Yesterday, Francis continued his assault (presented as “catechesis”) on the Mass by focusing on “the Eucharistic Liturgy.”
Please allow me to clarify what I mean by assault.
This on-going series of General Audiences is at once an assault on the true nature of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, and a thoroughly accurate exposition on the Novus Ordo.
How can this be?
Simple: The Novus Ordo itself is an assault on the true nature of Holy Mass!
Don’t believe it?
Let Francis explain as he offers catechesis on the very heart of the Mass, and he does so by drawing our attention to Jesus Christ, who is both the High Priest and the Holy Sacrifice there present.
He really does so by focusing on… wait for it… man; more specifically, the people of God, the faithful people, and the holy people.
Before we get to that, let’s first consider what Francis has to say for the priest:
The priest, who in the Mass represents Christ (in Italain: rappresenta Cristo)…
In Washington, a congressman represents the citizens of his district.
In court, an attorney represents his client.
At Holy Mass, by contrast, the priest does not “represent” Christ; rather, he acts in persona Christi such that it is truly Jesus Christ who is present and active.
Preaching to the choir here, I know. Forgive me.
Speaking of forgiveness…
Francis zeroes in on his favorite topic, man, saying:
It is good that the faithful present the bread and wine to the priest, because they signify the spiritual offering of the Church gathered there for the Eucharist.
It is beautiful that the faithful bring the bread and wine to the altar.
Underscoring just how indispensable the people truly are in this strange new conciliar world, he went on:
And in this regard it is significant that, in ordaining of a new priest, the Bishop, when he gives him bread and wine, says: “Receive the offerings of the holy people for the Eucharistic sacrifice” (Roman Pontifical – Ordination of bishops, presbyters and of the deacons).
No such nonsense appears in the traditional Rite of Ordination; rather, there we find:
The bishop now presents each of the ordained with a chalice containing wine and water and a paten upon it with a host. The ordained touches with the fore and middle fingers both the paten and the cur of the chalice. During this ceremony the bishop says:
Receive the power to offer sacrifice to God, and to celebrate Masses for the living and the dead, in the name of the Lord …
Later in the Rite, the bishop (in the traditional rite) blesses the newly ordained priests saying:
May the blessing of the almighty God, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, descend upon you, that you may be blessed in the priestly order, and offer up the sacrifice of propitiation for the sins and offenses of the people to almighty God, to whom be honor and glory forever and ever.
Propitiation for the sins and offenses of the people…
So much for the essential role of the holy and faithful people of God who feature so prominently in the Novus Ordo rite, which, furthermore, makes no mention of the true nature and purpose of the priesthood with respect to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
On this note, Michael Davies wrote:
Every prayer in the traditional rite which stated specifically the essential role of a priest as a man ordained to offer propitiatory sacrifice for the living and dead has been removed. In most cases these were the precise prayers removed by the Protestant Reformers, [e.g., “Receive the power to offer sacrifice to God and to celebrate Mass, both for the living and the dead, in the name of the Lord”] or if not precisely the same there are clear parallels…. Their omission by the Protestant Reformers was taken by Pope Leo XIII as an indication of an intention not to consecrate sacrificing priests.” (Michael Davies, The Order of Melchisedech, pp.82, 86)
Francis states, and again, accurately so as it concerns the lex credendi (that is, the law of what it is to be believed) such as it is transmitted via the Novus Ordo:
The people of God who bring the offering, the bread and the wine, bring the great offering for the Mass!
And here you thought that Jesus Christ – Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity – was the “great offering” of the Mass.
Don’t get me wrong, the bread and the wine are the essential matter of the Eucharistic Sacrifice, but their importance as “offering” isn’t derived from the people who made them (the “work of human hands”), or paid for them, or present them to the priest, but rather it lies in what they become.
As Cardinal Ottaviani and those who assisted him in producing the Brief Critical Study on the New Order of Mass (aka Ottaviani Intervention) observed:
The Novus Ordo changes the nature of the offering, turning it into a sort or exchange of gifts between man and God: man brings the bread, and God turns it into the “bread of life”; man brings the wine, and God turns it into a “spiritual drink.”
Incidentally, I am not aware of any Novus Ordo parish that makes a point of selecting only Catholics (representative of the “faithful and holy people”) for the so-called “presentation of the gifts.” On the contrary, the ringmasters of that circus become positively giddy when the opportunity to invite a Protestant or a Jew to do the honors presents itself.
Moving on, Francis states:
In the Eucharistic Prayer we give thanks to God for the work of redemption and the offerings become the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.
Let’s give credit where credit is due: The man knows his Novus Ordo.
So did Cardinal Ottaviani et al, who observed:
By suppressing the continual reference to God in the Eucharistic prayers, there is no longer any clear distinction between divine and human sacrifice …
Furthermore, in none of the three new Eucharistic Prayers is there any reference, as has already been said, to the state of suffering of those who have died, in none the possibility of a particular Memento: all of this, again, must undermine faith in the propitiatory and redemptive nature of the Sacrifice …
The initial definition of the prex eucharistica [the “Eucharistic prayer” as defined in the General Instruction] is as follows: “The center and culminating point of the whole celebration now has a beginning, namely the Eucharistic Prayer, a prayer of thanksgiving and of sanctification” (no. 54, pr.). The effects thus replace the causes, of which not one single word is said. The explicit mention of the object of the offering, which was found in the Suscipe, has not been replaced by anything. The change in formulation reveals the change in doctrine.
Here, Cardinal Ottaviani refers to the Suscipe Sancte Pater in the Traditional Latin Mass, which in English reads:
Accept, O Holy Father, almighty and eternal God, this spotless host, which I, Thy unworthy servant, offer unto Thee, my living and true God, to atone for my innumerable sins, offenses, and negligences, and for all here present; also for all faithful Christians both living and dead, that it may profit me and them for salvation unto life everlasting. Amen.
This beautiful prayer makes perfectly plain the true nature and purpose of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass; an abomination to the Protestants.
It is for this reason, presumably, that the architects of the Novus Ordo saw fit to eliminate it entirely (as well as the Offertory); with the “Eucharistic prayers” thus taking on the form of a narrative or retelling of history.
This invites one to adopt the Protestant view of the liturgy as a simple re-creation of the Last Supper, as opposed to the unbloody re-presentation of Our Lord’s Sacrifice on Calvary offered in atonement for sin.
Francis, whether intentionally or not, reinforced this view when he said:
Through the fraction and through Communion, the faithful, though many, receive from the one bread the Lord’s Body and from the one chalice the Lord’s Blood in the same way that the Apostles received them from the hands of Christ himself.
Overall, we should be thankful for these General Audiences as they have served to shed light, not only on the degree to which Francis has not the Catholic faith, but also on the deficiency of the Novus Ordo rite itself; including the Rite of Ordination.
Let’s hope and pray that our neo-conservative friends have been paying attention.
Some of our trad friends should pay attention too. This article illustrates that the Novus Ordo is not a Catholic expression of the Catholic faith. As such, it has nothing to do with Catholicism. Why do so many trads still insist in associating the NO and those who promote it with Catholicism?
Is it because they occupy the Vatican? Or because they occupy the once Catholic cathedrals, seminaries, parishes, monestaries, and convents? Is it simply a matter of real estate? Is that why so many call these heretics Catholic?
“…but also on the deficiency of the Novus Ordo rite itself; including the Rite of Ordination.”
Has Louie come to the conclusion that the Rite of Ordination lacks something substantial?
Leo XXIII teaches in Apostolicae Curae that even if the correct form and matter are used, a sacrament still requires the minister to externally manifest the intention to do what the Church does.
How is this done?
By his use of the Catholic ceremonial rite, i.e, a rite, received and approved by the Church, which expresses the essential nature of the Sacrament it is conferring.
The new rite of Orders of 1968 fails to do this, because it deliberately suppressed the Catholic theology of the Priesthood.
Where is the intention to do what the Church does? If it’s not there, then just like the new Protestant mass, aka the Novus Ordo Missae, it the new ordination Rite (both priestly and episcopal) is at best of doubtful validity.
Leo XIII, not Leo XXIII
Louie, if your observations pan out, then nearly every single deacon, priest, and bishop do not have valid Holy Orders. Your article seems to indicate that you lean Sede. Just a thought.
Well, he seems to be arriving at that conclusion regarding the new mass for the same reason. Correct me if I’m wrong please Louie.
Either that, or ONLY the SSPX has it right. And, if they do, WHY do the SSPX bishops delay in consecrating more bishops? WHY do they continue to hesitate to publically call out Bergoglio and his fellow heretical, apostate henchmen?
Al, have you looked into the new rite of Orders for yourself?
I think it’s because they rule out the sede theses a priori. The implications of Holy Orders are disastrous for the Novus establishment. It kills it dead.
IMHO, there is one perfect word to describe the perverted sick New Order establishment: EVIL!!! Something so evil cannot come from Almighty God no matter how many “good” clergy or laity associated with it. The devil is on a leash. It is up to us how close we get to the leash. Stay away!! St. Michael, the Archangel, defend us in the day of battle. That day is NOW.
Does the Catholic Faith teach that we receive the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus in the Holy Eucharist?
Is this denied in the statement: ( as quoted in the above article ) :” and the offerings become the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.“
The offerings become the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ
Why do you go to the Novus Ordo Mass??
Well…I go…to receive the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ
…and the offerings become the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.
But people write…it’s just a social hour…it’s just symbolic…it’s just a protestant friendly gathering…
No…I go to receive the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, really and truly present in the Blessed Sacrament
And I reflect on a posting by Mundabor ( not known to be Francis friendly ), and he writes……
“If you have a valid Mass you can attend to, you have a Mass obligation. If you only have clowns dancing on the sanctuary and earthen vessels and strange “consecration” formulae and all that, well the doubt is more than justified, and I gather there were not a few of these masses in the worst phase of the “Springtime”. But do not come on this blog and tell me that you know Christ is there in the miracle of Transubstantiation, but you are too fine a Catholic palate to drink of His blood.
This issue cannot be escaped. If the Church is the Church, and the Consecration is valid, and the Transubstantiation takes place we do not refuse – or condemn – what is given to us. If we do, this means that we say that the Church is not the Church, or the Transubstantiation does not take place, or it takes place but it’s not good enough for us; because we want miracles made our own way, thank you very much.
Let others argue about this as much as they please. Let other pewsitters allow their pride to have the better of themselves, and their desire for purity to lead them to the rejection of what their Mother gives them. I live in a very simple world, a world in which my sensus catholicusnot only rebels, but recoils shivering from the very idea that a layman would know that the Body and Blood of Our Saviour are dished to him, and answers: “no thanks, I think something very wrong is going on here. Actually, my mother is trying to poison me”.
I want to die doing what the Church tells me to do whenever this is not in contrast with what the Church always told us to do. Mass obligation is a precept of the Church. The Mass is valid. The Consecration takes place. Case closed.
But what about love? Should there not be an overarching principle at work here?
The reasoning seems strange to me. Christ comes to me in the form of the Blessed Sacrament and I should, out of love, refuse to even witness this greatest of miracles of love? Which of God’s gifts should I ever refuse out of … love for Him? What does God say to the well-instructed Catholic: “Here is my body, please stay away from it?”
I allow myself to offer another example of love. Think of the old woman who came home from the new Mass at the end of the Sixties and cried tears of sorrow, but still went to Mass. She knew how to show her love.
We suffer and we obey. We give our suffering to the Lord. If we think the Mass is so horrible that Christ does not come in the form of a valid consecration, we avoid that Mass. If He is there, we want Him to find us! Crying if needs be, but there!
We find the most reverent mass we can. If we are lucky, we might have a TLM (Yes, SSPX too! What a blessing!). But if not, we think of the old woman above, and we love Christ exactly as she did. ”
Mundabor August 15
Ever mindful–You obviously feel an obligation to defend the indefensible. That is your right. However, if you can sit through a N.O. mass witnessing the desecration of the Holy Eucharist without getting nauseous, you have a very strong stomach. Mundabor says he is not a sede. Yet he calls Francis the Evil Clown (that’s one of his nices descriptions). I wish he’d make up his mind.
Does the organisation which promotes the new mass and the new council, bear the Four Marks?
Do the Sacraments they offer have the necessary matter, form and intention of the minister to do what the Church does?
You would do well to see what the Church taught on these things from before the changes came in, rather than relying on what some guy with a blog as the final word.
Read Trent, Apostolicae Curae and Sacramentum Ordinis. They’re not hard to understand. Then apply that teaching to the thing we see in Rome since the 60’s, and what they’ve done with the Sacraments and make up your own mind.
The primary reason to go to mass is to fulfil the Four Ends of the Mass.
Even if you don’t receive the Blessed Sacrament, you can still meet these Four Ends.
The Novus Ordo doesn’t place any proper emphasis on thus, and unfortunately it shows in your comment how that has affected you.
At the Novus Ordo you have something called a “spiritual drink”…It is, after all, a protestant liturgy just slightly tweaked. And that ‘sign of peace’ is so wrong! Well the whole liturgy is lacking in many areas.
Read “The Incredible Catholic Mass” a book from a long time ago but it will make you yearn for and appreciate the TLM so very much.
There’s no Offertory.
There’s no Divine Victim offered to God in the rite.
It suppresses what God has provided for us to offer Him perfect worship – God Himself offering Himself to God – and replaces it with an offering of bread and wine as a memorial.
Even without the sign of peace and crappy music, it’s disgustingly blasphemous.
Yet more proof of Mundabor’s wretched sentimentalism, hysteria, and shoddy thinking.
The Novus Ordo (dis)service should be avoided like the plague. Look at its fruits.
It should be avoided firstly because it robs God of the proper worship due to Him. He gave us the unbloody Sacrifice of the Mass.
Paul VI knew that this idea offended his heretic Protestant friends, so he replaced it with an offering of bread and wine as a memorial supper.
What a breathtakingly stupendous, blasphemous insult to the goodness of Almighty God!
It offers false worship to the Blessed Trinity, something which the Catholic Church is incapable of doing.
Secondly, it should be avoided because it is of doubtful validity due to a defect of intention on the part of the “presider”, and possibly because the “mysteruim fidei” is still missing from the Consecration of the chalice.
Thirdly, because it is a danger to souls and a danger to Faith, as we see from the bad fruit it has borne, as you rightly point out.
Read Genesis story about the offerings of Cain and Abel. It is so apparent that the NO is the grain offering of Cain that God rejected, while the TLM (and Divine Liturgies) are the flesh offering of Abel that was pleasing to God.
Yikes. Now that you point it out.
That is the most amazing connection. I have not forgotten you pointing that out a long while back Tom. Thanks again.
Who is the man dressed in white robes and mitre in the picture at the top of the article? It doesn’t look like Bergoglio.
Now Abel kept flocks, and Cain worked the soil. 3 In the course of time Cain brought some of the fruits of the soil as an offering to the Lord. 4 And Abel also brought an offering—fat portions from some of the firstborn of his flock. The Lord looked with favor on Abel and his offering, 5 but on Cain and his offering he did not look with favor. So Cain was very angry, and his face was downcast.
Which liturgy speaks of fruits of the earth and works of human hands?
The one without any mention of a Divine Victim offered in holy sacrifice.
The next “pope”–“Pope” Cain?
And the contrary is probably true as well. A valid N.O. priesthood kills the sede theory dead.
So if the Novus Ordo establishment does not intend to ordain valid priests why does every parish have confession and Eucharistic adoration? This seems like a manifest intention to me.
Dear John314–Eucharistic adoration always puzzled me. Why would there be adoration of Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament in the same church that manhandles and desecrates Our Lord’s Body and Blood at every mass? It’s like treating your mother shabbily all year but send her flowers on Mother’s Day.
I attended three and half years of major seminary 1988-91 to become a priest for a Latin/Roman rite diocese. No, I have not looked at what you refer. My family and I currently attend either a TLM or a local Byzantine Catholic Divine Liturgy. We would gladly attend any TLM offered by the SSPX, but the nearest SSPX chapel to me is over two hundred miles away.
Please do Al, you will see the mechanism the modernists employed to destroy the Church. If Abp Lefebrve did not set out to preserve the priesthood, the situation would be even graver than it is now.
Who knows what the NO establishment intends to do. That’s the whole point. Thanks to ambigious modernist language, its absolutley impossible to determine what it means. You can interpret it one way and Hans Kung can interpret it another. And both you and he would be correct. This tactic is laced throughout all NO V2 documents. It means what you want it to mean. So if you want the NO to be the Holy Sacrifice of Calvary, then voila it is. But next to you in the pew could be someone who thinks its just a meal. How is that unity of faith?
Mundabor is a hilarious old grouch and eccentric, but he sometimes gets it right and this is one of those times. I’m sure there are plenty of disrespectful Novus Ordo Masses, but I travel a lot all over and rarely see them. Most are quite dignified. There is a sense of community, if a bit too much socializing. If you go into every Mass looking for problems, you’re gong to find reasons to complain. I don’t think the author of this blog is ready to propose that all of these Masses are invalid and that all of the priests and bishops are invalidity ordained because that is lunacy. As much as I disagree with much of what Mundabor says and the way he says things, the one thing he has going for him is a grounding in reality. Sedevacantists, Bennyvacantists, and those who accuse the entire (or at least 99.99999% of the) Catholic Church leadership and faithful of apostasy could learn a thing or two. Thank you for sharing this.
Tom – Thank you. You have just outlined and nailed the “Diabolical Disorientation” foretold by Our Lady of Fatima perfectly.
my2cents I couldn’t agree more. The day of battle is not just near – it is gaining speed as we speak!
As to your reference to “good” priests and laity I can’t help thinking of that great quote “All it takes for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing.”
Yes, I would agree that it can be puzzling, but this is not a guess at internal intentions. You see what they do, or do not do, and objectively accept their manifest intention. The first thing to go in non Catholic/Protestant sects is devotion to the Blessed Mother. The rosary is still prayed privately and publicly in the N.O. They also have traditional Mass in certain places. So based on their observable actions, the N.O. is Catholic and their sacraments are valid, albeit just enough perhaps to nourish and sustain the faithful.
Lack of intention is only one piece of the puzzle. You also have to consider form. The new Rites are substantially different than traditional Rites. Its when you add the two together, plus the general manner a typical NO is celebrated, that serious doubt creeps in. Look, I wish it weren’t so, but they are the ones who introduced all the ambiguity. Why? Well as stated on the record, it was to make it less offensive to Protestants. Did they cross the line into invalidity? I dont know. But I know that prior to V2, all was valid. Why take a chance with ambigious rites.
The intention be the minister to do what the Church does is made manifest by the Catholic Rite surrounding the actual form and matter of the sacrament. That’s what Leo XIII teaches in Apostolicae Curae.
What happens once it’s all over makes no difference.
…”by” the minister, not “be” the minister.
Not even the Church guesses anyone’s internal intentions. She can’t and doesnt.
This is why the intention must be made visible and manifest, and the ceremonial rite surrounding a sacrament is the very means by which the Church judges intention to do what the Church does. We can’t go beyond the means the Church uses and make up our own criteria.
Like Tom A said, if we stick to what was done before the changes came in we cant go wrong. No one can command you to abandon tradition.
After Leo XIII wrote Apostolicae Curae, the Catholic Bishops of England backed him up with the following. Take note:
“In adhering rigidly to the rite handed down to us we can always feel secure; whereas, if we omit or change anything, we may perhaps abandon just that element which is essential.”
Why would you trust a new rite of Orders which was created by the same people who brought you Vatican II and the Novus Ordo Missae?
Yes, you have a point. Don’t be too hard on the diabolical destroyers of the Church. Don’t overestimate what they could or would to to send souls to hell. Be nicer to them. I’m sure they only mean to be a little bit naughty, but to say they are anything worse, and would take away the Sacraments is sheer lunacy.
High Anglican services could be quite dignified too. I am sure Masonic Rites are quite dignified. Reverence does not equal intention or validity. It only signifies that those assembled take what they are doing seriously.
So you are saying that the Novus Ordo does not ordain priests to forgive sins and say Mass for the living and the dead–because they deleted this from the form–yet they continue to go out and do it anyway in all the parishes. It’s just a massive case of common error conspiracy I suppose. No, this manifests their intention. It’s all valid.
I do not understand why anyone defends, in even the slightest manner, the NO abomination? A side by side review of the form compared to the TLM leads to only one conclusion. Two expressions of two different faiths. Compare a Divine Liturgy with the TLM and you will see that they are in essence the same. Based on the words of the NO, I basically have no idea what its essence is. Meal, memorial? I dont know, but it certainly isnt Calvary.
In sacramental theology, intention does not fix problems of form or matter. What if a priest wanted to consecrate a banana? According to the logic you just presented, his intention would fix the problem of invalid matter. Same goes for form. What if priest said ” This is Christs body” instead of “this is my body?” His intention cannot correct invalid form. A bishops intent to ordain is useless unless he uses a valid form. We see this with women priests. It is not valid because of matter even though they surely have to intention.
Yes, it’s Calvary. Yourself find it abominable …
If I still go to the NO, it’s because I want to love God. I follow the mass in a traditional Missal, and I don’t listen to the bad sermons. I do not exchange the sign of peace with others, and instead I kneel and keep praying. I go to mass to receive the sacraments, even if I’m despised for showing my love to God by kneeling and receiving the Host on my tongue.
Eucharistic miracles happened in NO masses. That’s enough for me to believe Our Lord is present, and that the NO orders are thus valid.
They did delete these things from the rite – not the form – and the rite is the means by which the bishop manifests the intention to do what the Church does, according to Leo XIII at least. If you have a higher authority than that, then please put it up.
They also did alter the form, so it no longer means what Pius XII said the form must mean in order to be valid.
I don’t make anything up. I just follow the teaching of the Church. You just say, “It’s valid”.
Have you looked into the issue for yourself? I would guess not, because you aren’t familiar with the alterations which were made to both the form and the rite. You can if you want, as it’s pretty serious, but until you do, you might want to withhold making a certain judgement on the matter.
Miracles aren’t the means by which we know if a sacrament is valid.
It is if the proper form and matter are used by the minister in a Catholic rite.
False signs and wonders can be permitted by God. They are not the deciding factor. Be careful.
If it’s Calvary, then at which point is the Divine Victim offered during the rite? Please do some homework and put up any info you have for the good of souls.
No one doubts your good will and love of God by the way. It is highly commendable considering the massive apostasy we are witnessing in our time.
You are basing objective reality on sentiments, emotion, and anecdotal evidence. As to Eucharistic miracles, the dogma of Transubstantiation does not rest of any eucharistic miracles. They could have a miracle 20 times a day since the NO was foisted upon the poor faithful and it would prove nothing. I dont believe anything coming out of modernist Rome. Do you? Frankie is about to “canonize” Montini. Are you going to take that to the bank? Bazou, one last question. Why do you worship with people who do not profess the same faith as you do?
bazou-Your presence validates what is not pleasing to God.
Stated by Gerry Matatics in the ISOC (In the Spirit of Chartres’ Committee), documentary “What We Have Lost…”
The above was to Tom A, regarding his comment on Genesis 4.
bazou surely represents many, many deceived souls. Note the veiled diabolical pride: “I can continue attending the Novus Ordo and yet remain unscathed.”
Obviously you are childless because if you are raising your children in the Catholic Faith , this is the one sure way to undo anything positive you are attempting to teach them.
I might also add that this is why so many souls have turned to the Protestant evangelicals for inspiration and community. They were all raised novus ordite katholic.
So very sad.
@Tom A and @The Papal Subject – so, to be clear, there currently are no sacraments being validly celebrated and no validly ordained priests – is that what you’re saying? If the Catholic Church is defunct, then the SSPX is also out because they claim affiliation with and loyalty to Rome. And the Catholic Church is no more.
It’s not definite. There are serious reasons to think that they are invalid, but it’s not certain.
The Catholic Church is the congregation of the faithful, those who are baptised, profess the true faith, are subject to the legitimate pastors of the Church and have not been declared to be excommunicated.
The hierarchy is not easily found these days? Who is teaching, with ordinary jurisdiction, the one and same faith that comes from the Apostles? I don’t know.
The SSPX are not in union with Rome, no matter what they claim. They have preserved the Apostolic rites of the sacraments and the Priesthood. The faithful receive the same sacraments and faith that has been handed on since the Apostles, but there are a few fuzzy lines regarding the nature of the Papacy as they try to avoid sedevacantism. I go there to continue practising the Faith in the same way that our ancestors have for 2000 years as best as I can.
I can’t do that in my local Diocesan parish unfortunately. I wish I could. I don’t have all the answers to your questions, but get as fas as I can. Do you?
St Paul commands us to “hold fast to tradition”. The SSPX provides the means to do that, along with a few sede chapels. It’s a complete mess.
The thing occupying your local parish is not the Catholic Church, that much is certain. The Church doesn’t do or promote the theology, liturgy or sacraments that these people do.
Remember, Blunderbuss, neither you nor I nor Tom A started this fight. Paul VI did.
To point out to other faithful the evil, vicious and ruthless things that the enemies of the Church have done, on an unprecedented scale, doesn’t make us the baddies.
We are the sheep fleeing the wolves. The shepherds? Where are they today?
Hi Blunderbuss, where in your calculation do you account for the thousands upon thousands who left the Church knowing that something was wrong? And what about those who have lost their faith? Who are the 99.99999% you think have got it right? Do “they”, whoever they are, hold the Catholic Faith as it was handed down from the apostles?
Blunder, nothing is clear. That is the problem. I cannot say NO sacraments are not valid anymore than you can pronounce them valid. I did not create this ambiguity nor do I desire it. But simply pretending it doesnt exist is foolhardy. If you believe that the NO is the Roman Catholic Church then why are you reading Trad blogs? I would wager that you know there is something terribly wrong with the church today and you are looking for answers. Well so am I. My search for answers has not found out all the answers but it has made some things crystal clear. For starters, the NO is not the same faith that was handed down thru the ages. It is a man made man centered religion that I do not profess. So why would I have anything to do with them. Most trads agree that its a new religion, but for some reason want to remain subject to it. Sentiment and emotion must be the reason. Its impossible to argue with sentiment and emotion.
Worse, Paul VI inserted a false and deceptive so-called “memorial acclamation” which forces the congregation to actually lie about what the Mystery of Faith is. The ridiculous little acclamation is just a weird little mini Creed and the three “options” don’t even mean the same thing. So Paul VI, and a master stroke of Evil Genius reduced transubstantiation to a Protestant -eyed pleasing mini creed. So much for “eliminating needless repetition”.
Defenders of the bugnini Rite, do you stay silent when you are required to acclaim that one of these three is the mystery of faith?
A. We proclaim your Death, O Lord,
and profess your Resurrection
until you come again.
B. When we eat this Bread and drink this Cup,
we proclaim your Death, O Lord,
until you come again.
C. Save us, Savior of the world,
for by your Cross and Resurrection
you have set us free.
Which one is Mysterium Fidei? Can you see the nonsense?
The Mystery of Faith is transubstantiation and the fact that we are required to consume His body and drink His blood for eternal life. Paul VI knew this. He was An expert at inversion. He would say one thing and then the opposite. He would write one thing and then the opposite. He would do one thing and then the opposite. Inversion.
Inversion is what the devil does.
Does anyone know how to use an edit function on this comment system? I can’t go back and fix my typos.
I hear this theme often from those who cling to the novus ordo:
I go to get
I go to get
I go to get …
Aren’t we supposed to go to offer, to worship, to unite our sacrifice to Christ’s? It is an odd attitude to think of the church simply as a Eucharist dispensing machine. Not exactly what the Holy Sacrifice is supposed to be about.
First of all, many Bugnini-Rite churches have neither confession or Eucharistic adoration. Many simply put up a sign which says, “For reconciliation call and make an appointment.” Eucharistic adoration? Give me a break. It is a rare thing indeed.
You seem to equate the presence of so-called reconciliation and so-called Eucharistic adoration with validity and with the Catholic Church. Think about that.
*Neither, nor”. How does one edit in this thing??
This is a response to Bazou. I can agree that the Novus Ordo Missae is valid, but it is clearly illicit according to the Council of Florence, the Council of Trent, and the Bull Quo Primum by Pope Pius V. Illicit means that it is against the law of the Church and ultimately, it is against Divine law. It is not lawful to “create” a new mass. So even if it had no sign of peace, no bad sermons, no bad music, plenty of miracles with everyone kneeling for communion, it still would not be pleasing to God and have to be avoided.
@Ursula “They” are the 1.2 billion Catholics in the word. And, yes, they do hold the faith.
@TomA and @The Papal Subject – I’m sorry to hear that what sounds like a sincere search for the truth has led you to exit the Church. I don’t think God will punish you for it, just as I don’t think he punishes people of other faiths who try but don’t find the right answers or unbaptized babies. I hope you find resolution to your doubts and do return to the Church at some point. It’s definitely not easy when there is bad leadership. But I think part of your issue is the leadership. In an organization of 1.2 billion, it’s ok to disagree with the far-removed octogenarian leaders. You ultimately have to decide for yourselves what you’re going to follow and not follow. But the nuclear option of leaving is exactly what many have done in the US and Europe: I don’t like what the Church teaches, or how it operates, so I’m out. Whole the motivations are slightly different, the outcome is the same.
“and yes, they do hold the faith” you state (with a straight face, may I ask?) – My question related to the Catholic Faith as handed down from the apostles. Study after study show that large proportions of Catholics do not know the basics of the faith, do not attend weekly Mass, do not go to Confession at least annually, do not believe in the Real Presence or the Immaculate Conception, and even doubt the historical event of Christ’s Resurrection, but instead believe that contraception, cohabitation, sex before marriage, homosexual activity, remarriage after divorce are not sins and that Protestants, Jews and Muslims do not need to convert to the Catholic Faith…
Blunder, you stated that you do not think that God will punish me for leaving the Church. Well, my faith teaches that anyone who leaves the Church is damned. So we have two different faiths and obviously two different churches. We both cannot be Catholic, Blunder. At least one of us is professing a false religion.
Why do you rightly point out all those serious defects, but concede validity? What’s the difference. It either comes from the Church, or it doesn’t. The things you point out show that it couldnt have come from the Church, so why trust it to be valid of all things.
If a guy performs a religious ceremony infused with Protestant theology, then how does he manifest the intention to do what the Church does? If he doesn’t manifest the intention by using a Catholic Rite, then it’s invalid, according to the teaching of the Church.
What am I missing, that you have, to make you certain it’s valid?
Thank you, Louie. The current pontificate has garnered yet another blessing. We should be thankful.
@bazou Well your remark garnered you accusations of “diabolical pride”, selfishness, and childlessness (like that’s a bad thing). Personally, I hope you continue to reverently attend the Novus Ordo Mass and do not abandon the faith like the others here have.
@others who responded – why pounce on, attack, and accuse someone like this? Your position that it’s not you who left the Church, but the Church that left you, is as divorced from reality as #notmypresident. You’re entitled to your opinions, but think carefully before you start attacking the faith of others. I don’t think you want to be responsible for destroying their faith and driving them away. Ironic that you despise Protestants, but feel free to mini-Martin-Luther all day long from the security of a combox.
The Remnant’s Matt-Ferrara Axis of Ego expends more energy attacking the “neo-Catholics” they despise than they do any number of evil causes and groups. You choose to do the same thing on a more personal level, which I think can actually be more harmful. If the Church and its members were like you and them pre-Vatican 2, perhaps it was just as much people tired of being erroneously told they were going to hell for every single thing they said, did, or thought as it was other factors that led people to leave the Church in the US and Europe. Think about what your words mean.
Attending whatever Rite helps you the most with your faith is great, and if the smells and bells and vestments and Latin are what you need, there is nothing wrong with that and you should absolutely seek it out and create more opportunities for others to experience it. But do not take those energies and impulses and apply them to stomping on the faith of others.
Blunder, if I had a strong suspicion that the bottle of water you were about to drink from was tainted with a lethal poison, it would be my moral duty to warn you. After much research into the Catholic faith and the disasters of V2 and the NO, trads have a strong suspicion that the NO conciliar church is harmful to your soul. It is our moral duty to warn you even if it offends. Likewise, if you believe it is we who are in mortal danger, it is your moral duty to warn us. So please for the sake of our salvation show us how the modern conciliar church is the church established by Christ. We trads see nothing but a rupture. If you know where the continuity lies, be charitable and show us. My guess is that if you put the time into investigating the history of modernism you will come to the same conclusion we did. The modern conciliar church is not the church established by Christ. Please prove us wrong.
Mr. Verrecchio: “Before we get to that, let’s first consider what Francis has to say for the priest: Nope. In Washington, a congressman represents the citizens of his district. In court, an attorney represents his client. AT HOLY MASS, BY CONTRAST, THE PRIEST DOES NOT “REPRESENT” CHRIST; RATHER, HE ACTS IN PERSONA CHRISTI such that it is truly Jesus Christ who is present and active.”
There is nothing objectionable in saying the priest represents Christ during the Mass. He BOTH represents Christ AND acts in the person of Christ. Pope Pius XII used the same language in Mediator Dei.
Pope Pius XII: “Only to the apostles, and thenceforth to those on whom their successors have imposed hands, is granted the power of the priesthood, in virtue of which THEY REPRESENT THE PERSON OF JESUS CHRIST before their people, acting at the same time as representatives of their people before God. … Prior to acting as REPRESENTATIVE OF THE COMMUNITY BEFORE THE THRONE OF GOD, the priest is the ambassador of the divine Redeemer.” (Mediator Dei, No. 40)
The Baltimore Catechism likewise refers to the priest as the representative of Christ:
Baltimore Catechism: “Q. 950. Why does the priest wear special vestments and use certain ceremonies while performing his sacred duties? A. The priest wears special vestments and uses certain ceremonies while performing his sacred duties: … 3. To remind the priest himself of the importance and sacred character of the work in which he IS THE REPRESENTATIVE OF OUR LORD HIMSELF.”
As does the Catholic Encyclopedia:
Catholic Encyclopedia (1910): “But, since Christ Himself received and exercised His high priesthood, not by the arrogation of authority but in virtue of a Divine call, there is still greater need that PRIESTS WHO REPRESENT HIM should receive power and authority through the sacrament of holy orders to offer up the sublime sacrifice of the new law. … the sacrifice must also be at the point where Christ personally appears as High Priest and human CELEBRANT ACTS ONLY AS HIS REPRESENTATIVE. … With Christ and His Church is associated in third place THE CELEBRATING PRIEST, since HE IS THE REPRESENTATIVE through whom the real and the mystical Christ offer up the sacrifice.”
“And the contrary is probably true as well. A valid N.O. priesthood kills the sede theory dead.”
You really have no clue about the sede theory, do you?
As far as I know, you can’t edit your replies here. I suspect that is because it is a comment section of a blog rather than a forum.
“You’re entitled to your opinions, but think carefully before you start attacking the faith of others. ”
I wish my so-called Novus Ordo faith was attacked sooner than it was! I thought I was Catholic then, but I was not. Thank God someone dared to confront my “faith”. I now have the true Catholic Faith.
As Sundays are not part of Lent, here is a festive link to enjoy. Would that our next Pope (think: the blue guy with the arrow he controls by whistling) would take the same approach to all those who spit upon what the Church teaches: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RXbFP2V_zSA
I know I need to explain:
– Blue guy is Yondu. Dude is blue and his power is from the red fin on head; by whistling, he can control an arrow that, in this clip, he uses to destroy the enemies who mutinied against him. For those who think he’s a devil (SPOILER ALERT) he sacrifices his life without hesitation for the hero of the series.
– Folks who die are mutineers and evil.
– Little green guy is called Groot. Good guy, think Treebeard grandson.
Also would love to hear what anyone else or the Axis of Ego (Remnant Newswiper, lots of cros$$over) thinks since they seem to hate anything but the most Catholic of films.
The picture on top is not of Francis. How come?
By the way, it is more than evident from pictures too, that Francis is a mason, as is Macron, Conte, Putin,… and many other smily personalities visiting the Vatican. Those disliked, get a grumpy face as they do not belong to the club.