I’ve been alerted, both here on the blog by a reader, and privately by a priest friend, that my statement (offered in a previous post), “The Novus Ordo Missae is like poison in the Body of Christ; capable of infecting the Catholic faithful with a deadly degree of modernism,” was addressed in a post on Mundabor’s Blog.
I enjoy Mundabor’s Blog. I consider him a brother-in-arms and I like the pull-no-punches way in which he defends the faith.
While he may have had my comment in mind, in part, I think he was responding more directly to a lecture given by Fr. Daniel Themann, FSSPX, the content of which was recently covered by John Vennari at Catholic Family News.
In any event, Mundabor brought up some noteworthy points worthy of reflection as it relates to the validity of the Novus Ordo, the Most Holy Eucharist as consecrated therein, and our Sunday and Holy Day obligations.
The first thing that must be said is that the matters under discussion, specifically as it relates to questions concerning how we are called to respond, are far from simple.
On the contrary, they are as complex as the master of subtlety himself. He is, after all, the author of the crisis.
That being the case, it comes as no surprise that good Catholics will disagree on certain points.
For the sake of brevity, I’m going to quote relevant snippets from Mundabor’s post, but I urge you to read it in full to avail yourself of his entire argument, portions of which I won’t address here.
I can never consider the drink the Church gives me a poison, though I will always say that as a drink it is vastly less, for lack of a better word, thirst-quenching or nourishing than the wine [that she should be providing]…
I do not refuse the food that Holy Mother Church dishes on my table…
If you have a valid Mass you can attend to, you have a Mass obligation … 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.
I get it, and furthermore, I appreciate the passion with which Mundabor states his case.
Respectfully, however, I think he is oversimplifying the situation by conflating the Blessed Sacrament with the Novus Ordo itself.
Overlooked in the process is the reality that those who deliberately refrain, and even encourage others to refrain, from participating in the Novus Ordo even when it is their only choice on a given Holy Day of Obligation, are very specifically refusing the rite; not the Eucharist.
As such, when we speak of “the food that Holy Mother Church dishes on [our] tables,” it’s important to distinguish between the Eucharist on the one hand, and the rite wherein the Sacrament is confected on the other.
The former is always properly considered Heavenly Food dispensed by the hand of our Holy Mother. The rite known as the Novus Ordo Missae, by contrast, is not.
The new Mass, the same that Cardinal Ratizinger aptly described as “a fabrication; a banal on the spot product,” comes to us directly from the hands of weak and sinful men, including Pope Paul VI of bitter memory. It does not come to us from Holy Mother Church.
Some will shutter at such distinctions, I know, but if nothing else has become glaringly obvious over the last fifty years it is the danger associated with equating all that the post conciliar popes have given to us with authentic Catholic nourishment.
To employ the language of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, there most certainly is a difference between present day “Rome” as understood through the actions of Pope Francis and company, and “Eternal Rome” as understood through tradition as expressed over the course of many centuries.
As such, one must constantly discern between those things that have been given an official stamp of Church approval in our day, and that which is given to the faithful by Holy Mother Church herself. Point being, they’re not necessarily the same.
While the milk drinkers among us are ill-prepared to digest such solid food; the plain truth is that the Novus Ordo Missae is not to be confused with a fruit of the Holy Ghost who leads the Church into all truth; rather, it was unceremoniously forced upon the faithful against His will. Of this there can be no doubt.
(I will save for another day a discussion about whether or not the reformers’ actions were licit, and how this might bear on the status of the rite they invented, but suffice to say that it is an important one.)
In any case, we can say without reservation that Holy Mother Church would never hand such a rite as the Novus Ordo to her children.
And why not?
For one, because it is, as a rite, “like poison capable of infecting the Catholic faithful with a deadly degree of modernism.”
To deny this is to deny the principle “lex orandi statuat legem credendi.”
It is also to deny that which is all too obvious from plain observation:
The new Mass, just as Cardinal Ottaviani warned in his famous Intervention, leads to a loss of Catholic faith, if not for all who frequent the rite (save only for those spared by the grace of God), for many if not most who do so.
Even so, many are still tempted to underestimate just how poisonous the Novus Ordo truly is by weighing the danger inherent to the rite against the infinite graces made available in the Most Holy Eucharist.
To do this, however, is to “ask the wrong question,” if you will.
While it is true, as Mundabor wrote, “It’s not that there is a precedent, because the situation [at hand] is new,” the precepts of the Church do provide at least the framework for constructing a logical response to the present dilemma; one that may be expressed as follows:
Should I forgo the Eucharist in order to avoid participation in a poisonous rite, or should I tolerate a poisonous rite in order to avail myself of the Eucharist?
Before we consider the precepts directly, I’d like to address the following argument:
While I grant that the Novus Ordo leads to a loss of faith for many; for me it poses no such risk. I am fully aware of the crisis and actively labor to steep myself in the truths of the faith as taught so very clearly before the Council.
I’ve argued as much myself in the past, but left unaddressed is the heavy burden placed upon those of us who, by God’s grace, have had their eyes opened.
It’s not enough simply to say, “I’ll be OK.” Rather, we are called to give witness to the truth that has been made known to us in such way as to not lead others into temptation; i.e., we are duty bound not to lend the appearance of good to that which is dangerous, and our own participation in the Novus Ordo threatens to do just that.
We might recall St. Paul’s caution to the Corinthians:
Only take care lest this liberty of yours somehow become a stumbling block to the weak. (1 Cor 8:9)
Now, as for the precepts of the Church and how they lend a degree of clarity to the situation:
Consider that while the precepts of the Church require that we “attend Mass on Sundays and on Holy Days of Obligation,” they only require us to “receive the sacrament of the Eucharist at least during the Easter season.”
This suggests that our Holy Mother has determined that attending Mass is good for her children, as a rite, in and of itself, even apart from reception of the Eucharist.
The Novus Ordo, however, as discussed, is not good for us, as a rite, in and of itself, even apart from reception of the Eucharist.
To maintain that we are obligated to attend the Novus Ordo nonetheless is tantamount to suggesting that the Church can be likened to a mother who would feed her children broccoli tainted with cyanide simply because that is the only vegetable currently available.
A good Mother would never do such a thing; nor would Holy Mother Church obligate us to participate in a rite like the Novus Ordo.
As for the obligation to receive the Eucharist at least during the Easter season, rare is the situation where this cannot be fulfilled while assisting at the Mass of Ages; a rite that far from posing a danger to souls is well known to be a vehicle of great grace, as a rite, in and of itself.
As such, one can perhaps understand why the Society of St. Pius X (and even some others) counsel against participation in the Novus Ordo.
As for saying that such participation is sinful, it depends upon the relative ignorance of the individual in question.
I think Fr. Themann spoke well when he stated in his lecture that, knowing what he knows, his own participation therein would be sinful.
At this, I’d like to ask that you join me in praying for all those good and holy priests who currently struggle to discern the Lord’s will as it relates to all that has been discussed here.
In conclusion I offer the following sent to me by one such priest relative to the topic at hand:
I think this quotation by Fr. Hesse of G.K. Chesterton is apropos:
Feast on wine or fast on water,
And your honour shall stand sure;
God Almighty’s son and daughter,
He the valiant, she the pure.
If an angel out of heaven
Brings you other things to drink,
Thank him for his kind intentions,
Go and pour them down the sink.
Fr. Hesse explains: Wine is the true doctrine of the Mass; water represents baptism. Wine means purity and doctrine, which is Truth. Christ is the Truth. He must not be watered down, even if it is an angel from heaven that brings an alternative gospel (Galatians 1:8).
I propose that full awareness of the crisis necessarily excludes participation in any Novus Ordo service.
Mundabor: “I attend the NO mass regularly.” This might explain why there was something about his blog, a certain vulgarity, that raised my skeptical antennae from the first time I read it.
I’d like to see Mundabor’s response to LV’s post here. However, he’s closed comments to the linked post. Therefore on another post of his ( https://mundabor.wordpress.com/2015/03/17/the-unholy-year-of-sabotage/#comment-20954 ) I asked the following:
Part of justice demands that God be given the worship due to Him. I was therefore disappointed to learn through Louie Verrecchio’s blog just now, through a link back to your site, that you regularly participate in the Novus Ordo service. This service—as a consciously revolutionary, Protestantized, ecumenical fabrication—radically fails to give God due worship (even if it’s committed strictly according to its rubrics and entirely in Latin). Thus the Novus Ordo service is unjust.
Might any particular Novus Ordo service meet the requirements of bare validity? Yes. But a wedding with the participants dressed as monkeys, circus clowns dancing around, and all the rest of it might also meet the requirements of bare validity. And a Black Mass might meet the requirements of bare validity. Validity is not enough.
A full awareness, or at least a sufficient awareness, of the crisis flowing from the Judas Council Revolution necessarily excludes participation in any Novus Ordo service. One need not be a sedevacantist to recognize this (indeed, sedevacantism itself is part of the rot).
Is there no actual Catholic Mass—or, as we must now say, traditional Mass (but definitely not “Extraordinary Form,” since Orwellian newspeak is to be rejected)—near you?
Unfortunately, he probably won’t allow this comment to go through, and therefore won’t answer it.
This post is so offensive, I’m not sure where to begin. Thus, I will simply observe that traditional Catholics can act like Protestants sometimes. Pride makes man want to judge everything privately, regardless of what the Church teaches. When I tell people, “Believe and practice as Catholics have always believed and practiced; avoid novelty,” that includes understanding that the Mass, in whatever rite or form it’s offered, is the true Sacrifice of Christ; the bloody sacrifice of Calvary, renewed on our altars in an unbloody manner.
Vestments of red
Altar cloth too
Martyrs who bled
Did this for you.
Veiled in red’s hue
Martyrs in shackles
Hung for this view.
Red mums full bloomed
In water and brass
Burned for this Mass.
Red rays of sun
Rose-streak the nave
Their suffering done –
Now red we must crave!
You get it, Louie. Thank you for your very Catholic insights.
I am blessed to be able to attend the TLM every Sunday and Holy Day thanks to an SSPX chapel in my area. However, when out of town where there is no TLM available, I prefer say the prayers of the missal and pray the rosary. As far as I am concerned, the Holy Eucharist is desecrated at every New Order mass for many reasons, but especially for the use of “Eucharistic Ministers”, communion in the hand, standing to receive Our Lord etc. and a general lack of piety, reverence in the behavior of the “presider” and the casual attitude and dress of the congregation. I understand that there may be exceptions to this in some parishes, but they are all part of the “same club”. The N.O. mass, with all its novelties, as very far inferior to the strict rubrics of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass (TLM). I certainly do not mean to offend anyone who attends the N.O. with great faith. Catholics who love their faith deserve better. The theology of the N.O. mass is all wrong. There’s nothing like the “real thing.” A little poison over time has the same effect as one big gulp.
Excellent and informative article , as usual
A priest I know once said that the NO corrupts everything it touches. How true. Just look at what the average Catholic who attends it believes. Garbage in , garbage out. I was trapped in it for many years and then by the grace of God, found tradition. I pity those, especially the youth who attend the NO. Small wonder that the majority of the youth say goodbye after Confirmation. Why would they want to stay when they are offered vacuous sermons, endless banal songs, hand holding, group hugging, etc? If you wanted to turn them off to the faith, this is what you would do. Good job, masons!
The tragic part is that if they were offered the faith of our fathers, the perennial faith of the Church, many would be inspired to live true Catholic lives and vocations would abound. But that is not to be, at least for now . The ways of God are inscrutable.
“FrA,” LV’s post may be offensive to many, but the truth is often offensive—especially amidst today’s widespread diabolical disorientation.
The Novus Ordo service is the supreme expression of novelty flowing from Vatican II. It’s also a consciously Protestantized fabrication, indeed concocted with the consultation of six Protestant ministers. Thus, for example, those heretics known as Lutherans have said they’d have no problem using it.
Further, as a Protestantized, ecumaniacal product, the Novus Ordo service would be unrecognizable as Catholic to Catholics before Vatican II.
Moreover, objective data reveals that the Novus Ordo service is destructive of the Faith, as upwards of 70% of Novus Ordo participants no longer believe in the Real Presence.
Much more could be said to prove that it’s precisely the Novus Ordo service that’s soaked in Protestantism, novelty, and indeed poison; and it’s said in such books as The Catechism of the Crisis in the Church, by Fr. Matthias Gaudron. Also see:
Yes, I seem to recall someone saying something like if an evil social worker, or the devil himself, wished to destroy the Church, he could do no better than to concoct the Novus Ordo service.
I think you have got to the heart of the matter. There are still those who are caught in the contradiction of plainly seeing that the Novus Ordo is a ‘banal fabrication’ but essentially unable to really see the real poison that it is and also the harm that it has caused. They think that because they still attend it either every week or from time to time it must be okay as if to say, well, ‘it’s bad (quality) but look at me I’m still of sound mind and I can still fulfill my obligations through it’!
Look, tens or even hundreds of millions of people have lost their faith because of it. They weren’t just all weak Catholics, they were God’s children who were fed stones instead of bread. And it’s not because the NO is boring or informal or unprayerful, although it usually is all these things, but these are just effects of one of the grossest acts of sacrilege and iconoclasm in the Church’s history. The intention of the authorship of the NO was to defeat the Faithful – as Bugnini said, the NO was a “great victory over the Church”. It was it’s intent that was wrong so the whole enterprise was sick before it even began to be fabricated.
Also, you cannot FABRICATE a ‘new’ mass. “Whosever” (whether Pope, or a ‘committee’ etc) attempts to do so has already broken the definitive and final laws of the Church regarding the safeguarding of the Mass FOR EVER (as per the Council of Trent).
The Titanic is sinking fast and the TLM is the only life-boat left. To tell people to stay on board the sinking ship is to vastly underestimate the disaster, to underestimate it’s true author (the Evil One), and to waste valuable time and energy when everyone should be shouting from the rooftops, “Get Out, Save Your Souls, They are Mocking Christ and His Church with this Evil Fabrication”.
Finally, Our Lord, told us that when we needed the see and hear and think clearly we must judge a matter by it’s effects (“by the fruits…”). The Novus Ordo is clearly a rotten tree in it’s own right and has to be avoided at the very least, and ‘cut out’ if at all possible.
No Pope has power to make up a new mass. So whether the
Council of Trent, Session 7:
CANON XIII. If any one saith, that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church, wont to be used in the solemn administration of the sacraments, may be contemned, or without sin be omitted at pleasure by the ministers, or be changed, by every pastor of the churches, into other new ones; let him be anathema.
While I agree with much of what has been said here, I disagree somewhat with the proposed solution. I am blessed to attend a Traditional Latin Mass on Sundays which, thankfully, is fairly local but also attend daily Mass (where possible) at my local Novus Ordo parish…..Why? …Am I not utterly scandalised at the wrecked Liturgy , lack of reverence for Our Blessed Lord and countless abuses that are present?…most certainly!…and thus the reason I have taken my Family out and moved to the TLM as this was becoming harmful to the their faith….but something within me tells me that this is the time Our blessed Lord needs us more than ever…not just to abandon him on the altar but to show him the true worship that he deserves and is currently not receiving in the NO Mass. ..When there is clapping, we remain in silent prayer, when there is standing for Holy Communion and receiving in the hand, we drop to our knees and receive with great reverence on the tongue. When the Precious Blood is distributed, we reverently genuflect to show that Our Lord is front of us. ..We can implore the Holy angels at each Mass to cover all heads, hands (with the exception of the priests) and immodesty as appropriate. If permitted by God we can also implore the Holy angels present to not allow a single fragment of the host to be desecrated or a single drop of the Precious blood be spilt during the Mass. In this way we give Glory and Honour to God and console him in this terrible crisis of Faith…we may also just save a few souls along the way!
You’re playing with fire. You’ve been blessed with access to the actual Catholic Mass, yet you also attend the Novus Ordo service whenever possible during the week. Consider whether Divine Providence has given you access to the Catholic Mass precisely so that you’ll avoid the diabolical dangers of the Novus Ordo service.
This is very distressing. I have little to no access to the TLM. I truly suffer through the Novus Ordo and regularly hear heresy or dreck from the pulpit. I am so embarrassed and find I must correct these errors for my two teens who accompany me and also hear this rot–ie: “gay marriage is a matter of equal rights”. I pray ceaselessly for the widespread reform of the liturgy and establishment of the TLM in this diocese and support the FSSP monetarily. I have offered to pay my pastor to attend trading in the TLM but he doesn’t seem interested. I do feel I must give God His due. What is a reasonable distance to travel for the TLM? I’m sure there are many in similar circumstances.
Akita, I am blessed not to be in the position you are, so take this for whatever it is worth, which might be nothing. I believe our Sunday obligation to attend Mass extends from the offertory until the priest’s communion. Perhaps someone else more well versed in canon law can verify this. If so, if I were in your position, I might consider simply waiting in the vestibule until the offertory, enter the church, take a place in a pew and recite the rosary for the conversion of heretics back to the faith, or perhaps for a TLM to be offered within a reasonable distance, until the priest’s communion. If necessary make a spiritual communion. This way, you avoid being subjected to homiletic heresy and hopefully, recitation of the rosary will help you to avoid disstraction caused by any remaining heterodoxy. As for a reasonable distance to have to travel, it is my understanding that travel more than one hour is not considered to be necessary, although again, that should be verified or corrected.
Why hasn’t a boycott of the Novus Ordo come from a cadre of faithful cardinals? There would be strength in unity.
Thank you phlogiston. Very helpful.
In my opinion there are issues here that need to be separated out.
It is a mortal sin to miss Mass on Sundays and Holy Days.
Would Our Dear Father in Heaven have left His children without a valid Mass for 50+ years, until they could stumble across a Traditional Mass?
Why do we feel we must receive Holy Communion when we attend a NO ‘mass’?
Do we believe that the congregation’s reverence, and the priest’s holiness cause the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ to appear before us? Or is this action achieved even with an irreverent congregation, and a sinful priest?
Many of us are so very privileged to have Traditional Masses in some cities and states/provinces but what about the millions who don’t?
Daily Mass is not a requirement so why suffer through a NO ‘mass’ if you don’t have to?
How long a drive is considered enough for Sunday Mass? (I’ve heard an hour and a half)
My suggestions: sit in the very back of the Church, way in the corner. If there is a Tabernacle in the Church wear a veil if you are a lady and for all the family dress in your very best. Read your Missal and pray the Traditional Mass silently. You will have to bob up and down on demand but kneel when you know you must. At the sign of peace get out a kleenex and start blowing your nose and cough. If the Consecration sounds odd don’t go to Holy Communion. Stay after Mass no matter how crazy it gets to pray for a few minutes. Leave, and say your Rosary on the way home.
My FFSP pastor told me one has to attend from the entry of the priest, to his leaving at the end of Mass, to have ‘heard’ Mass. I used to do what you suggest and he said – no dice!
sorry, meant FSSP!!!
This is a very difficult subject. The current situation in the Church is unprecedented in many respects, and decisions are hard.
My mother decided she had had enough of the Novus Ordo after a couple of months of its celebration at my parish church (complete with my young school mates banging tunelessly on guitars). She found a nearby church after a couple of months of no Mass on Sundays, that offered a TLM, if people would pay enough to keep the roof on it.
Fast-forward 10 years or so. I was a newly divorced mother, as were several of my friends from the this church. I knew that there was no Catholic community in this setting for raising children. Although my university years had been spent wandering the Novus Ordo Masses in my large West Coast, USA, city, I realized that my only hope as a single mother was to raise my children in as Catholic atmosphere as I could find. I did not want to leave my family. I helped bring the SSPX to my city. I have never regretted it, and I have attended few Novus Ordo Masses in the intervening years.
Had I remained single, I perhaps could have weathered the storm by trying to find those reverent Novus Ordo Masses, without losing my faith. However, I wanted my sons to experience a Catholic community that was missing in my young years. I am glad to say they both married in our family Church. One is a staunch TLM Catholic; the other goes between the NO and the TLM. I’m grateful that God allowed me that consolation.
On Mundabor: I read his blog almost daily—and only one or two more, as time allows. I believe that his circumstances have allowed him to realize the importance of the TLM. Perhaps, had he experienced the trials that Louie, or I , or countless other Catholics faced in the past 30 or so years, he would be a bit more gentle to those of us who have been forced to make and keep other choices. As his comments are off on that topic, I can’t tell him so. I will continue to pray for all of us who are in this precarious position: having to pick and choose between Masses, priests, and parishes.
Thank you, Louie, for your post.
A very wise priest once told me that a priest gets his holiness from the Mass, not the other way around. No priest, no matter how holy he is, can make the N.O mass holy because it is intrinsically NOT holy. The TLM is INTRINSICALLY holy and therefore is a source of immeasurable grace for the priest and all who attend.
Thanks for this article, Louie. As Akita above says, these things are very distressing.
We all have our Novus Ordo horror stories, I’m sure. I have no doubt that God is giving us the choice – do we fall on the side of the tares? (the Novus Ordo sect and its Rites) or with the wheat? (Holy Mother Church) We cannot be both – God does not want a genetically modified wheatfield. Sometimes the price of choosing the pearl of great price is exile. Yep, exile from Novus Ordo land – not such a burden. The realisation of geographical exile from the Blessed Sacrament is hard to take but with lover which bears all things, we pray for True Priests and the True Mass. Sister Lucy warned about having nought left but the Rosary and the Sign of the Cross. For some, this is a reality.
The Art of War claims that the best way to conquer an enemy is to do it in a way whereby he doesn’t even notice he has been vanquished – the Novus Ordo does this very effectively because it claims the brand ‘Catholic’ and trades on the loyalty that commands. But truth is never poison – never ever. The Novus Ordo is poison. It is a vehicle for abuse against Holy Mother Church. I guess there are some places on the planet where the Novus Ordois dressed up like a High Anglican service but it is still Cranmer’s bequeast and an enemy of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Sympathy for the devil is always enmity to Christ.
There is good and sound Catholic reason that no Catholic should attend the NO, and that no one called to the Vocation of the Priesthood should permit a Montini Rite to come any where near him. The list of paganisms, protestantisms against Christ and His Church daily promulgated by the Novus Ordo sect is as many as days and hours since Montini Inc. infested the parishes of the world with that desolator’s (Montini’s) abominations. I do wonder if Mundabor would have taken communion on the day I was attending the Novus Ordo and the Novus Ordo Bishop exclaimed ‘this is Jesus’ at the consecration? The mass was invalid on that point alone. Likewise the insistence on taking communion under both kinds is an anti-Catholic proclaimation at a so-called Catholic Mass, of a difficiency in the host. And shouldn’t the altar be reconsecrated after it has been picked up by the local ‘feminists for Francis’ brigade and trundled off to the side so that females in leotards can prance about in empty space? And how about singing hymns written by gay rights activists before and after ‘communion’ in the hand handed out by people of both sexes in t-shirts and jeans? I could go on and on and on – the pagan dancing women alter servers at the Cathedral midnight Mass, the pick and mix, who’s gonna do the reading this week in the middle of mass. It is the tares dream come true – it is a product for those who want to be tares, no for those who ask, seek, and knock, watch and pray to be wheat for a good harvest.
PS. While we are on the subjects that can be distressing – I would like to try and get to the bottom of the Montini concept of making a priest – as opposed to the Old Roman Rites. In the ‘Old’ Rite of Episcopal consecration the ‘power of the order’ to be received is unambiguously (univocally) expressed, as is the Grace of the Holy Ghost conferring the ordination.
The Montini rites ordain by something called a ‘governing Spirit’ (which has multiple meanings); this ‘governing Spirit’ is then applied with ambiguity on a man without expressing the ‘power of the order’. Apologetical attempts for Montini’s rite cannot adequatley explain the what the ‘governing spirit’ is or applies to – the power of the ‘order’ or the ‘Holy Ghost’ who isn’t specifically mentioned. It is ambiguous – and one would have to conclude, not Catholic since Catholicity demands a univocal unambigous wording.
“one of the two necessary elements prescribed by Pius XII is missing. “Context,” no matter how “ample,” cannot “specify” a term that is not present at all. To sum up the problem once again: The debate over the validity of the new rite of episcopal consecration centers on its essential sacramental form — the words in a sacramental rite necessary and sufficient to produce the effect of the sacrament.”
For myself I have two questions if anyone can answer them. Do SSPX Bishops nowadays use the Montini Rite, or permit Montini Rite Priests into the Society? And why on earth did Montini change the Episcopal Rites in the first place? If not for yet more ‘conquering without anyone noticing?’ How is ‘governing spirit’ an improvement on Holy Ghost? And how is ‘that power which is from you’ a univocal delcaration of Epsicopal Power?
Hello Barbara. We have not been left without a valid Mass. It will be celebrated from the rising of the sun to the setting of the same to the consummation of the age. That we may not have the geographical convenience of this Mass is nothing new. There have been plently of times where the faithful have found themselves without valid priests and valid rites – think of the burden of Russian Catholics. In Archbishop Schnieders book, ‘Dominus Est’, he describes a Russian Catholic community who had long absences from a priest and eventually a priest, bravely and with great faith, smuggled a pyx with a consecrated host to the community on the express agreement that only one would consume the host whole. This happened and the small community did prayer and fasting in anticipation of such a Grace. Some might see this as careless of the Priest and too demanding of the community. The thing is God always maintains His Church and Her Sacramental Grace – that we may have to pray to unite when the geography proscribes – we must if we must, but we always pray for True Priests and True Sacraments.
on that note: “Attention Australia and New Zealand: There is a sedevacantist priest offering Masses regularly now in Perth, Melbourne, Brisbane, and Adelaide, as well as some locations in New Zealand. Please contact us for more information”: http://www.novusordowatch.org/contact.htm
Sadly, terribly, the majority are in your situation, Akita. I would say the vast majority do not have reasonable access to the Mass of the Ages.
This is very true. But in this bit of a fix one is not alone. We can only do all we can to be Catholic. Sacramentals are no replacement for the Sacraments but get hold of sacramentals blessed by those whom you know to be valid priests – this matters – upon these objects is the blessing of the Apostles – no dismissible mercy. Keep praying for True Priests and True Sacraments and God will show you the way. There is no need to comprimise Truth with lies – this is not God’s way. Christ said there was no need to ‘resist’ evil, meaning that evil should never be allowed an equal place at anyone’s table – evil is not an immovable force that we should bang our heads against it. Move on with the Truth, and fight the True fight against the evil that confronts us day to day. But don’t fight ‘with it’ as is so often and bizzarely proposed these days. Truth and error and not ever to be put on the same footing.
Good thought. Let’s pray that it does!
I have attended so many N.O. masses that are patently invalid (even without the issue of Montini preists) and sacraligious that it became plain to me one day that God doesn’t demand one, at every – and I mean every mass- they attend to have to suffer sacrilege and obvious invalidity as a sustitute for worship and Grace. To think that God would demand this of is worse than thinking that the enemy have imposed a false Rite into most of the parishes of the world, and too many were indifferent enough or ‘on board’ enough to say ‘okay!’ And the few who said, ‘no way’ are now vilified by the ‘okay’ crowd.
The temptation to participation is toxic.
AlphonsusJr, at least he will have read your comment, and I hope it has an impact on him. I thought it was excellent.
I searched through my email to find past blog posts of Mundabor’s that I felt were important enough to study at the time. Note here from his 6/30/13 post, “The SSPX, This Blog And You”, where he states his reasoning for attending the Novus Ordo:
“3. I attend very often Novus Ordo Masses, and will continue to do so. This I do because I fear the effect that an entrenchment on the Traditional Mass would have on me, given my uncompromising nature and the resulting tendency to incendiary emotions and hardline militancy; emotions and militancy that can be very dangerous, and might well lead me astray unless I recognise the problem and act accordingly to counter them and soften my approach. Therefore, as long as I have no doubt that the Novus Ordo Masses I attend to are sacramentally valid, I plan to continue to do so for as long as I see the danger of slowly slipping into Sedevacantism if I don’t. I also see it as a form of penance, when I reflect that our sins (mine, and yours; not only the clergy’s) are also a cause of the present mess.”
Then, after many comments were made in that post (some pleading with him to rethink his position), he wrote a follow-up on 7/3/13, “The SSPX, The Novus Ordo And Us.”
I don’t have a problem with what Alphonsus called mundabor’s ‘vulgarity’ – that’s the reason the Church has a sanctuary, a holy language, holy consecrated priests and religious – everything outside is vulgar to some degree – after all the best medieval Catholic penmasters had the gift of a very colourful turn of phrase. However, the idea of this ‘slipping into sedevacantism’ remains strange to me as a ‘problem’ – the sedevacantist does not deny Christ’s Vicar, he denounces the enemies of Christ and His Vicar – he won’t ‘recognise’ belial as Christ. Recently Pat Buchanan said that if Bergoglio’s offensive against the Faith continues unabaited, ‘we’ may have to look to the sedevacantists for a reasonble take on things. That’s the thing. What the sedevacantists are saying during this crisis is reasonable, Faithful, and Traditional. Where is the bulwark beyond which nothing may pass? Its not the adulterous Novus Ordo Rome. It would be the Great SSPX if certain influential people didn’t, at least reportedly, keep seeking daliances with the adulterers. So where is that visible bulwark of Faith, uncomprimising to the last? At this point in time isn’t it those sedevacantist Bishops and Priests and (yes many SSPX though they have to be more close-mouthed) who hold the Faith?
“Pride makes man want to judge everything privately, regardless of what the Church teaches.” That is the problem. We know what the Church teaches and we are being imposed upon to deny Christ and burn incense to falsehood. If Pope St Puis X were impressed upon by Wojtyla to concelebrate with protestants and then invited pagans, many of them naked, to offer up a New Order Mass whilst others, not so naked, danced all over the sanctuary, would he, Pius have said, “it is only pride that makes me want to recoil from this stuff that the Church teaches against”? This is the position the Wojtyla’s and Montini’s etc. of wretched memory have place sincere people in who mistake spiritual authority for mundane authority.
You sound like someone who seeks the Faith and will sacrifice that her children have it; however, you have declared being in a divorced status; for those who are trained to equate divorce with adultery on all parts and fornication no matter what, please put in, at least a plea, for chasity on one’s behalf; there is only a widower, a widow … or an adulterer if a marriage is ‘over’. Given the tender, to say the least, assualts against the sanctity of marriage it would be responsible.
PS. The repeat consequences of divorces ‘and remarriage’ (a Catholic oxymoron) are in no small part a result of the unawareness of our own contribution to scandal.
There is no…no sin without evil consequence. Our lives are short, but the damage we can do by believing beyond ourselves lives well beyond our skins. Original sin is washed away by the waters of Baptism in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. ‘Personal’ sin, is washed away, healed through the blood of Christ – the fruits of confirmation and the privilege of partaking of the Holy Eucharist – dependent upon absolution that makes a solemn commitment to ‘stay clean’. Otherwise – that sin is simply a source of generational chaos.
You are of course entitled to your opinion.
We are living in diabolical times….Our opinions however don’t matter, this needs to be about what God wants. Clearly, the Mass of the ages is what God wants and we pray for it’s complete restoration. In the meantime however, what does God want us to do?
The issue at stake here for me is whether Jesus is made truly present on the altars within the Novus Ordo…The answer, I believe is yes, these are valid consecrations regardless of any inherent sinfulness on the part of the faithful, the surroundings or the priest….If Jesus is therefore truly present on these altars, how exactly is the Glory of God best served by abandoning him?….If those of us who understand the present crisis abandon him, who will be there to worship him, console him, revere his Holy presence and receive him with the correct disposition? Who will be there to show the way for those currently in darkness? Is Our Lady not present? are countless hosts of adoring angels not present? There have been many Eucharistic miracles in the Novus Ordo…why? ..I believe that Our Lord is trying to bolster the faith of an impoverished faithful that has been abandoned for the last 50 years and left with a wrecked liturgy. Our Lord is telling us, I am still here, suffering….is there anyone to console me?
I believe those of us who understand, are duty bound to assist in the restoration, counter revolution and suffer with Our Lord. How can we achieve this?
Consecration to Jesus through Mary, Prayer, penance, sacrifice, attendance at the TLM (For those who have been given the grace to understand the current crisis – attendance at the NO to console our Lord), Holy Communion of reparations, the Five First Saturdays etc. Telling our Bishops the truth, that our liturgy is a disgrace and open to the most abominable abuses, that we want the TLM in our parishes, that Communion in the hand needs to stop, etc. etc. and it would greatly help of course if the Pope would consecrate Russia to Our Lady’s Immaculate Heart
I think you are right, savemur, and I was wrong. How many times in history has Almighty God taken away true worship from his people for generations at a time? When the Jews were taken into captivity there was no sacrifice. Back and forth God sent them. We are sent into captivity and our pastors have sold us into it. And there is almost no sacrifice.
I have been thinking overnight and remembering the many times whole countries were betrayed into heresy – think of England under Henry VIII, and then Elizabeth – almost overnight the Holy Mass was destroyed and Cramner’s Ungodly Mass was put in place. There were uprisings but these faithful Catholics were betrayed and slaughtered. After St. Thomas More and St. John Fisher were murdered there was very, very little resistance.
Similar to today, the Protestants changed the Mass gradually until almost all Catholicity was gone. The frog in the pot of water?
The Lutheran revolt swept away millions of faithful into heresy. Perhaps we are just realizing now the terrible toll this heresy has taken all over the world. We see it becoming mainstream in our very own Catholic Church – which was originally a bulwark against it.
I wonder what would have happened back in the 60s if Catholics had revolted against the novelties. Would the evil have been turned back? Why did most congregations just sit there and take it? Catholic habit of obedience doesn’t seem to cover this completely.
I guess the question to ask is what would you die for? What would you drive 3 hours for? Would you give up your job so that you could move close to a true Mass? What would you give up in your personal life so that you could confront a priest or a bishop? How much have we compromised on already, and how much more are we willing to compromise?
If we lived in a time when we were asked to burn just a pinch of incense to the local god, would we go to the wall rather than cave in?
I’m asking these questions of myself!
When I see a pope who refuses to kneel before his Creator and Saviour when He comes down onto the altar what do I do? When I see a parish priest refuse to wear his chasuble when he says Mass what do I do? When the Bishop speaks to him, and he continues to refuse what do I do? When I see whole congregations dressed for the beach, but stop off for Mass beforehand, what do I do? When I see sacrilege and profanity at Mass what do I do?
So I ask myself again: what would I die for?
salvemur, we divorced and ‘re-married’ do need gentleness and mercy. NO!!!! not the kind that Poor Francis proposes, but that mercy that Jesus would have shown after we have returned to the Sacraments, and the Mass, and after we strive for holiness.
I think it goes without saying that those who have been through this self-imposed sinfulness do show the damage these sins bring.
Thank you, RoTjM, for your great witness. Your suffering for Our Lord will bring great graces and save souls. We are going through unspeakable trial and tribulation in this Great Apostasy in the Church.
salvemur, you must be careful, in my humble opinion, with your exhortations. There is a difference between fighting back against the Modernist Heresy, and abandoning millions to it, and personally bunkering down in traditionalism. The alternatives presented in some of your comments are false alternatives: you say we either attend the Traditional Mass, or stay home. But there is another alternative: FIGHT.
I agree with you that there are many horror stories, but they occur because no one seems willing to stand and fight.
Example: Here in Ontario there is ONE woman who has spent probably 10 years in prison for the crime of praying outside an abortion mill in Toronto. The 10 years has been served a little bit at a time – 6 months here, 18 months there, and so on. As soon as she gets out, there she is back on the sidewalk. This is a crime here.
What is the bigger crime? She is alone.
There is another younger woman now – Mary Wagner – who is standing there, as Linda Gibbons is getting older and slowing down somewhat. Question: why do hundreds of people go to yearly pro-life dinners, usually with the local bishop in attendance, to ‘protest’ abortion – but refuse to drive to Toronto and stand with this woman? Why do they spend hours at the local pro-life office stuffing envelopes for mail-outs but refuse to stand in the street and yell their heads off – that they are fed up and won’t take it anymore?
Because they don’t have anything in their lives that they would die for.
We don’t need more horror stories! We need to exhort each other, support each other, and stand and fight.
What would we do if Cardinal Burke were to call for a Catholic Revolt? What would we die for?
Again, I’m asking myself these questions!
Because probably there is not a single cardinal who thinks there is anything particularly wrong with the novus ordo (even if they happen to celebrate the TLM on occasion)… Even the “ultra-conservative” Cardinal Burke (that’s how he was described in a recent interview posted in rorate with Roberto de Mattei) boasts of Father/Cardinal Ratzinger as his mentor, displaying an enormous body of his works in his personal library also in another recent interview posted on youtube (it was the one where he said “I will resist the pope”!
If that’s “ultra-conservative”, how would Pius XII be described today? Should we come up with some sort of absurd term like “super-duper-ultra-conservative”?
Akita, if your parish priest is promoting sodomy (as appears to be the case from your above comment) I would advise you to flee from this mass, and try to find an alternative church where the novus ordo is celebrated by a priest who at the very least respects the natural law. You said you have two teenage sons/daughters – even if such verbal garbage is completely harmless to you, it can have an insidious effect on the impressionable minds of young children which are still at a stage of absorbing experiences from the world around them.
Our situation is very much like the situation faced buy the few remaining true Christians during the peak of the Arian crisis… How many true Catholics back then had access to a mass celebrated by priest or bishop who was not an Arian heretic? And yet we read how such Christians had to flee from such churches as if from the plague in order not to be corrupted by their heresy. It is very telling that even St Hermenegild (d 585) refused to take Holy Communion at the hand of an Arian bishop on Easter Day as he was condemned to die for refusing to forsake the Catholic faith!
I don’t understand how it is that one can believe that to NOT attend a NO Mass, on Sunday, when it is the only one around, regardless of the spiritual scandal it promotes, is a mortal sin. Would I be in mortal sin if I refused to attend a schismatic Eastern Rite Mass when it was the only valid Mass within my vacinity? Would I be in mortal sin if I refused to go to a NO because of the spiritual scandal it causes me and the spiritual scandal I would be giving others by my presence there? Either the NO scandalizes you or it doesn’t. To say that I know it is scandalous but it doesn’t scandalize me is perplexing and contradictory. What about the blind souls that see you putting the validity as more important than the scandal the NO promotes. Maybe you could participate with an old Mass on TV as an option if you can.
To miss Mass because you have other things or priorities like sports and entertainment is one thing, but to miss attending the NO in order to avoid spiritual scandal or cause spiritual scandal is quite another thing. Shoudn’t we see this precept of the Church to attend Mass on Sunday as a means to uphold the Faith and not to destroy it? If attending the NO promotes the destruction of the Catholic Faith isn’t it our duty to NOT attend the NO? In the very least one must ask how can it be a mortal sin to NOT attend the NO when it causes one and others spiritual scandal against the Catholic Faith.
I understand the fear that one must feel of not wanting to be in mortal sin. And that this fear is what will keep us attending the NO regardless of the scandal it causes us or others. Maybe it just takes time for some to get to the level where they realy are scandalized and have the courage and faith to reject the NO.
PS Here is the link to the “ultra-conservative” Card Burke interview I referenced to above. The cardinal is truly a hard-core Ratzinger admirer- he’s got his COMPLETE works and says whenever he has some confusion or doubt, he turns to Ratzinger’s works for guidance!!!
None of us here has the authority to disregard a precept of the Church based on our personal opinions. That should be obvious. Does it scandalize you to go the N.O. when no TLM is available on a Sunday? Too bad. You go anyways out of obedience. This is no time for wimps! Do you think Sts. John and Mary Magdalene were not scandalized by the Crucifixion?
Good points Barbara…
Well said Barbara re the barbaric systematic murder of babies in utero and the unlawful, unjust, evil incarceration of those solitary souls standing against the mass murder. Where are the faithful lay Catholics? the religious? the priests?, the bishops?, the cardinals??? The local bishops and Cardinal ought to be leading mass protests and standing with Linda Gibbons and Mary Wagner in fighting the mass killing. Why are the Cardinal and bishops not in prison? – Because they are not doing their duty and fighting against this prevailing child-murder that cries out to heaven for vengeance.
Do you think it would be correct to attend a mass where the priest on a weekly basis blasphemes Our Lord and Our Lady? Who perhaps hints that Our Lady did not keep her virginity perpetually? Who insinuates or flat out promotes the sin of sodomy? Who plainly states that the consecrated Host is a piece of bread celebrating the “communal meal” of Christ with His disciples at the Last Supper?
Have people forgotten that for a sacrament to be valid, it must be the priest’s intention at the moment of administering the sacrament to offer it with the INTENTION that the Church has always had? How many priests today believe in Transubstantiation? By extension – how many priests have the INTENTION of offering sacrifice to the Almighty Father during the act of consecration, and hence making the sacrament valid?
The answers are pretty self evident!
As someone mentioned above, the more salient argument about the Novus Ordo Missae comes directly from an anathema of the Council of Trent.
Session VII, Canon XIII:
Si quis dixerit, receptos et approbates Ecclesiæ Catholicæ ritus, in solemni sacramentorum administratione adhiberi consuetos, aut contemni, aut sine peccato a ministris pro libito omitti, aut in novos alios per quemcumque ecclesiarum pastorem mutari posse: anathema sit.
If any one saith, that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church, wont to be used in the solemn administration of the sacraments, may be contemned, or without sin be omitted at pleasure by the ministers, or be changed, by every pastor of the churches, into other new ones: let him be anathema.
It can be argued, in a plain reading of the law of the Church, that the Second Vatican Council, headed by Pope Paul VI, anathematized themselves, when they agreed by common consent to hold the received and approved Roman Rite with contempt, and proceeded to omit it in 1965, and changed it by the gross simplifications imposed in 1965 and the wholesale obrogation of the received and approved rite with a new one – the novus ordo Missae of 1969.
No, the three at the Corss weren’t scandalized. And I have to say, that’s a really odd comparison.
I had to, by necessity, do what you said this past weekend. For the first time in about three years, I am my family attended a novus ordo to make our Sunday obligation. My ten year old leans over to me at the final blessing, and whispers, “I don’t ever want to go to this Mass again.”
There were no unusual abuses. The priest didn’t do anything weird, didn’t veer off-missal, they actually had three altar BOYS, the choir had decent singers and sung appropriate responses and whatnot, the sermon was “ok” … but in all of that, all the legitimated abuses were there – the bum’s rush of Eucharistic monsters, the adlib of rubrics, the perfunctory actions by the laity, the cattle call of Communion, etc.
Its scandalous to my kids. My kids don’t need to be subjected to scandal. Its morally and intellectually poisonous, because, if NOTHING else, it will eventually breed indifference and contempt for the goodness and beauty of the traditional Roman Rite and traditional Catholic Faith.
Very well said. God Bless you.
We (grandparents) would add that in addition to the Real Presence, the N.O. also does not fail to provide the treasured Word of God in the Epistle and Gospel, (more readings per year than the TLM because of the rotating cycle) and many of the hymns and responses are based directly on the Psalms. These were all gifts directly inspired by God, and worthy of our respect wherever they are found, and definitely non-poisionous.
We do feel profoundly sorry for those who have only badly done or abusive NO Masses in their areas, but encourage them to continue attending Mass; offer up what they have to, speak up to the priests and Bishop whenever they can; pray, and encourage fellow parishioners to do the same.
Good example is powerful.
All of the NO angst could be eliminated by assisting at the TLM online at LiveMass.net. It doesn’t matter if you’re not near a TLM, just participate online and be sure to get Holy Communion once during the Easter season, preferably at a TLM parish:+)
Some tough things said here Louie, but I agree that people need to draw a line in the sand if things will ever change. Sadly b/c I am surrounded by neo-Catholics in my blood family, I may have to attend a NO in my lifetime but will try to stay away if I can help it:+)
You may have to attend, but don’t participate. Let your very attendance become a protest.
Why I love to attend the Novus Ordo Mass….I receive a double blessing
“I feel there are especially necessary for me in this life two things without which its miseries would be unbearable. Confined here in this prison of the body I confess I need these two, food and light. Therefore, You have given me in my weakness Your sacred Flesh to refresh my soul and body, and You have set Your word as the guiding light for my feet. Without them I could not live aright, for the word of God is the light of my soul and Your Sacrament is the Bread of Life.”
Thomas a Kempis
“Blessed and true is that comfort which is inwardly received from Truth.
Dear Ever mindful,
And when there are distractions, we can overcome them as he advises:
A devout man always carries with Him Jesus, his comforter and saith to Him:
“Be with me, O Lord, Jesus in all places and at all times. Let this be my consolation…And if Thy comfort also be withdrawn, let Thy will and just appointment for my trial be to me as the greatest of comforts. For Thou wilt not be angry always, nor wilt Thou threaten forever.
(Imitation of Christ-Ch 16) 🙂 🙂
James 4:7 “Be subject therefore to God, but resist the devil, and he will fly from you.”
On this I must defer to my pastor who said no matter how I must suffer through a NO, I must fulfil my duty and go fi there is no choice. I can’t really speak to this topic as I am truly blessed with a Traditional Mass a half hour away. There are a few times a year that I must attend a NO and I do go rather than miss.
I do understand the agony others go through, and I know it must be a very difficult thing.
Yes, Lynda, and nothing will change unless there are leaders who have the courage to lead. Let’s pray very much for these poor priests and bishops – the floor of Hell is paved with their skulls…
“The whole diabolical purpose of this is to make us lose our cool, to panic and make wild declarations of “leaving the Church” or “giving up the priestly ministry.” If we do that, then the revolutionaries’ wicked purpose is already accomplished. The Devil, the Evil One, desperately wants the faithful “to make shipwreck of their Faith.” We must not fall into his snares.”
The above is the last paragraph of the article by Hillary White over at the Remnant
Her article covers the worst-case-scenario of what we all can expect if the Synod ends and Bishops and priests world-wide are forced to accept a new practice of giving sacrilegious Communion to unrepentant sinners in the name of Mercy.
Asks all the questions about what to do as individuals–and provides a lot of food for thought about things many people are just beginning to realize.
-Personally we think it won’t come to this (of course we could be wrong) because the resistance is growing, and God is going to step in at SOME point. When, is still up in the air, so to speak. 🙂 🙂
Again I ask the question: what are we waiting for? The sacrileges are already taking place. How many stories have we read over the past few years of courageous priests not giving Holy Communion to public sinners only to be punished by their bishops? Do faithful Catholics in the pews get up and leave, march to the bishop’s office and protest? In most cases there is a faint mewing but then silence – the bishop continues, the priest is chastised and Our Lord’s Sacred Heart is pierced yet again.
the horrible ‘masses’ continue to this day – some celebrated by Poor Francis – so what are we waiting for? It’s HERE NOW.
It is not a sin in the Church to be divorced. It would have been a sin to remarry (I have not) without an annulment (which I received). Also, the former spouse has been deceased for many years. I appreciate your concern for my immortal soul, but you probably should not presume sinful behavior on the part of commenters here. I assume correct procedure by those who comment on Catholic blogs, unless they state otherwise.
Like I said before, this upcoming “Nod To Sin” ‘s agenda is to attain a full public endorsement and license to do their evil deeds against marriage , the family and purity so that they no longer have to pretend that they have not been openly practising this for more than 60 years now.
The progressive highjackers are tired of being in colusion with these many weak bogus marriage tribunal systems. They don’t want a more streamlined tribunal process. They want to call a divorce a divorce and move on without being called out for mortal sin and that I beleive, this is the bottom line.
St. Wojtyla is in heaven. How could he be there if he gave such scandal?
Dear TCA, you have placed two things in a false opposition to each other. Without commenting on St John Paul specifically, a person may be in heaven yet have caused scandal while on Earth.
“They have taken their seat on the Chair of Moses, therefore, what they say, do ye.”
As long as the Sacrament is validly confected (sp?) Jesus is present on the Altar. That fact alone is more than enough to transcend all the other objections to the NO (which no one contemns more heartily than I.) I’m thinking of when He was asleep in the boat and the Apostles were afraid of the storm. Did they think He would let them drown?
My NO parish priest (whom I like and who I believe is sincere and orthodox, at least formally) was talking about going to the Annual March for Life, and said, without a trace of irony, “I’ve been attending every year since I was a kid.”
Didn’t express myself carefully.
Seems to me that God Himself gives scandal if a scandal-giving man is declared blessed. The scandal is doubled by the declaration. It’s one thing for a holy man to make honest mistakes which give scandal. It’s another to publicly declare him blessed, thus confusing the uninstructed/simple-minded Faithful, by implying that his material sins were not sins. God should have let such a man into heaven, but on the down-low, IMHO.
I hope it’s clear that I’m playing devil’s advocate. This condemnation by laymen of the NO has diabolical implications, eg either God gives scandal or the Church is not infallible, IOW Protestants are right.
Dear Marykpkj, I’m not commenting on your personal circumstances.
It is a mortal sin to leave or civilly divorce one’s valid lawful spouse, without grave reason (which presumably a confessor or spiritual director would advise on in a particular instance). It is a mortal sin to deny one’s spouse that which is properly due to them. It is a mortal sin to break one’s sacred marital vows. It is a mortal sin to leave one’s children or to take one’s children from their mother or father. In fact, there is no reason for divorce in a community, per se. One is either married, or one is not married. Divorce brings about a culture of dissolubility in marriage. There was no provision for divorce under civil law in Ireland up to 1996. There is no recognition of divorce by the Church for a valid marriage, which exists up to the death of the husband or wife. True marriage is indissoluble, and this ought to stand for all true natural marriages. If a marriage is invalid, civil and church law necessarily provide for that. If there is an exceptional reason that permits separation, this can be done while still properly acknowledging that there exists a valid marriage.
Yes, I don’t see how there could ever have been or ever be, the authority to radically change the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, in apparent contradiction of the Tradition of the Church, of the Deposit of Faith. It has never been shown that the New Mass, conjured up by motives and for purposes extraneous to, and even opposed to, the Faith, properly and fully complies with the Deposit of Faith on the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Altar and the Blessed Sacrament.
Hello marykpkj – If I was reading the text cold I would have thought the person who wrote it was condoning the Francis version of marriage.
Although you’re right that there are many reported cases of this sacrilege occurring now, we think the above author is addressing the issue of it being officially sanctioned by Church authorities, which does make it more of a universal problem, which in turn creates a number of additional ones for every Catholic.
Dear IF, If a priest or bishop makes it clear that he will knowingly and intentionally commit sacrilege by giving Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament to those in an objective state of mortal sin, then he is not only committing sacrilege but is openly opposing the Deposit of Faith and moral law. He must not be followed but rather denounced. This is the same for the pope – he would be very explicitly and formally putting himself in opposition to the One True Holy and Apostolic Faith.
You say “forced” to do this, but of course, not only can bishops and priests not be so forced, but they have a most grave moral duty and ecclesiastical duty not to comply with such a necessarily evil order, which would be in direct and clear opposition to the Deposit of Faith, which is unchangeable. To comply, would put them in explicit opposition to the Faith.
Hello Barbara. I know – I don’t watch horror movies and I don’t like edge of the seat stuff. But maybe this is the perfect time to deal with them. If there is ‘nothing to see’, then all well and good, but why leave to the next generation what this generation can be confronting? I doubt there will be more clarity in forty years time. I understand what you are saying, but I really do conclude with those Bishops and Priests who say that any daliance wth the Novus Ordo is not good. As Bergoglio would say, I’m just ‘parroting’ these ‘Good men’ – except not really because applying intellect and experience to prayer for the conforming of conscience to the Faith is not something a parrott does – last time I checked.
We are experiencing the awful consequences of the Great Apostasy.
PS. Barabara – was not my little plea mercifcul? I meant in no part of my comments to belittle markpkj’s struggles in life – as I would not like my little struggles dismissed off hand.
In my country, one must seek a civil divorce before the Church will allow pursuit of annulment proceedings. Without going into details not appropriate here, I did what was necessary for the safety of my children. Had I lived in Ireland, I would have done whatever was required for the same purpose. I like to think I am not an overly sensitive soul, but for others to suggest adultery and fornication was a bit much. It also decreases the credibility of the commenters in my eyes, although that may not mean much. The whole point of mentioning all of the divorced young women from my N.O. church, including me, showed that there was something seriously lacking in the formation received there, even though they had a token TLM. Obviously that point was missed by people anxious to jump to conclusions.
I roundly disagree that it is ‘false’ to be told, ‘do not attend a false mass’. One may as well be told, if there are no Novus Ordo’s in the area go to your local C0fE, or Presbytarian, after all, in these days of ecumenism where my local Novus Ordo not infreqently shares worship with the above where’s the harm? The Traditional Mass is the only Mass that a Catholic may attend without committing sin. There is no assistence of the Novus Ordo with impunity. Just as there is no impuntiy in drinking green tea with poison in it.
marykpkj – I think it is very important to mention the NO forming a divorce and remarry mindset. The constant doctrine of presumption against Mercy is the warp and weft of the Novus Ordo.
no hard feelings. I have two siblings who are divorced – one remarried five times, with five living wives and dead children in the wake. Because he is protestant, my take on things is dismissed – especially with Bergoglioism now ‘papal’ magiserial material. There is no sin with impunity – where the parents give themselves privileges of sin, the children likely will do the penance – sometimes terrible penance – in this life at least.
We agree. Non compliance with any attempted “forcing” of acceptance of distributing communion to known unrepentant sinners is the only right thing for a priest to do.
It has been several days since my initial comment on this post, and I see that it might appear unclear.
To clarify: I was never ‘remarried’. I left my husband for the safety of my children. Several of the young women at my NO/TLM Church were abandoned. We had been poorly catechized, such that the young men did not take their vows seriously, or the women thought that the young men would become more Catholic in marriage.In my post, I was merely trying to point out that there are dangers to the average Catholic in a modern parish, even if it offers the TLM as well, if there is no ‘Sensus Catholicus’, no true Catholic community, and that is the element missing in so many NO parishes. To try to raise Catholic children in such a setting is very difficult, and I sought a more traditional alternative. I don’t go so far as to say all NO Masses are invalid. It is above my pay grade. But I do not attend them.
Hopefully this clarifies my earlier posts.
To argue from common sense, is it not most probable that Pope St. Pius V intended to protect the Latin Rome Rite in perpetuity from the very real and on-going impending danger of the Protestant rebellion? Therefore, it makes perfect sense that Quo Primum was intended to be binding upon all successor popes. The situation is analogous to Pope St. John Paul II declaring definitively that women are to be excluded from the Sacrament of Holy Orders.
Fr. Hesse explains that the virtue of epikeia takes into account that the legislator will not be able to anticipate every circumstance that might arise which pertains to a certain piece of legislation. However, the proper and just application of epikeia does not negate the substantial force of the given legislation. The fact that popes prior to Bl. Pope Paul VI included Quo Primum at the beginning of their respective revisions to the Roman Missal, indicates that they very well indeed acknowledged its binding legal force, but they were convinced that their revisions did not substantially deviate from the normative liturgical rite for Latin Roman Rite Catholics canonized by Quo Primum. Can the same be said of Bl. Pope Paul VI’s revision?
Agree with you, Barbara. Back in the day some ‘bishop’ declared that the Blessed Virgin was not ‘Every Virgin’. The entire congregation got up and left. We must not ‘resist evil’, destroy it or give it up to itself but do not sit with it or stand with it as if it had any authority from Christ.
“Therefore, it makes perfect sense that Quo Primum was intended to be binding upon all successor popes.” Agree. Don’t get how this is analogous to Wojtyla. By his complicity with the Novus Ordo (opposition to Pius V), his statement about women is as meaningful as the anti-sacerdotal nature of VII is teachings, right along with Wojtyla’s ‘celebrateding mass’ with naked women. One – Pius V – is Catholic. The other – Wojtyla – is not.
‘scuse me, that should be ‘ever virgin’. No edit.
“As Father Kenneth Baker SJ remarked in his editorial in the February 1979 issue of the Homiletic and Pastoral Review: “We have been overwhelmed with changes in the Church at all levels, but it is the liturgical revolution which touches all of us intimately and immediately.”
Commentators from every shade of theological opinion have argued that we have undergone a revolution rather than a reform since the Council. Professor Peter L. Berger, a Lutheran sociologist, insists that no other term will do, adding: “If a thoroughly malicious sociologist, bent on injuring the Catholic community as much as possible had been an adviser to the Church, he could hardly have done a better job.”
Professor Dietrich von Hildebrand expressed himself in even more forthright terms: “Truly, if one of the devils in C.S. Lewis’ The Screwtape Letters had been entrusted with the ruin of the liturgy he could not have done it better.””
## I think you’re thinking of Berger’s words, which are quoted by (the late) Michael Davies, who IIRC gives a reference as well.
What a great understanding this seems to be. It reminds me of how the Apostles abandoned Jesus to experience all the abominations of His Passion Sufferings and Agonies alone, by Himself. Their presence would have accompanied and Loved Jesus as they were at His Side in such an evil and wicked time – His Mother stayed as close as possible with Him during this atrocity – not to agree with the evil that was happening, but to receive and give His Love, His Pains and His Life as She Suffered along with Him.
If He is validly offered at the NO, that means He is really there at Calvary with those saying evil hurtful things to Him, abusing Him and we can be there with Mother and John and Mary to share with Him His Pains and Humiliations, and He in return, gives us His True Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity. We defend Him and compassionate Him in the midst of all the abominations.
As far as “To maintain that we are obligated to attend the Novus Ordo nonetheless is tantamount to suggesting that the Church can be likened to a mother who would feed her children broccoli tainted with cyanide simply because that is the only vegetable currently available.”, as Mr. Verrecchio said, i think that maybe “M” is trying to say that it is more like, with the allowance of Christ, Head of The Church, that the Church can be likened to a mother who would feed her children a most nourishing and healing milk in the midst of a Church filled with cyanide tainted broccoli and how could we refuse if there is no other way to satisfy our obligation that She has, in authority, put upon us?
I’l admit that I attempted to adopt this perspective, as a great deal of time in Adoration prompted in me a greater desire to receive the Sacrament more frequently (I came to the Traditional movement in 2008) I never thought I’d have any interest in the NOM, again, but it wasn’t so much that as I what I mentioned, above. I have been counseled by a priest of the SSPX to avoid that Mass, as he states it is Christ betrayed by his own. That, in itself, was enough to frighten the stuffing out of me.