children in the faith by preserving and passing down, in all integrity, that which she has received from her Founder and Head, did not give the Novus Ordo to the faithful; ultimately, Paul VI did.
There’s a tremendous difference.
Revisit, if you will, Cardinal Ratzinger’s characterization of the new Mass. In it, he contrasts the new rite with the TLM – the latter being the product of “the organic, living process of growth and development over centuries.”
This pedigree suggests that the Traditional Mass – the long-held, well-established Supreme lex orandi of the Church – has a dogmatic quality to it, similar to those doctrines that have always been held by the faithful, upheld by the popes, and taught by the bishops in union with him throughout the centuries.
The Novus Ordo Missae enjoys no such pedigree, nor does it enjoy the “dogmatic” quality that goes along with it; the same that ensures the absence of any offensiveness to God.
It is, after all, just as Cardinal Ratzinger said, a fabrication of mere men; as such, one errs in presuming to attribute to the new rite those qualities that are rightly expected of that which is given by “the Church” as Holy Mother.
Now let’s address our Sunday obligation.
In pretty much every major city in the United States, it’s not very difficult to find a Catholic parish that offers what is widely known and advertised as a “gay friendly” Novus Ordo Mass.
These liturgies, even without what may be properly considered an abuse, effectively serve to confirm those who wrongly believe that homosexual activity is acceptable, and even laudable, in the eyes of the Church and the Lord.
These Masses are entirely valid and the Eucharist is truly confected and made available therein. And yet, I am certain that Michael Voris would readily affirm that such a Mass is an offense against God that one should avoid.
Now, what if this “gay friendly” Mass was the only one available to you in order to fulfill your Holy Day obligation, what then?
I suspect that many Catholics, not knowing any better, might hold their nose and participate in the rite, albeit with disgust, in spite of knowing that the Lord is being offended therein, simply in order to fulfill their obligation.
This should be easily recognized as a classic case of upholding the letter of the law while failing to uphold what is far more important, the law of love that necessarily prevents us from taking part in anything that offends Our Blessed Lord.
The well-formed Catholic who applies his intellect to this terrible situation would be compelled to consider whether or not it’s in keeping with the spirit of the law (and the law of love) to believe that God, who desires that we should glorify Him with our entire lives, out of love for us and for our own good, would obligate us to participate in something that clearly offends Him?
The answer, of course, is no, He would not.
The Sunday obligation is not an item to check off of a to-do list. It is given to us as a gift. It is a call to enter into that which renders unto God the worship that He is due, which of course is devoid of any offense against Him – something that cannot be said of the Novus Ordo.
With all of this taken into consideration, even those who are as yet unable to draw the same conclusions that are drawn here, the same that I understand to be reflective of the SSPX position, may at least understand why a priest, motivated by a sincere love for Our Blessed Lord and for the souls in his care, might say that those who understand the Novus Ordo as an offense against God should avoid it, even on Sundays and Holy Days.
In conclusion, I urge you to read, if you’ve not already, the treatment of the new Mass given by Fr. Daniel Themann, SSPX, published at Catholic Family News.
The points here are patiently, and gently , well made so that even a slow-witted soul like me can follow the reasoning…
But
The reverential Mass I assist at being an offence against God ???
To me, that just doesn’t ring true…which would place me, according to the article, as being unknowledgable…
And so I turn to Job for comfort…
“Though He slay me, yet will I trust Him.”
Job 13:15
I’m absolutely certain that the picture in this article that shows a Mass “ad orientem” is a Novus Ordo Mass and not the Traditional Mass.
A very wise priest (FSSP) once told me that the priest gets HIS holiness from the Mass. Not the other way around. A priest, no matter how holy he is, cannot make the New Order Mass holy because it is intrinsically NOT holy. On the other hand, the TLM which IS intrinsically holy, provides abundant graces for the celebrant and those who assist, provided that they are open to these graces.
I hope I explained that correctly and that it provides food for thought.
Thank you Louie from the bottom of my heart for your grand work, However, this old man has reached the age where all elongated intellectual arm wrestling is just too much for me. As a convert I spent 40 years [1965 – 2005] in the wilderness of the Newchurch. I fathered and educated 8 children there. Today they are all secular humanists. If I had never found my way to The Fatima Center and Fr. Nicholas Gruner I would still be in darkness caused from the false precepts of Vatican II. I now worship with the SSPXers while even my children think I’m a nut-cake. My Rosary, brown scapular and a life spent is a quasi atmosphere of silence, solitude, and prayer is how I’m rounding out my last days. I need not tell you about my prayer life. You’ve already guessed it.
Yes — I can confirm that the picture below the Crucifixion painting is a Novus Ordo Mass. I am pictured as one of the servers in that photo, actually.
Be not discomfited, Ever Mindful. Remember that this post has your highest possible good as its object. If you will permit me to offer the suggestion that you look into the matter a bit further. What if you were present at a Mass in which your sense of reverence were to burn even more fervently than you would have thought possible? Would you go at once to find it? Might you return again and again just to really sound it out? You probably know where I’m going with this. Think about it. “And thus consider that through all generations that none that trust in him fail in strength.”
http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drl&bk=45&ch=2&l=61#x
Louie,
If you know SSPX Priests who are advising Catholics that they should attend the new mass this would not be what the SSPX teaches officially. The SSPX may be using prudence in dealing with confused souls. My experience with good SSPX Priests is they teach to completely avoid the new mass. The SSPX is right about not attending the new mass. Catholics should avoid the new mass. Once a Catholic knows the new mass is not Catholic it is a MORTAL SIN for that Catholic to attend it once they know.
My experience with FSSP Priests is that they do allow Catholics to attend the new mass. They may say it is not “advisable” and “they wouldn’t go” but true to liberal form they allow it if the faithful that “think they need it” or “they believe they have a good reason” Many FSSP people attend the new mass on Sunday’s with their children. This is wrong. The FSSP needs to stop misleading Catholics on this issue.
The FSSP is harming souls with this compromise. I know of very good people in the FSSP who send their children to the new mass and would stop doing so if the FSSP Priests told them the TRUTH clearly but they don’t because of politics and the FSSP doctrinal compromise. Then the very same Priests tell other parents IN THE SAME PARISH!!!! to not allow the children to go to the new mass. Talk about confusion and contradiction! A good SSPX Priest would tell all the parents in the parish to not to go to the new mass WITH CHILDREN and he would be right. Voris is the fruit of the FSSP. Voris uses FSSP sermons and Priests to back up his attacks on the SSPX and by extension his defense of the new mass and Vatican II.
The FSSP’s failure to do it’s duty in condemning errors has now caused the chickens (Voris) to come home to roost and this is harming FSSP faithful and their children. It is also harming the intellects of the young men going into FSSP seminary’s. Solution? GET AWAY FROM THE FSSP!!!! They are with Voris and Father Nicholson. Beware of the wolves.
Let us remember that the new mass and a black mass can both be valid. Yet both are in fact evil: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=opMuVJcud7M
Did Pope Benedict not recognise the gravity of the situation? Why didn’t he abolish the Novus Ordo? If it is lethal to souls he should have done so. I have little to no access to the TLM. I am convinced the Faith of my children has been damaged by the Novus Ordo. I am very sad.
Akita,
Catholics should not take children to the new mass. Please stop doing that it does harm them (and you) and it is a sin for you to bring them this is more clear for you because you know it is harming them. The new mass is not our religion.
This is what a Catholic is to do when they do not have a True Priest and the True mass: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hZrRGMs6CY
Good work Louie. The precepts of the Church exist to uphold the Catholic Faith not to destroy it. If one, by the grace of God, is able to see the offense and scandal of the NO then it is their duty to avoid it. When one refuses to attend the NO due to the spiritual harm it causes them and the spiritual harm it can cause others by their example they most certainly are not sinning. They are attempting to uphold and protect their Catholic Faith.
Are you talkin bout this photo?
http://ecclesiadei.org.nz/diocesan-traditional-latin-masses-celebrated-in-new-zealand/
http://www.crisismagazine.com/2013/the-rise-of-latin-mass-youth
Appreciate the article. Although I go to a very subdued parish, NO Extraordinary ministers (male or female), no altar girls, no peace sign, kneelers provided—but still seeking a Traditional Mass. There is a church being built for the FSSP which I hope to investigate. One thing that might help those that do not see the differences in the Mass would be to find an old Sunday missal– from 60 or 70 years ago. Read through the Mass, Latin on left, English on right. Compare to a NO replacement. If you cannot see the difference, then something is wrong.
That photo is from St. Joseph Church in Macon, Georgia.
It’s a popular photo
http://ecclesiadei.org.nz/diocesan-traditional-latin-masses-celebrated-in-new-zealand/
http://www.crisismagazine.com/2013/the-rise-of-latin-mass-youth
But you’re right:
http://www.stpeterslist.com/12223/facing-god-6-memes-on-celebrating-the-mass-ad-orientem/
Here’s a video of the Mass from the photo: https://youtu.be/Ish5zre-SRA
I was the thurifer for this Mass.
Sorry for the double post – I always forget only two links before comment moderation. I started watching your video, but then at 5:03 the offense to God began so had to stop.
I don’t blame you. I’ve moved away from that parish and now only assist at the Traditional Mass. For me, the subject of Louie’s post here is a settled issue — I will not attend the Novus Ordo.
Louie, every time I think about starting my own blog, I read your stuff and realize there’s no point. You say everything I want to say, only you say it smarter and better than I ever could. Like all of your blog posts, this one is well organized, logical, and damn near impossible to refute, so I won’t waste my time tryin’. I’m just going to say what I want to say and leave it at that.
I have looked in every theology manual I can find in order to spot a loophole that would allow me to stay home on Sunday rather than endure the Novus Ordo, but so far I’m a career .000 hitter in that regard. I can’t find any authoritative, pre-VII source that excuses one from their Sunday Obligation because they do not like the aesthetics of the Masses available to them. Maybe I’m not looking in the right places, but I have a few thousand dollars worth of dogmatic theology manuals in my possession and not a single one of them allows a Catholic to stay at home on a Sunday/Holy Day because all of the approved Masses within a one hour drive are repugnant or said without due regard for the rubrics. Liturgical shenanigans are as old as the Church, yet there seems to be no precedent for a layperson being able to exempt themselves from their Obligation even if they’re stuck with a liturgy that resembles an episode of Hee-Haw, The Muppet Show, or Will and Grace.
I know the Novus Ordo is infected with the poison of Protestantism (as the holy Archbishop said), but if the Catholic Church is who She claims to be, and if Paul VI was the Vicar of Christ on earth, there is no possible way that the Novus Ordo can be offensive to God. No. Way. Don’t like Communion in the hand or altar “girls”? Neither do I, but St. Peter’s successor seemed OK with both of those terrible ideas. Jesus didn’t tell Peter, “Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven…unless you happen to bind the Church to a banal, on-the-spot product. In that case, the sheep are perfectly justified when they ignore you and tell you to go pound sand.”
I love the SSPX. I used to receive the Sacraments at one of their chapels. I was conditionally Confirmed by +de Mallerais. Leaving them was like ripping off my own skin. Nobody wants to hear this, but nobody is probably reading this schlock so I’ll say it anyway: It’s time to seriously consider whether the Pillar and the Bulwark of the Truth and the Catholic Church since the death of Pius XII are one and the same thing. How in God’s name can the Spotless Bride of Christ give you Vatican II and the Novus Ordo? How could anyone who loves and cherishes their Holy Catholic Faith do and say what Paul VI and John Paul II did/said during their reign? Think Benedict XVI is immune from this scrutiny because he looked the part and had a genius level IQ? If you do, go and read some of his stuff from the 60s and early 70s and get back with me. Go count up how many synagogues he visited during his pontificate (hint: number of synagogues JPII visited +1). Think it’s an interesting coincidence that John XXIII & Nikita Khrushchev look like cousins? If you have to x-ray the candy your mother gives you on Halloween before you know it’s safe to eat, odds are she ain’t your mother. Hardly any traditionalists (aka Catholics) want to touch this issue with a ten foot cattle prod. I know that, and so does the Father of Lies. But given what the former high school chemistry teacher/tango dancer/Vicar of Jesus Christ on earth has been doing and saying for the past two years, it’s clear that we don’t have the luxury to ignore this issue any longer. My dad is a great guy, and he’d make a great pope, but he’s a Baptist. He could put on full pontifical regalia, take some regnal name ending with the number one, and stand on the loggia overlooking St. Peter’s square, but he’d still be a Baptist pope. We know there were a multitude of bishops during the reign of St. Pius X who had completely abandoned the Catholic faith. Did you really think that non-Catholic bishops, who would become non-catholic Cardinals, would elect continue to elect Catholic popes? Child, please.
Here’s where I’m at: I drive 1:35 to get to a FSSP chapel on Sunday that’s five minutes from the SSPX chapel I used to attend. When I’m not up to the drive, I attend the Novus Ordo and just stare at my Missal the entire time. In my darkest moments, I think about going back to Protestantism or abandoning God all together. If the Catholic Church is the Mystical Body of Christ, how did it manage to get swept away by all of the wacky tobacky smoke in the 1960’s, like almost every Protestant denomination did? Was Paul VI and the bishops at VII the Successors of the Apostles, protected by the Third Person of the Blessed Trinity from leading the Church into error so She would remain as Christ intended until the end of time? Or maybe they were just a bunch of dudes; a bunch of liberals intoxicated with the spirit of the age who hated the faith. God has let this go on 50+ years, and He seems totally cool with it. This is the same God who struck dead any priest of the Old Covenant who made the smallest mistake in offering the propitiatory sacrifice. Fifty years of chaos with no end in sight.
So…who else is ready for football season to start? I don’t know about you, but I’m totally pumped!
Akita, don’t be sad. Our Lord knows what you are going through. I fortunately have access to the TLM about 15 minutes drive, at The Oratory Of Sts. Gregory & Augustin, in Creve Coeur, MO. USA. This is not the SSPX. It is a Latin Rite Parish created by Cardinal Burke, under Summorrum Pontificum. When I am out in the woods, and have no access to the TLM, I do go to the Novus Ordo. Do I have doubts that this is fulfilling my obligation and may be a danger to me, in particular, my kids? Yes. I still go, more out of the fact that, what if I am wrong, and the Novus Ordo is a valid liturgy? So, I guess what I am really doing is hedging my bets. My teenage girls have been to both forms and they know the difference. What will be interesting is what will Catholics do after part II of the Silly Synod? There is a reason this Synod was called. What direction will people go? Apparently, everyone has forgotten about the 300 page report that Pope Benedict XVI left for his predecessor. This report was commissioned by Pope Benedict to investigate and find out the nature of the homo mafia that was running rampant inside the Vatican according to an Italian newspaper investigative report. The reason I bring this up is, we have heard nothing about what was done with this report, if, anything? Instead, we have a meeting(Synod) on the family & marriage, the teachings of which, have been settled law in The Church for 2000 years. Don’t be sad. Keep the faith! Ask Our Lord for guidance.
Dear Evermindful, the priest may act with the utmost reverence and piety but the rite itself is objectively deficient and misrepresentative of the Faith in its essence and integral fullness. The rite is not Catholic; it does not express the truths of the Faith.
Problem solved: Photo of banal on-the-spot product posing as the real thing has been replaced. Thanks. 😉
“If you know SSPX Priests who are advising Catholics that they should attend the new mass this would not be what the SSPX teaches officially. ”
.
This notion isn’t even remotely suggested in this post.
Dear Oatmeal, It is not a matter of aesthetics or taste but objective deficiencies/errors in the radically invented Novus Ordo, which greatly departs from the immutable Faith of Sacred Tradition. I understand Paul VI never promulgated the Novus Ordo but simply wrote a general letter introducing it as the new Mass. It must be obvious to any Catholic of goodwill that the Pope ought not to have permitted Annabale Bugnini to radically alter the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass for evil purposes (that he made clear).
Ken, you’ve spoken for many of us here. Your offering of Our Lord Jesus, as He offers Himself to The Father in the Sacrifice of the Mass, is ALL. The value is infinite, and the graces that flow from it will bring your children to Heaven.
–
I second your honouring of The Fatima Centre and Father Gruner for what he lived in his own life, and what he taught. Our Lady will help us in this battle.
–
For parents like you, and me, the true Mass, and Our Lady, are all we can cling to.
Now all is right in the world.
Or at least one less thing is wrong.
Dear OaTmEaL,
I must admit that Louie makes a very convincing argument against the Novus Ordo but I think he needs to address where this may lead. He sees the danger in his conclusion since he wrote, “The Novus Ordo Missae enjoys no such pedigree, nor does it enjoy the “dogmatic” quality that goes along with it; the same that ensures the absence of any offensiveness to God.”. The problem, as you pointed out, is that the N.O. does not have to have a “dogmatic” nature. Holy Mother, by order of the Vicar of Christ, has nonetheless, given this “banal” form of worship to her children for food. I honestly do not know how this would not make our Holy Mother the Whore of Babylon.
Thanks for commenting, pigg0214,
.
I think you missed what I stated above:
.
“The Church,” meaning, Holy Mother Church who nurtures her children in the faith by preserving and passing down, in all integrity, that which she has received from her Founder and Head, did not give the Novus Ordo to the faithful; ultimately, Paul VI did.
.
There’s a tremendous difference.
Dear Louie,
Thank you for directing me to your other comment. I did not mean to shortchange you and am surely not looking to pick a fight but I must admit to being confused. I see Paul VI, an apparent valid pope, to be one who can bind and loose. I also don’t see the logic in the idea that universality includes both space and time. This would render the whole idea of infallibility useless, since it is the charism of not being able to teach error. I have read commentary on the Canon of St. Vincent of Lerins which states that either one, universality (space) or antiquity (time) is sufficient for the Ordinary Magisterium to be infallible. It is my understanding that this would make no difference in the type of teaching, as long as it is universal, meaning it was taught to the entire Church at any given time.
Your understanding about these things would be much appreciated if you were to share them here or in a future post.
It seems to me that the “fence” is being shaken a bit and we will have to pick our side soon. I would like to be as informed as possible.
To me, if Paul VI was the pope, there’s no difference at all. Pius XII in “Mediator Dei” said, “58. It follows from this that the Sovereign Pontiff alone enjoys the right to recognize and establish any practice touching the worship of God, to introduce and approve new rites, as also to modify those he judges to require modification.” I certainly don’t want to argue with you, Louie. I have great esteem for you, and you may very well be right about all of this. Personally, I really wanted to embrace your viewpoint when I joined the SSPX, but ultimately I felt schizophrenic and I ended up getting angry with God. I did not expect that at all. The only way I could shut my mind up was to accept this supposition: If Paul VI was the pope, I have to treat him like the pope, and I have to accept his Mass. God allowed him to become pope, and God allowed the Novus Ordo to come into existence. If Paul VI truly would have been an impediment to God’s plan, He would have kept him from being pope (or being born for that matter). I once heard Fr. John Hardon, Servant of God, say that he thought the Novus Ordo, “came from God”. I winced the first time I heard that, but now I think I understand why he adopted that view. The faith of the individual believer is a complicated matrix of threads, and there are some threads that shouldn’t be pulled.
Louie you’re very well articulated in this article, your points are very well made. You nearly convinced me. But I still cannot accept the conclusion …
Oatmeal made a point. There’s absolutely nothing that I know of in tradition that support not going to church on sundays because of a bad priest that doesn’t follow the rubrics. In fact, it seems tradition would say otherwise. I’m thinking of the Dialog of Catherine of Siena, or the attitude of Saint Francis of Assisis (the real one, not the imaginary one) towards bad priests that would celebrate carelessly the mass. I know that the topic is not about good rubrics that are carelessly followed but more about bad/evil rubrics, but still, I think there’s a link that could be made.
Here’s what the Most Holy Virgin Mary said at Akita :
“[…] Already souls who wish to pray are on the way to being gathered together. ***Without attaching to much attention to the form***, be faithful and fervent in prayer to console the Master.”
This message of the Virgin is not about the mass, but it leads to some kind of attitude that we must conform.
I know we are in extremely difficult times, and it seems your conclusion is logical at first sight, but I still choose to attend the New Mass without participating in an external way, being seated at the back of the church (the TLM being too far away). My children know very well my opinion on the matter, and it seems that it makes them stronger in their faith, like an antidote for the poison. When there’s a scandal (and there’s a lot), it must always be rectified for their sake.
It was not a sin for the Holy Virgin and the apostle John to be present at Calvary. They didn’t approve what the roman soldiers did to our Lord, and so it is for me too ; I do not approve how our Lord is treated at the New Mass, and I make sure the people at the NO church know it in a charitable way, as did our Lady and saint John by their prayerful presence, sorrow, and attitude.
Oh good grief….ratzinger IS the novus ordo. He is the BIGGEST wolf of the V2 sect. My gosh dear, you need to already know this by now. He didnt need to recognize the gravity of the situation as he was one of the MAIN proponents of it in the first place.
The Priest said it true = The Catholic is BOUND to the Dogmatic teachings of Trent. Will the Vorisii of the planet ever accept this CHURCH TAUGHT TRUTH? (Mr Voris’ leaning on Luther – as if such a creep could have anything to do with the SSPX – is typical of Voris who understands nothing of who Luther was or the Novus Ordo heresiarchs’ love of Luther – which they will celebrate with great fanfare in 2017 – bet you can’t wait for your ticket, Voris!).
–
The Novus Ordo cuts itself off from that which every Catholic is bound to.
–
A) It is valid ≠ a Cranmer mass was closer to Trent than the Novus Ordo.
–
B) It is the true Sacrifice of Christ offered to Our Heavenly Father ≠ it obscures or dismisses the propitiatory/sacrificial and preistly aspects safeguarded in the True Mass.
–
C) The Most Holy Eucharist is truly confected and received therein ≠ its preisthood have, at best, doubtful ordinations. The eternal Order of Melchisedech is the crux of the Mass. If the priest of the Eternal Order of Melchisedech is not present – the whole thing is empty.
–
D) It has been approved by the popes; i.e., it is given to the faithful by the Church ≠ it was promulgated by heretics who have no authority within the Body of Christ to promulgate ANYTHING. (The Popes made it so plain – no public heretic has any authority to teach or pass laws in His Church).
–
Objectively, everything in the SSPX video is correct. In response, Voris’ ‘conniption’ is the, typically, confused reaction of someone stuck in a conciliary counterfeit construct being willfully blind as to what the New Order is and what its heads are. The ‘abuses’ Voris lays at the feet of ‘bad bishops’ were DELIBERATELY built into the New NON-CATHOLIC non propitiatory PROTESTANT SERVICE that is the New ‘Mass’.
–
The conciliar Vorisii seem invincibly blind. That said, the big problem with the SSPX take is exactly what gives Voris his fuel. The SSPX continue to ‘recognise’ the Novus Ordo heresiarchs as ‘popes’, whilst dismissing their magisterial authority. If this ‘mass’ comes from true popes it cannot be an offense to God because that which is Universally promulgated by a True Pope is APPROVED by God according to Christ’s promise. Yet we know the N.O. ‘mass’ is an offense to God, a rupture from Sacred Catholic Tradition, fuelled by heretics and schismatics and Christ-haters. The SSPX’s problem is that they acknowledge men who promulgated throughout every parish an heretical rite and heretical teachings, as Christ’s Vicar. The REAL ISSUE is this: are we willing to say that Christ and His ‘Peters’ have lied to us for 1900 years regarding the indefectibility of His Church?
I am reading the Catechism written by Fr. John Hardon. My understanding is he supported Vatican II. I think you have a great point(though I am not supporting going to NO Mass I only go to TLM). You have the identical logic as Sedevacantist as both you believe a Pope is infallible in teaching matter of faith and moral and the Roman Rite would fall under a matter of faith. Since they perceive the problem with NO Rite as other traditional Catholics they have to conclude the invalidity of the Popes after Vatican II because the understanding of the Papal infallibility is wider than other traditional Catholics. So both you and the Sedevacantist have a straightforward logic it is folks like me hold position that is a little bit confusing. But if you recognize Paul VI as valid Pope therefore NO Mass is valid and licit, then it is very hard for you to justify if you agree with Benedict XVI’s belief that the TLM was never abrogated. His invention of the term of ordinary form and Extra ordinary form obvious do not work, they are two rites, one traditional and one new. So if the old one remains valid then the new one can not exist at all. Given the heresies taught in Vatican II all the Popes after Vatican II who did not condemn Vatican II should be considered material heretics even they are valid popes. And the new Mass got its authority directly from Vatican II’s document which is not credible. I guess in the end Louie’s approach made sense, instead of figuring out if Paul VI had authority to change the Roman Rite, we examined objectively if the NO Rite serves the supreme law of the Church, to save souls. God Bless!
“Is it possible for something (in this case, the new Mass) to contain that which is both exceedingly good (the true Sacrifice, the Eucharist made available, therefore pleasing to God), and yet also that which is truly bad (an offense against God and therefore displeasing to Him) at one and the same time?”
–
That the mass can be “displeasing” to the Divine Majesty is intimated at the end of the Roman Rite:
“MAY THE PERFORMANCE OF MY HOMAGE BE PLEASING TO THEE, O holy Trinity: and GRANT that the Sacrifice which I, though unworthy, have offered up in the sight of Thy Majesty, MAY BE ACCEPTABLE TO THEE, and through Thy mercy, be a propitiation for me, and for all those for whom I have offered it. Through Christ our Lord. Amen.
St Hermenegild (d 585 in Spain, canonized in 16th century) was martyred by Arian heretics in Spain and refused to take holy communion before death at the hands of an Arian bishop. I think that is a clear demonstration (and an example given by Holy Mother Church for her children) of our need to separate ourselves from wicked heretic clerics, even if it means forsaking participating in the holy sacrifice of the altar.
Don’t people realize that just by their PARTICIPATION, people who attend sacrilegious NO masses are in effect (objectively speaking) being conspirators in the crime being perpetrated therein?
To compare attending the Roman Rite (i.e. Tridentine mass) with a priest performing the rubrics carelessly to attending the NO where the abuses are BUILT IN i.e INHERENT in the rite itself is astonishing, and where to add insult to injury, so many heresies, blasphemies, and even sacrileges are perpetrated therein, is simply astonishing.
Dear Louie,
Parts of this post are the best I’ve ever read. You are raising cardinal issues and providing material for 1000 comments. I reckon this post will receive a record number of replies. I’ m getting ready for Fr. Miller, so no time to start one finger comment typing now, but this is great stuff. This is getting to the heart of the matter. 🙂
Where does Church teaching and tradition teach that laymen should attend blasphemous and sacrilegious masses (we aren’t talking about sloppy rubrics here), where heresies and blasphemies are being preached from the pulpit?
See my comment a little further below.
I think this is a good (indeed excellent) summary of the position against the NO by SSPX:
–
“What is the position of the SSPX against the Novus Ordo as promulgated?
1.It is evil in that there is an absence of a due good. Specifically, the rite (not the sacrifice itself) suppresses and makes ambiguous numerous aspects of the theology of the Mass.
2.This ambiguity is manifestly a danger to the Faith of those attending, as the rites are supposed to make clear and reinforce the truths of the Faith. ie. Lex Orandi, Lex Credidi.
3.As such, because the New Mass is designed to be acceptable to the protestants by the suppression of these truths – the rite is offensive to God because the rites of the Church are supposed to be a clear expression of the Faith.”
http://tradicat.blogspot.ca/2015/08/sspx-vs-everyone-or-so-it-seems.html
Absolutely! Amen! Hallelujah!
To the second part of your comment: Absolutely! Amen! Halleluja!
During the Arian crisis, faithful Catholics had to flee from places of worship where heresy was being preached by Arian clerics who validly (but illicitly) celebrated the sacrament of the Eucharist.
I would argue we are in an identical situation now.
Catholics need only look to past history (during the Arian crisis) in order to discern the best way to handle the “problem” of the NO.
Quick Q. How is the Catholicity of anyone discerned? Is it because of their parents? Is it because they believe in VII and its heresiarchs? Is it because they subscribe to CMTV (even though the Church Militant has nothing to do with any Novus Ordo aims and gains)? Is because of an election? Or is it because they KEEP THE FAITH? The Church teaches that Catholicity comes down to keeping the Faith – adhereing to what Christ hands on to the Apostles and the Church they established; all of which agree in doctrine, discipline and worship. There is no sustainable disagreement in the Mind of Christ. What is the GREAT APOSTASY? Could it be a time when a succession of heresiarchs whom the world calls ‘popes’ promulgate evil worship, disciplines and doctrines, and which results in almost the entire ‘Catholic’ population being in and OF the world AGAINST the teachings of Christ and His Treu Popes? Say, a New Order = Novus Ordo?
–
If even a portion of folks understood but more importantly accepted the teachings of the Church and her True Popes, we would all be in agreement that the Novus Ordo heresiarchs are enemies of the Catholic Church = wolves, not shepherds.
No offense taken whatsoever, pigg0214!
.
As I said in the post, I think that this aspect of the discussion needs treatment all its own, which I hope to give it soon. Whether or not we can rightly attribute the Novus Ordo to Holy Mother Church goes straight to heart of the matter.
.
Thanks very much for reading and commenting. (That goes for all of you!)
Dear Louie, I read your posts regularly and have gained much from them. This latest one I think gets us right to the central question concerning this horrendous crisis in the Church. As far as I am aware infallibility applies not only to dogma and doctrine but also to rites and disciplines binding on the universal Church, in other words, the Church can not put upon the Catholic faithful any rite or usage which is harmful to the Catholic Faith. Now if the Novus Ordo is considered harmful to the Faith where does this leave us? For most traditional critiques of the Novus Ordo Missae clearly demonstrate the harm whether explicitly or implicitly given the predominant intention to craft the new mass in accordance with the new ecumenism. It is precisely here where we are on the edge: for example the late Michael Davies was a trenchant critic of the new mass, yet even he in his book “I will be with you always” refuses to designate the Novus Ordo Missae as harmful. Yet it is hard to see how after such devasting critique the reasonable conclusion that it is harmful is not drawn and he reverts to merely designating the Novus Ordo Missae as a much inferior expression of Catholic doctrine. Now if the NO is merely an inferior expression of the Faith then it seems to me that much of the grounds for promoting the TLM are cut away, it merely becomes a question of better aesthetics and expression. But surely with all the evidence now available it would seem to be some form of denial to avoid concluding that there was and is harm to the Faith. And if a validly elected Pope inflicted a harmful rite upon the Church what implications does this have for us all as Catholics? Would be great to hear your reflections on this hugely important question. But doesn’t it just illustrate what damage the Second Vatican Council and its subsequent implementation inflicted upon the Church to bring her to such a pass.
Dear In Hoc Signo Vinces, That is THE reason the NOM is objectively, materially, evil. It is very succinct and gets to the heart of the matter. It is the explanation in a nutshell. The truth is simple. It is just what I wanted to say, but was unable to articulate due to my cognitive problems. This ought to be published far and wide.
Dear Fr Mann, Very well reasoned. That the NOM is materially evil is the only reasonable conclusion on the evidence. The summary as set out by In Hoc Signo Vinces above is very clear and simple – and incontrovertibly true. The true meaning and purpose of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is key to identifying the necessary erroneousness and perniciousness of the NOM.
“As far as I am aware infallibility applies not only to dogma and doctrine but also to rites and disciplines binding on the universal Church.”
–
There are numerous crossroads in the life of the Church. Maybe Judas was the first – he went one way, the Church went the other. The continual succession of heretics and various artists/enemies went one way and the Church went the other. But we have been warned for 2000 years that there would come a time when most people would give up the faith and follow the man/the fork…; we certainly had times when people gave up Christ and His Church and followed a ‘judas’ or ‘stephen the magician’ or ‘arius’; but a Great Apostasy…give up the faith and follow cluster of stahzz = ‘vii-roncalli-montini-wojtyla…’ = give oneself over to a new form of worship, a new teaching. Yet we live in a time when we can compare and contrast the ‘old’ and the Novus Ordo, but almost 99% of people calling themselvs Catholics pledge aliegance to the N.O., sacrificing the Catholic/Old.
Don’t forget when one attends the NO one sees Our Lord’s Body and Blood handled in a sacrilegious manner. That’s the most important point for me.
I agree. A prayerful reading of the prayers of the Holy Mass from a missal no younger than 1962, will reveal much – the comparison with the NO makes the NO seem like a sick joke.
But there is still that fear of offending God if one does not attend Mass on Sunday! I can’t get over that feeling that He wants me to worship Him on that day in a public way, with fellow Catholics.
–
This is a model dilemma for sure.
If Our Lord Himself asks “when I return will I find faith on the earth” there must be a time when there is almost no faith here…when we observe Catholic life in the world we see what Our Lord prophesied has come about.
–
Our Lady, too, has told us this time would come. I guess it’s time to take stock and decide how far each one is willing to go to preserve the Faith.
Yeah. Keep it, basically.
Novus Ordo Catholics claim that the Real Presence is affirmed when the priest-president says ‘The Body of Christ’ at the time of giving out communion. The Instruction of the Bishops’ Committee on the Liturgy which laid down the rule that the priest was to use this new truncated expression instead of the traditional ‘May the body of our Lord Jesus Christ preserve your soul unto life everlasting, Amen.’ The Bishops’ Committee on the Liturgy strictly forbade the priest to say ‘This is the Body of Christ!’ NOW WHY WOULD THEY DO SUCH A THING ?????????
FSSP cannot recommend that the informed faithful avoid the NO mass because it is founded upon principles that include blanket acceptance of Vatican ll orthodoxy, the Novus Ordo Missae and acceptance of Novus Ordo professors in their seminaries. Unlike SSPX FSSP has recourse to a Novus ordo bishop willing to permit the traditional rites and willing to ordain their candidates. Therefore they are forced to abandon the fight against the new religion of Vatican ll.
I’m sorry, but this is ridiculous. I went to Mass at an FSSP parish just this morning. In his sermon, the priest warned against the current “egalitarianism and Marxist dialectic” being used by the hierarchy that undermines the family and teaches a false sense of charity in the form of an “idolizing of the poor as such.”
Seriously, what more would you have these priests do? I am all for supporting the SSPX and their mission, but that does not mean that one needs to support the demonstrably false company line that the FSSP is somehow compromised. I have heard far more preaching against the errors of the New Church from the FSSP than from any of the Society priests that I have heard sermonize.
There are folks who, when given a sense of the FAITH don’t flush it, and who move and move towards the truth of where we are.
Thank you very much In Hoc Signo Vinces for this great information !
This is what I’m doing, even though I attend NO masses. I do not take holy communion when there are sacrileges and blasphemies and I try to go to NO masses that do not have sacrileges. When Novus Ordo masses are reverently done, I go to communion, kneel and take the Host on the tongue even though some people are annoyed of me.
I think my stance on the matter is the one which gets me the most suffering. I’m rejected by most NO people, and also by most SSPX people. I know we all suffer, but I could have suffered less by having another stance. But I want to be with our Lord on the cross and my conscience is at rest … A good conscience is the greatest of treasure even though we suffer !
“I have looked in every theology manual I can find in order to spot a loophole that would allow me to stay home on Sunday rather than endure the Novus Ordo, but so far I’m a career .000 hitter in that regard. I can’t find any authoritative, pre-VII source that excuses one from their Sunday Obligation because they do not like the aesthetics of the Masses available to them. Maybe I’m not looking in the right places, but I have a few thousand dollars worth of dogmatic theology manuals in my possession and not a single one of them allows a Catholic to stay at home on a Sunday/Holy Day because all of the approved Masses within a one hour drive are repugnant or said without due regard for the rubrics…So…who else is ready for football season to start? I don’t know about you, but I’m totally pumped!”
In your pre-VC2, $thousand dogmatic theology collection, is there a loophole that authorizes you to spend from 12N to 12M watching football (or baseball for that matter “career .000 hitter”) as “keeping holy the Lord’s Day”? As I understand it, post is to try to give reasoning behind thesis: “The New Mass is to be completely avoided as they understand it is an offense against God.” Unfortunately, LV seems to spend his Sundays the same way you do (see Panoramic Ravens tail gate photo which may or may not have been a Sunday game in a previous post). However, I would respectfully suggest there are many ways to offend God on Sunday (and maybe provoke a bloodbath of Christian martyrs – 1st modern stadium not built til 1872). To me it is indicative of the whole purpose of the new mass (which was to make Catholics care no more for Jesus Christ than Protestants who followed Luther’s mass do) that 5pm Saturday evening mass was introduced at the same time so men could get their “Sunday mass obligation out of the way” to free Sunday up for fishin’ or NASCAR or whatever. My guide for how to spend Sundays is to think of BVM, St. Mary Magdalene and the rest of the apostles and disciples who left the tomb, “because it was the Parasceve, that is, the day before the sabbath… and when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalen, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, bought sweet spices, that coming, they might anoint Jesus. And very early in the morning, the first day of the week, they come to the sepulcher…” (absolutely nothing I want to do on Sunday as much as they longed to do that)
ermylaw,
This is part of the problem with the FSSP. Clearly some of the FSSP Priests have the Faith and have courage. The problem is that the FSSP as such wears the badge of error. Officially.
You ask
“Seriously, what more would you have these priests do?” Their duty. They need to be willing to suffer for Our Lord. They need to give up Vatican II and the new mass officially and rejoin the fight for the Faith which is about the doctrine not just the mass and smells and bells.
The FSSP has publicly compromised on doctrine and the new mass. Both in 1988 with the founding document that created the FSSP and in 2000 with the FSSP’s accepting the new mass.
The FSSP is part novus ordo and the reason the FSSP is “in” and the SSPX are said to be “out” (or “half in” lol) is because the FSSP has given up the fight for the Faith and the mass officially. The FSSP is part of new church.
This is made manifest in FSSP literature & sermons when they use the terms “Ordinary” and “Extraordinary” to refer to the new mass and the true mass.
To use the terms “Ordinary” and “Extraordinary” when speaking of the Roman rite and the new rite implies an equality between the tow rites that is not there. The new mass is evil it destroys Faith and harms souls. The FSSP is harming countless souls by this “Ordinary” and “Extraordinary” game they are playing based on church politics not on the Faith.
Because of the doctrinal problems with the FSSP and how they accept the new mass no Catholic should be supporting this group. We should not attend their masses. We should not give them money. Unless and until they repent of their error.
I do sympathize with the Priests in the FSSP who can see things as they are. If they can see they must act and get out of the FSSP. They are in a awful spot. They have to act and leave the FSSP and take a stand for the doctrine of Our Lord.
FSSP Priests that know it is time to go can contact the SSPX or the Resistance for help. If they remain in the FSSP knowing it has given up the Fight and joined new church I would hate to be such a Priest or laymen on judgement day.
http://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/question-principles-sspx-vs-fssp-3062
pinaymom,
Bingo! In a nutshell. Well said! This is why Catholics should not support the FSSP. Those who do are playing with fire. Fire burns. This is a salvation issue if Catholics go to FSSP masses their faith and the faith of their children is in grave danger. This is even more so if they know about the FSSP and go anyway. I know many who do this. It is very dangerous. Once we know about the FSSP we must act and get away.
Lynda,
–
Thanks for your comment (and I agree it goes right to the heart of the matter), but just to be clear – I am not the author of the blog – so kudos to “tradicat” in Canada!
“Quo Primum” by St Pius X
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius05/p5quopri.htm
“…by these presents [this law], in virtue of Our Apostolic authority, We grant and concede in perpetuity that, for the chanting or reading of the Mass in any church whatsoever, this Missal is hereafter to be followed absolutely, without any scruple of conscience or fear of incurring any penalty, judgment, or censure, and may freely and lawfully be used. Nor are superiors, administrators, canons, chaplains, and other secular priests, or religious, of whatever title designated, obliged to celebrate the Mass otherwise than as enjoined by Us. We likewise declare and ordain that no one whosoever is forced or coerced to alter this Missal, and that this present document cannot be revoked or modified, but remain always valid and retain its full force notwithstanding the previous constitutions and decrees of the Holy See, as well as any general or special constitutions or edicts of provincial or synodal councils, and notwithstanding the practice and custom of the aforesaid churches, established by long and immemorial prescription – except, however, if more than two hundred years’ standing…
Therefore, no one whosoever is permitted to alter this notice of Our permission, statute, ordinance, command, precept, grant, indult, declaration, will, decree, and prohibition. Would anyone, however, presume to commit such an act, he should know that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.
–
Given at St. Peter’s in the year of the Lord’s Incarnation, 1570, on the 14th of July of the Fifth year of Our Pontificate.”
You’re rejected by (most) NOs for receiving the body of the Lord reverently (and presumably, for upholding catholic doctrine and morals)?
I think that speaks volumes…
I appreciate the sincerity of your opinion, being informed as it is by the SSPX talking points on this issue, but I disagree with you. While it is true that there is no precedent in Church history sufficiently analogous to the current crisis that would allow us a clear plan of action, it is demonstrably not true that a priest is obliged to flee from his rightful superiors when the superiors succumb to some theological error or heresy. One is obliged in conscience not to fall into the same errors out of an errant since of obedience; however, one is not relieved of his usual, morally binding obedience on all scores because of a superior’s error or heresy on some other score.
There is no evidence to suggest that the FSSP is complicit in the Novus Ordo debacle. Simply being part of the Church does not make one responsible for the errors of everyone else in the Church. The use of particular adjectives in certain instances is not sufficient evidence, especially considering the most thorough critique of the moniker “Extraordinary Form” comes from Fr. Chad Ripperger, who demonstrated the historical novelty and erroneous nature of that phrase whilst still a priest of the FSSP.
It is possible to take a stand for the doctrine of our Lord without entering into some level of irregularity with the Church. In fact, that is precisely how all the great reformer saints were able to reform the Church during the previous times of crisis.
So, when you claim that it is the duty of a Catholic priest to enter into an irregular position with the Catholic Church in order to do their duty and to stand for the Lord’s doctrine, I respond that part of standing for the Lord’s doctrine is believing those doctrines dealing with the nature of the Church as a divine institution with a visible head with which one must be in communion in order to be Catholic. It is a false dichotomy to suggest that one must necessarily remove oneself from the normative communion of the Church in order to reject the errors of the Church’s human and fallible hierarchy.
Finally, if you truly believe that the FSSP priests are concerned chiefly with “smells and bells,” as you have alleged, then it is clear to me that you have never encountered a Fraternity priest or attended one of their Churches. You needn’t even go in person: you could listen to any sermon available on audiosancto to disprove your assertions about the FSSP’s supposed doctrinal compromises.
Instead of being sectarian about these issues, I would suggest that supporting every group of priests that is fighting for the faith. They have different strategies, which is for the best as it forces the enemy to fight on many fronts. All Traditional priests are deserving of our support.
Father Paul Kramer: “Ironically, even the 1983 Code of Canon Law upholds the right and the duty of Catholics to adhere to their customary rites. As Roman Catholics, our customary rites are the Roman rites, the ceremonies of the Roman Rite. The Popes have professed and the Church has solemnly taught that this cannot be taken away from us. We may not defect from that rite and embrace a new rite without violating what has been taught as a doctrine of the faith in the Church down through the centuries. Quo Primum is entirely based on this teaching.” It had been a well established teaching of the Catholic Faith that the Roman rite cannot be trashed and replaced with a new rite. To do so is contrary to the law of God as defined by the infallible Magisterium of the Church. What Pope Pius V points out in Quo Primum, is that the rite in this Missal, this Roman Missal, is the received and approved rite of the Roman Church. Therefore, it is a particular application of the dogmatic teaching taught by the Council of Trent. We cannot say that Quo Primum is merely a disciplinary decree. It is disciplinary, of course, it refers to discipline. But it is a disciplinary decree based on dogma. However, even if the Pope had never issued Quo Primum, the doctrine of the Church had been previously defined. The proper liturgy of the Roman Church is the Roman Rite. This is the faith. This is the teaching of the Church. So even if Quo Primum never existed and even if Pope Pius V had not codified the Missal, Catholics would still be bound their customary traditional rites, the so-called Tridentine Rite, and other similar variations of the same. This is the doctrine of the faith and it can never change. The 1565 Profession of Faith of Pope Pius IV, also known as the “Tridentine Profession of Faith,” binds the Catholic to his traditional rites, to the “received and approved rite.” One must embrace and adhere to the received and approved customary rites of the Church. This is the faith. Therefore, the creation of the Novus Ordo is contrary to the defined dogma of the faith, contrary to the faith solemnly professed in the profession of the Popes, contrary to the Tridentine Profession of Faith.”
The Slippery modernist will say the Tridentine Profession of Faith.” has not been trashed, its still there !!! We just cannot have access to it !!! LOL
Michael Voris in the past.
http://www.onepeterfive.com/michael-voris-was-right/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_vwwajyASI
70 % of Catholics who attend the Novus Ordo Mass do not believe they are receiving the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ, under the appearance of bread and wine, at Holy Communion. Dr. Smith, one of the Lutheran representatives at commission set up by Paul VI to implement the Council’s teaching on the liturgy later publicly boasted, “We have finished the work that Martin Luther began.”
“He would do that if he did not observe that which the Universal Church observes in basing herself on the Tradition of the Apostles, or if he did not observe that which has been ordained for the whole world by the universal councils or by the authority of the Apostolic See. Especially is this true with regard to the divine liturgy, as, for example, if he did not wish personally to follow the universal customs and rites of the Church. This same holds true for other aspects of the liturgy in a very general fashion, as would be the case of one unwilling to celebrate with priestly vestments, or in consecrated places, or with candles, or if he refused to make the sign of the cross as other priests do, or other similar things which, in a general way, relate to perpetual usage in conformity with the Canons.
“By thus separating himself apart, and with obstinacy, from the observance of the universal customs and rites of the Church, the Pope could fall into schism. The conclusion is sound and the premises are not in doubt, since just as the Pope can fall into heresy, so also he
can disobey and transgress with obstinacy that which has been established for the common order of the Church. Thus it is that [Pope] Innocent [III] states (De Consuetudine) that it is necessary to obey a Pope in all things as long as he does not himself go against the universal customs of the Church, but should he go against the universal customs of the church, he ought not to be obeyed….”
(Summa de Ecclesia [1489])
JUAN CARDINAL DE TORQUEMADA theologian of Council of Florence
“And in this second way the Pope could be schismatic, if he were unwilling to be in normal union with the whole body of the Church, as would occur if he attempted to excommunicate the whole Church, or, as both Cajetan and Torquemada observe, if he wished to overturn the rites of the Church based on Apostolic Tradition.”
“If [the pope] gives an order contrary to right customs, he should not be obeyed; if he attempts to do something manifestly opposed to justice and the common good, it will be lawful to resist him; if he attacks by force, by force he can be repelled, with a moderation appropriate to a just defense.” (De Fide, Disp. X, Sec. VI, N. 16)
FRANCISCO SUAREZ, S.J. (1548-1617)
Barbara,
Your comment has always been the bottom line for me. When I must attend the N.O. Mass for family reasons, I refrain from receiving Holy Communion and keep my head down not to witness the very obvious desecration of Our Lord’s Body and Blood.
Also, I wonder –does the consecration actually take place even if the priest is validly ordained. Intent, Matter and Form are required. Does the priest truly Intend to consecrate then allow this scandal to take place. Is the Matter correct? I’ve been to N.O. Masses where muffin-like bread was used. What about Form? I’ve heard N.O. priest make up the words of consecration as they went along or chant the words which I believe is forbidden. Sometimes I pray that the consecration does not take place in order to spare Our Lord this horrible sacrilege. I welcome any comments on this.
ermylaw,
You said “then it is clear to me that you have never encountered a Fraternity priest or attended one of their Churches”
False I spent 6 years with the FSSP. Run a mile. The FSSP is bad news.
You wrote: “I could listen to any sermon available on audiosancto to disprove your assertions about the FSSP’s supposed doctrinal compromises”
I have the whole site on my IPOD and I know the sermons and some of the Priests well. The FSSP does not teach clearly on the errors of Vatican II and the FSSP is clear on the new mass and they are wrong. The FSSP does not teach clearly on the errors of religious liberty,ecumenism, and collegiality the clergy have a duty to do this.
You wrote “There is no evidence to suggest that the FSSP is complicit in the Novus Ordo debacle”
False in 2000 the FSSP accepts the new mass officially and publicly they say they will say it/concelebrate it on Holy Thursday (I know many FSSP Priests don’t do it which is why they should leave the FSSP and be honest about matters): http://archives.sspx.org/fraternity_of_st_peter/fiasco_of_the_fraternity.htm
To your point about Fr. Chad Ripperger the take away from your comment is “whilst still a priest of the FSSP” Fr. Chad Ripperger is no longer an active member of the FSSP that speaks volumes for those who know him. Fr. Chad Ripperger has gone deeper into new church and my prediction is that he will get burned for doing so. I could be wrong we will wait and see. I hope he does well. Bottom line Fr. Chad Ripperger is not with the FSSP anymore the way he once was.
I am not using SSPX talking points. These are not my opinions about the FSSP I reject them based on their own documents and documents from Rome.
The document that created the FSSP “Ecclesia Dei” by John Paul II on 2 July 1988 contains a 100% grade A modernist definition of Tradition (the FSSP accepts it) The very same document says that Vatican II contains “NEW” doctrine (the FSSP accepts that) How do I know that? Because this is the document that created the “Ecclesia Dei” aka the FSSP.
The matter of the use of the words “Ordinary” and “Extraordinary” by FSSP Priests is not a small matter. The consequence is Catholics will attend the new mass during the and be scandalized. They have their faith harmed and weakened because they attend the new mass. They also take their children to the new mass which is a horror and grave sin against the children. I have seen with my own eyes the damage this “Ordinary” and “Extraordinary” trash has caused in Catholic adults and children. Shame on the FSSP for the lie of “Ordinary” and “Extraordinary” Shame!
The root issue with the use of the words “Ordinary” and “Extraordinary” is that the FSSP publicly teaches as a group that the Roman rite has two forms “Ordinary” and “Extraordinary” THIS IS A LIE! The new mass is not the Roman rite. How could it be?
To all this talk of “fleeing from his rightful superiors” I say a distinction needs to be made between when the rightful superiors are sodomite heretics or Catholics. True a Bishop is a Bishop and the Pope is the Pope just like the Father of the family is still the Father of the family when he comes home at 3am drunk ready to rape the children and beat his wife. The children do well to run and hide to avoid being raped and say a hail Mary for dad.
Yeah he is still dad but they are right to run! Same story when the Pope,Bishops and Priests come with Vatican II modernism and the new mass the Catholics must run for the good of our souls but we must stay united to the abusers like the reformer Saints. That is what the SSPX does the FSSP is getting raped and endangering their salvation and the that of the laymen under them from the spiritual AIDS the FSSP has caught from the Pope and the Bishops.
You wrote “it is demonstrably not true that a priest is obliged to flee from his rightful superiors when the superiors succumb to some theological error or heresy”
Tell that to St. Athanasius who said “they have the buildings we have the Faith”
The “normative communion of the Church” is not found among heretics holding to Vatican II and the new mass. Modernism is a defined heresy that is where the FSSP is wrong Catholics are not obliged to be in union with modernists and their new church in fact it is a sin to do so. Vatican II is a new religion.
I agree with you that “All Traditional priests are deserving of our support” The FSSP as such is not Traditional. At best it is a hybrid of Tradition and Vatican II. Run a mile. Beware of the wolves.
This is not a question of “They have different strategies” They hold different doctrines and principles. The SSPX is right and the FSSP is wrong.
You wrote “While it is true that there is no precedent in Church history sufficiently analogous to the current crisis that would allow us a clear plan of action”
False for such a plan of action Google: 1974 declaration archbishop lefebvre
ock,
There is no such thing as a “Novus Ordo” Catholics either one is a Catholic or a heretic. It is true some Catholics are trapped in the Novus Ordo but one is either a Catholic or a heretic.
Advised to avoid Mass on Sunday?
Not sure what to do??
Perhaps read more poetry….
WHEN ALL THE OTHERS WERE AWAY AT MASS
When all the others were away at Mass
I was all hers as we peeled potatoes.
They broke the silence, let fall one by one
Like solder weeping off the soldering iron:
Cold comforts set between us, things to share
Gleaming in a bucket of clean water.
And again let fall. Little pleasant splashes
From each other’s work would bring us to our senses.
So while the parish priest at her bedside
Went hammer and tongs at the prayers for the dying
And some were responding and some crying
I remembered her head bent towards my head,
Her breath in mine, our fluent dipping knives–
Never closer the whole rest of our lives.
Seamus Heaney
1911-1984
Ireland’s Favourite Poem of the last 100 Years
As an attorney that has worked for one of the largest law firms in America and now works for one of the largest corporations in the world, even I am impressed by the logical gymnastics this article presents.
Disclaimer: I only go to a TLM except when it isn’t possible to, and generally agree with Louis’ points about how the Novus Ordo both can be and is offensive to God. I used to drive 1.5 hours each way to a TLM until one started up closer to where I live–that’s just to say I truly believe there is a VAST difference between the two forms of Mass and one that should not be ignored.
That said, the SSPX’s position that, if faced with a choice between not going to Mass on Sunday or going to a Novus Ordo, you should not go to Mass (it’s still not entirely clear to me this is their position, but I think it is) cannot be countenanced as Catholic except by the logical gymnastics displayed in this article to get to that conclusion. Lawyers often try to overcomplicate things to get you to lose sight of simple truths, so I’ve had some experience with this.
The simple truth: you MUST go to Mass on Sunday. It is without doubt an absolute obligation imposed by the Fourth Commandment. “Spirit of the law” arguments only work when you are advising people to go above and beyond what the letter of the law says (as our Blessed Lord did in the Gospels). It cannot work as a means of recommending abrogation or ignoring a law. Think about that… how can the spirit of a law (the “law” in this case being “you must go to Mass on Sunday”) ever logically lead to its own abrogation?
If the only Mass you can make is in certain respects offensive to God, you must still fulfill your obligation to make Mass. The offense part cannot be laid upon your conscience unless you willingly participate in it when you have the opportunity not to. Nor can it be said that you should avoid the Novus Ordo even when you have no other option to avoid being scandalized by it. If you choose instead to simply ignore the obligation of attending Mass on Sunday, YOU HAVE ALREADY REACHED THE END POINT OF SCANDAL: A STATE OF MORTAL SIN AND SEPARATION FROM THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. Furthermore, as I’m sure many who visit this site can attest to, the scandal can be mitigated by learning about what Mass actually is and WHY elements of the Novus Ordo may be offensive.
I agree that we should all be pushing for the return of the TLM as the normal form of mass, but to take the position you should never attend a Novus Ordo, even if you had no other option–and especially when you admit that it is a valid rite and attendance at it would fulfill your obligation to attend Mass on Sunday–is nothing more than advising people to commit mortal sin so that they won’t be scandalized. It is logically inane.
very true piokolby
newmass v old mass
http://youtu.be/6fc7_OhT3fA
“The simple truth: you MUST go to Mass on Sunday. It is without doubt an absolute obligation imposed by the Fourth Commandment.”
In the Catholic Church, the fourth commandment is “honor your mother and father”
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a4.htm
http://www.ucg.org/bible-study-tools/booklets/the-ten-commandments/the-fourth-commandment-key-to-a-relationship-with
The Sunday mass obligation is one of the six precepts imposed by the Catholic Church – check it out in a Catholic Catechism.
1. Attend Mass on Sundays and on holy days of obligation, and rest from servile labor. (Never heard it could be fulfilled by attending Lutheran services.)
2. Confess your sins at least once a year.
3. Receive the sacrament of the Eucharist at least during the Easter season.
4. Observe the days of fasting and abstinence established by the Church.
5. Help provide for the needs of the Church.
6. Observe the Church’s laws on marriage.
May God bless and preserve you. Thank you for your witness to the Faith, and suffering for Our Lord.
Thanks to Tradicat for the very helpful expounding of the inherent defect of the NOM. Clearly recognisable as the truth by anyone who knows the Faith. Incontrovertibly true.
Sorry meant third commandment in that it is a law related to the third commandment. Thanks for the correction!
Social media wars.
Churchmilitanttv.com Versus Harvestingthefruit.com
Sincerely held views in both camps and by the followers of both camps.
Who’s right, who’s wrong.
Voris holds that SSPX are not canonically approved. Yet the Vatican itself allows SSPX clergy to celebrate the Tridentine Mass in it’s (the Vatican’s) diocesan churches in that city and in the diocese of Rome.
Verrecchio appears to question the Vatican’s approval of the Novus Ordo Mass.
Supporters of both bellow how their man is right and that the other man is wrong.
I don’t know who is right or wrong. I suspect that others, if they can put aside their pride for once, don’t know either.
It is rather depressing that this infighting continues because our church is really hurting right now and the last thing she needs is those within to be fighting with others within.
A house divided and all that……………………………………………
Why all this discussion about Mass? What’s wrong with you people? With the authority I have invested in myself as a priest of the People of God under the authority of the priesthood of believers, I absolve you and me of all our non-mistakes past present and future and you are hereby relieved of any duty and obligation to worship anything but your selves in any way you see fit, except for Mary. Mass smash: Clowns, puppet shows, drum sessions, football themes are all great- nature worship is especially cool too; and besides, God’s too big and busy to care about your stupid little formula prayers and dusty old rituals, so stay home if you want. Let’s just share the bread and wine together like a family and remember what a groovy man Jesus might have been, getting everyone to share and all; we’re all hip and up-to date now so don’t worry, it’s just a symbol and she doesn’t even like symbols. Something solid like a comedy show is a valid way to show communion with the Great Spirit god. If you are a mature Catholic, don’t worry your pretty legalistic Pelagian heads about a thing because you are going to heaven anyhow baby, ‘cause heck, Pope John-Paul squared -Benedict-Francis sez jus be a good little Muslim-Jew-Hindu-atheist-pagan-whatevah and you’ll get to heaven anyhow, so don’t sweat it, just be nice and don’t argue, and don’t forget your pledge card for the bishop’s fund cause he needs to travel to some conference on how to make you into a good neighbor with taxpayer money. And don’t worry bout Fr. Fairie groping your boys cause we had a commission take care of it and the insurance is paid up, and he has needs and who are you to judge? Try to be more welcoming. And don’t say anything bad about those guys crucifying little kids and prostituting little girls in Syria , they’re not the RealMuslims. RealMuslims are our friends so make nice and don’t be critical and judgmental, after all we deserve it because of the Crusades and Inquisitions and that Galileo thing. We all got us some get-out-of-jail-free cards and so why don’t you exceed expectations and jump on the Vatican II train?
Dear E.M.,
Apparently this wouldn’t ring true to Cardinal Ottaviani either. After the much cited “Intervention”, he wrote a letter which does not get as widespread citation:
“I have rejoiced profoundly to read the Discourse by the Holy Father on the question of the new Ordo Missae, and especially the doctrinal precisions contained in his discourses at the public Audiences of November 19 and 26, after which I believe, NO ONE CAN ANY LONGER BE GENUINELY SCANDALIZED. As for the rest, a prudent and intelligent catechesis must be undertaken to solve some legitimate perplexities which the text is capable of arousing. In this sense I wish your ‘Doctrinal Note’ [on the Pauline Rite Mass] and the activity of the Militia Sanctae Mariae WIDE DIFFUSION AND SUCCESS.” (Whitehead, 129, Letter from his eminence Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani to Dom Gerard Lafond, O.S.B., in Documentation Catholique, #67, 1970, pages 215-216 and 343)”
— and also:
“The Beauty of the Church is equally resplendent in the variety of the liturgical rites which enrich her divine cult-when they are legitimate and conform to the faith. Precisely the legitimacy of their origin protects and guards them against infiltration of errors. . . .The purity and unity of the faith is in this manner also upheld by the supreme magisterium of the Pope through the liturgical laws”(In Cruzado Espanol, May 25, 1970)”
— [The person posting posting these quotes at Fisheaters continues: –]
“So what is the Cardinal saying here?
1. That he rejoiced profoundly to see the Pope explain the new mass in such a way as to remove all possibility of genuine scandal.
2. He wished the Novus Ordo to receive a wide diffusion and success
3. The Novus ordo is a resplendent and legitimate addition to the existing variety of liturgical rites
4. The NO is a legitimate rite for the precise reason that the Pope is legitimate and he protects and guards the liturgy against error.
5. The Pope was and is executing his office of supreme teacher of the church in his diffusion of the New Mass.”
— Granted, there are those, like the SSPX, which tend to dismiss the Cardinal’s letter as a fabrication, but this was 9 years before he died.
http://www.fisheaters.com/forums/index.php?topic=3424681.msg33159409#msg33159409
Exactly!
How can the NO possibly be a “received” rite of the Roman Church, when it is an entirely novel concoction created by a few clerics over a conference table, “a banal on the spot fabrication??
Dear Indignus Famulus, I hope you’re both well. The first quotation seems to be a personal letter – did the Cardinal publish it? The second quotation doesn’t seem to refer to the Novus Ordo Missae, on the information given. God bless. Your sister in Christ.
I don’t think “infighting” is the correct word here – Louie is not picking a fight here, if anything, it’s the CMTV gang.
Mr Verrechio is reacting in “self-defense” – if you will – defending the truth (as one ought to) against shameless attacks upon the SSPX by the gang over at CMTV (whoever it is that happens to be the “mind” behind these attacks: Mr Terry, Voris, Fr Nicholson?).
LOL!
“Something solid like a comedy show is a valid way to show communion…”
Ah yes…
I remember years ago at a NO mass the deacon/presbyter whatever chanting during the sermon to the congregation:
“Give me an A…!!!!!!!!”
Congregation: A….!!!!!!!!
“Give me a D…..!!!!!!!!!!”
Congregation: D……..!!!!!!!!!
And so on…
But didn’t the popes before Vatican II for example Pius XII changed to Roman Rite (Holy week) too? Should he be condemned according to Quo Primium of Pope St. Pius V?
That’s simply astonishing.
That’s one of the most scathing critiques of the NO I’ve heard. I hope other readers (especially the skeptical) won’t miss that youtube video from Mr Voris.
Comparing that video to CMTVs current Party Line re. the SSPX & the NO, I have further ground for believing that, as I’ve mentioned before, Mr Voris’ sensus catholicus has been hijacked by sinister people within opus dei.
The difference is the new mass is a new rite so Quo Primium bound the Latin roman rite for all time to be used in Latin church. pius xii changes to holy week were just that changes within the rite of mass where as the creation of the new mass is a An altogether departure from that rite.
PS Does someone have access to the full programme of that video? It needs to spread far and wide!
Sorry for spelling mistake Quo Primum here is a link to the papal bull issued by Pope St Pius V 14 July 1570.
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius05/p5quopri.htm
“We likewise declare and ordain that no one whosoever is forced or coerced to alter this Missal, and that this present document cannot be revoked or modified, but remain always valid and retain its full force notwithstanding the previous constitutions and decrees of the Holy See, as well as any general or special constitutions or edicts of provincial or synodal councils, and notwithstanding the practice and custom of the aforesaid churches, established by long and immemorial prescription”
Dear IF
Thank you for measured reflection
Louie,
Could you address Bazou point that although the crucifixion of our Lord was a great offense against God, nevertheless the Blessed Virgin Mary, St. John and St. Mary Magdalene both were there.
Thanks.
Dear Lynda,
Thanks very much for your kind wishes. Like you’ve described about your situation, our medical “conditions” provide daily opportunities to make offerings for the good of the Church and all souls– so we try not to complain much, or get overwhelmed by it all . (a work in progress) 🙂 🙂
Keep us in your prayers, please, as you are in ours.
___
As to your question about publication of the above-we listed the citations given for both, which were found in the link, but can also look further to find them.
Can you explain what exactly led you to believe the second quotation doesn’t seem to refer to the Novus Ordo? The author apparently felt certain it did, and seemed to be in pursuit of the truth as well, since he emphasized that he personally saw the N.O. as a “catastrophe” but being after the truth about it -was calling for more honesty in the discussion, as these documents exist and are avoided.
__
We agree things are a mess today, with examples such as Louie’s examples of “gay-friendly” Masses or other abuses being no-doubt displeasing to God and avoided, seem valid. But for those who have Masses in their areas that are not loaded with such abuses, we see it as gravely harmful to listen to those to tell us to avoid attending Mass on Sundays and Holydays, where the N.O. is the only choice. It seems to us -based on the video in question, that the SSPS has just crossed a line they had not crossed before, and ARE recommending that no one attends the N.O. Mass. Perhaps they hope a general revolt against it will lead to a faster restoration of the TLM. We don’t see that as realistic, and believe we are more likely to see further reforms of the N.O. initiated in the near future, that will increase the number of them that do not have to be avoided by parents with Children. But no reforms of the Mass will make a parish safe, if the people in charge are modernists. That is the real scourge we see threatening souls. We still believe the Mass in intrinsically good.
___
It seems Quo Primum is very clear, no change means no change. on what ground Pius XII believed he had the authority to change the Roman Rite?
No idea probably he’s own authority as pope but he did make those changes and in my opinion he shouldnt have done so. The difference is you could hardly accuse pius xii of being a modernist from his writings but the modernists and masons like bugnini where all round him. I dont hold the sedevacantist view but this video by fr cekada will help to understand what was going on in the church the years previous this is only part 1 of 13 parts just follow video on from the link. http://youtu.be/JdfUm_c8gCs
Dear Travis,
Thank you for this excellent effort. We feel much the same about the gravity of advising people to skip Mass when the N.O. is the only one available, the sins involved, and where the SSPX and Louie have taken this. Y-our articulation of the problems with the logic involved was very clear and sensible. The overcomplication of things that gets people to lose sight of simple truths seems to be one of Satan’s favorite ploys-adopted wittingly or not we don’t know– by many groups and individuals these days. Thank you and God Bless you.
To me, it seemed as if the second quotation does not include the NOM, which a radical departure from the Latin Rite as received and passed on down the centuries, and even being in effect a subversion and suppression of the truths of the Faith as previously expressed in the Latin Rite. All the while, the radically new departure from Tradition, being represented to the Faithful as just “a new form” of the preexisting Latin Rite! Would have to read the whole letter to see if the Cardinal meant to include the new, invented “form” of the Latin Rite. The Rites of the Church are passed down through Sacred Tradition and do not change in any significant way, holding and expressing as they do the unchangeable truths of the Faith, regarding the reenactment of the unbloody sacrifice of a Our Lord, the priest as an Alter Christus, etc.
You ain’t seen nothin’ if you ain’t seen “Fr.” Bob. [His parishioners just call him Bob.] This is way beyond blasphemous.
This is the poorest excuse for a priest I’ve ever seen. A man after Bergoglio’s heart. If you do nothing else watch the segment from 35:25 minutes until 1:02:10 minutes.
http://www.novusordowatch.org/wire/introducing-father-bob.htm [About 8 minutes]
Yeah, I’d stay at home; Voris is madder than a bag of ferrets.
You mean Paul VI don’t you?
Here it is mate! Voris tells so many “lies and falsehoods” some one should exposed him and Louie is the man.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P100GPCX6WU
No, it’s probably Mrs. Nilus, Nelus, Neophyte, or whatever this minger’s name is.
And don’t forget the six Protestant heretics who willingly weighed-in and provided their input.
No pope pius xii
It would be unbelievable if it wasnt caught on camera !
Your comment is breaking my heart, sir. My husband and I attend an SSPX chapel as well (a little over a year now) and we are the nut cases in our families as well. I had the privilege of meeting Father Gruner in Milwaukee shortly after I discovered him on Youtube. Now I pray to him daily. I don’t know where I would be now without his assistance. I pray your children find the truth. Once they do, it is pretty hard to reject it. The way I look at it, is that they never really left the Church because they never really found it. They left the Novus Ordo mess.
My apologies for being slow to reply. It’s difficult for me to find time to do so as often as I might like. Perhaps going forward, God willing, that will change.
.
First, as it concerns Our Lady’s words at Akita, as Bazou said, she isn’t speaking of Mass, which is more than just a “form” of prayer.
.
Even so, her words are applicable to this discussion in that she described that which is pleasing to God when she exhorted us to “be faithful and fervent in prayer to console the Master.”
.
This post sheds light on the degree to which the Novus Ordo itself cannot, objectively speaking, contains that which is unpleasing to the Master as it relates to faithfulness. Fr. Campo’s latest article gives more concrete details.
.
Sure, individuals can console Our Lord while participating therein, but once we realize that the rite itself is an offense, it becomes untenable to imagine that our participation therein still consoles Him.
.
That brings me to the presence of Mary and John at the Cross. First, the analogy I offered was mainly to demonstrate that one event can contain both that which is pleasing and that which is unpleasing to God.
.
That said, the presence of John and Blessed Mother could in no way whatsoever have been confused with their assent to what was taking place; in fact, on the contrary. Our attendance at the Novus Ordo is the opposite; it cannot but give the appearance of our consent to its purity and lack of offense against God.
.
Thanks to all for the excellent conversation here.
“Modernism is a defined heresy that is where the FSSP is wrong [.] Catholics are not obliged to be in union with modernists and their new church in fact it is a sin to do so. Vatican II is a new religion.”
FSSP is wrong and sinful to be in communion with heretical, modernist new religion. OK I get that.
But, SSPX is right and righteous to recognize and selectively obey the temporal, modernist head of said new religion, pray in union with him and crave official canonical recognition from him, in union with same said modernists and their new religion, without sin. Huh?
Boy! You can’t make this stuff up!
“If Paul VI was the pope, I have to treat him like the pope, and I have to accept his Mass.”
For sure! But what if he was not Pope?
–
“If Paul VI truly would have been an impediment to God’s plan, He would have kept him from being pope (or being born for that matter). ”
So how did Hitler, Stalin, Mao fit into God’s plan?
Dear Father,
There is immense harm to the Faith. We know it. We know what you said regarding infallibility is true. We know the Church is indefectible. We know a valid Magisterium cannot teach error harmful to the salvation of souls. We know a validly elected Pope who becomes a notorious heretic automatically loses jurisdiction, whilst maintaining legal designation until his deposition by the proper authorities. “And if a validly elected Pope inflicted a harmful rite upon the Church what implications does this have for us all as Catholics? ”
Dear Father we all know the answer to that question. Some just have great difficulty admitting it – only a false, invalid Magisterium could do such a thing.
Poor Michael Voris, he is getting beaten up by Louie, Vennaris, Ferrara, and Mat on one side, and the other, by Bishop Charles Chaput, on the other. Spirit Daily had an article where Chaput named Michael Voris as someone who is not bringing people together, but, causing division. Voris cannot catch a break. He should have remained faithful to tradition and not the almighty dollar.
I’m assuming you’re referring to the changes Pius made to the Holy week services which certainly are not anything near inventing a new Mass. Incidentally, the Roman Breviary has been modified several times by different popes.
Well spoken my brother!
I want to post my family’s story in hopes that it gives you a rope to cling to.
My grandparents followed the leading of Church, attending the N.O. Mass and sending their 9 children to Catholic schools and college. Ultimately in my family, my mother fell away from the faith, and she and a sister both married Protestants. Shortly before her early death, my grandmother came to the SSPX, brought her 3 youngest (still at home) children, and died a holy death in Tradition. Now, my godmother is a SSPX nun, 4 other sisters have come to tradition, and my father is a Catholic. Although my grandfather became an apostate, he too converted 4 months before he died (this past May), having received all of the last Sacraments. There is a lot of grace sent through prayer and the Sacrifice of the Mass, and no one is ever too far gone while they are alive.