As yesterday’s post discussed, Archbishop Víctor Manuel “Tucho” Fernández, the alleged ghostwriter of Amoris Laetitia, said of the Exhortation:
It is now worth pausing to acknowledge that which is concretely what Francis leaves to us as an irreversible novelty.
During an audience held yesterday with the participants in the 68th National Liturgical Week in Rome, Francis declared:
We can affirm with certainty and magisterial authority that the liturgical reform is irreversible.
So, there you have it; the word for the week:
Irreversible: adjective – impossible to change or to return to a previous condition (Cambridge English Dictionary)
Many in traditional Catholic media have pointed to the irony of an Argentinian Jesuit who clearly rejects the papal bull, Quo Primum, which established the Missal of Pius V “in perpetuity,” making such a declaration concerning the Novus Ordo.
More remarkable in my view is that the man genuinely seems to believe that he possesses magisterial authority!
Yes, I know… it is a rather unpopular (and not a little costly) position that I have taken, but with every passing day it becomes more and more obvious to more and more people that Jorge Bergoglio, as revealed by his very own words and deeds, is a formal heretic.
In any case, let’s look a little more closely at the text of the audience, shall we…
Phil Lawler over at Catholic Culture responded with an essay under the title: What does Pope Francis mean by ‘irreversible’ liturgical reform?
While I haven’t taken the time to read Lawler’s post, I think the answer is pretty obvious, and it is manifold:
For one, Francis means to say that the protestantized rite of the conciliar sect, otherwise known as the Novus Ordo, is here to stay.
I don’t agree with Francis on much, but on this point I think he is exactly correct.
I would, however, word it differently so as to say:
For as long as Rome continues to reject tradition; i.e., to embrace the Council, the Novus Ordo will remain.
Secondly, Francis’ declaration also means that the Traditional Latin Mass, again, for as long as Rome continues to reject tradition, will be at best tolerated as something “extraordinary;” with the aforementioned protestantized liturgy serving as the flagship rite of the conciliar sect.
Remember the definition of irreversible provided above; impossible to return to a previous condition.
And what is the condition to which Francis is determined never to return?
He gave us the answer when he said, and correctly so:
They are two directly linked events, the Council and the reform…
In other words, it is the pre-conciliar condition to which Francis is determined never to return; one wherein the Holy Catholic Church was preoccupied with the Sovereign Rights of Christ the King as opposed to the rights of man.
This also happens to be a condition wherein she was thriving; her seminaries not only full, but in many places overcrowded; her teaching unambiguous and her moral authority substantial.
Long story short, Francis is gloating.
He represents the victors in the conciliar revolution and he is shouting on their behalf, To us belong the spoils!
And he is right, at least until such time as the Immaculate Heart of Mary triumphs.
In spite of the uproar that Francis’ pronouncement has incited, there really is nothing altogether newsworthy about any of this; it’s really just more of the same.
Some commentators are drawing comparisons between what Francis stated during his audience and the text of Summorum Pontificum; as if they represent contrasting views.
Perhaps they do in certain ways, but I would remind readers that we can thank Benedict XVI for crafting the lie known as “ordinary form” vs “extraordinary form,” as if the former is anything other than a brand new rite invented by modernist men – you know, a “banal on the spot fabrication” as someone once said.
All of this is not to say that there is nothing to be gleaned from Francis’ latest proclamation.
While most regular readers of this space need little convincing, it may be instructive for our neo-conservative friends (and yes, they are among our readership as well) to consider how Francis’ words attest to the protestant nature of the Novus Ordo.
For instance, Francis was pleased to cite the “bright light” of his formative years as follows:
Blessed Paul VI recalled this in explaining the first steps of the announced reforms: “It is good to be aware that it is proper to the authority of the Church to wish for, promote and ignite this new form of prayer, thus augmenting her spiritual mission … and we must not hesitate to be first disciples and then supporters of the school of prayer, that is about to commence”.
To be very clear, in the audience cited (available in Italian) Pope Paul the Pathetic did not speak of a new “form” of prayer, but rather “a new way of praying” (questa nuova maniera di pregare).
Perhaps it is hairsplitting, but it seems to me that the difference is considerable.
The new Mass, which was not yet promulgated as Paul VI spoke in 1965, is not properly considered a new “form” of the one Roman Rite; the bogus claim made by Benedict XVI some four decades later.
Rather, it is a new way of praying; one wherein man places himself at the center.
This new way is the protestant way.
Sure, the protestant will claim recourse to Our Lord’s words, “When two or three are gathered in my name, I am there present,” but at the end of the day, though the Lord makes good on His promise, the protestant “liturgy” is all about the preacher, the book and the people.
With this in mind, one will not be surprised to find that Paul VI, in this same audience, said of the liturgical reform:
One of its main characteristics and aims is the participation of the faithful in the rites that the priest directs and personifies.
Notice, my friends, how the priest is reduced to a “director” of the faithful’s activities.
Having endured the Pauline rite for nearly fifty years now, even the most devoted neo-con will not deny that the personality of the priest bears large on the new Mass. Thus, Paul VI spoke well when he spoke of the rite being “personified” by the priest.
This, of course, is also a prominent feature of the protestant gathering wherein the entire affair, and the congregations’ experience of it, is dictated by the liturgical stage presence of the minster.
And what constitutes the main act in this case?
The book and the preaching.
Paul VI went on to say in the audience cited by Francis:
Now the authority of the Church is extended; modifying certain aspects of the liturgy that are inadequate today in ritual discipline … First of all, it professes the Word of God, that of the Holy Scripture, the didactic and persuasive teaching of catechesis and the homily, and giving the sacramental celebration its clear and mysterious centrality.
Don’t let Montini’s reference to “the sacramental celebration” fool you.
Notice that he says that it receives its “clear and mysterious centrality” by the reading of the Scriptures and the catechesis that follows in the homily – both actions of the priest.
In other words, if the priest fails to proclaim and to preach and to teach on the Word well – which is “first of all” in the Montinian view of the liturgy – the centrality of the sacramental celebration is not “given.”
In truth, the centrality of the sacramental celebration is due precisely to the reality that it is Christ Himself who is acting; both in the offering and in the Sacrifice!
It is for this reason that a lousy sermon delivered at the Traditional Mass, while a shame, in no way detracts from the grandeur of the Sacrifice made evident in the rite itself.
That the priest thus operates in persona Christ, however, is a stumbling block to the protestant and thus does not feature prominently in the sacred signs of the new rite.
This, in response to the directives set forth in Sacrosantum Concilium, the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy of Vatican II, which made ecumenical concerns a top priority of the liturgical reform (cf SC 1).
If what was stated by Paul VI does not attest well enough to the protestant nature of the “reformed” liturgy, Francis provides an exclamation point when he opines:
The liturgy is life for the entire people of the Church. By its nature the liturgy is indeed “popular” and not clerical, as the etymology teaches us – an action for the people, but also of the people.
This simply does not represent a Catholic understanding of the liturgy.
In truth, while one can say that the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is not properly “clerical” inasmuch as it is an action of Jesus Christ who is both High Priest and Sacrifice, it is clerical inasmuch as the priest is necessary.
The people, on the other hand, are not in any way necessary in order for the Sacrifice offered to be “life” for the faithful; i.e., it remains the one true Sacrifice that is ever propitiatory and efficacious.
It is thus plainly wrong to say that it is “an action of the people.”
Francis goes on, however, repeating the error:
As many liturgical prayers remind us, it is the action that God Himself performs in favour of His people, but also the action of the people who listen to God Who speaks and who react by praising Him and invoking Him, welcoming the inexorable source of life and mercy that flows from the holy signs.
Yes, the people “act” in the liturgy inasmuch as they assist in a way proper to their state, but the liturgy itself is not “the action of the people.”
Not content to distort the Catholic theology of the Mass, Francis saw fit to distort history itself when he said:
… the liturgical books promulgated by Blessed Paul VI, well received by the same bishops who were present at the Council, and by now universally used in the Roman rite for almost fifty years.
Well received by the bishops?
Here is what Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani had to say in his famous “intervention” about the new rite’s reception:
In October 1967, the Episcopal Synod called in Rome was requested to pass a judgment on the experimental celebration of a so-called “normative Mass,” devised by the Consilium for implementing the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy. This Mass aroused the most serious misgivings. The voting showed considerable opposition (43 non placet), very many substantial reservations (62 juxta modum), and 4 abstentions out of 187 voters. The international press spoke of a “refusal” on the proposed “normative Mass” on the part of the Synod.
In other words, only 78 of the 187 bishops present gave their approval to the rite that is “identical in substance” (Cardinal Ottaviani, ibid.) to the Novus Ordo.
At this, I would suggest that even the most seasoned so-called “traditionalist” (aka Catholic) will do well to re-examine (as I recently did) the Ottaviani Intervention.
In conclusion, let us all invoke the aid of Our Lady of Fatima, that the triumph of her Immaculate Heart may come quickly and in our day; extinguishing the “irreversible” aims of the conciliar revolutionaries once and for all.
Is there any precedence in history for the Novus Ordo mindset? Name me one other religion that pours this level of contempt upon its own historic cult of worship? Do the Mohammedans do this? Do the Buddhists? Do the Hindus? Do the Russian Orthodox? Do even the Protestants hate their own heritage like this, going back to 1517? What an utterly bizarre and unbelievable state of affairs in the Roman Church. How can demonizing your own heritage not result in total the social and intellectual collapse of a religion? What a fraudulent ideology. What madness!
I smelled the stench of heresy oozing from Jorge Bergoglio the moment he stepped onto that balcony after the conclave. Yet there are still “conservatives” who don’t get it. Incredible.
I see this suicidal masochism on the supernatural plane as the analogue to, on the natural plane, the pathological complex of suicidal xenophilia and ethnomasochist oikophobia now ravaging those of European extraction. Europeans, having renounced their vocation to bear Christ to the world, are now inviting the world to annihilate them. Thus every day we now see the competitive virtue-signaling and pathological altruism flowing from the pathological complex named above. Do notice that, for example, groups of Antifa anarcho-communists are overwhelmingly composed of white ethnomasochists. Truly, there’s nothing more pitiful in this world than a suicidally xenophilic white ethnomasochist. Sadly, they’re quite prevalent among those unconscious liberals now known in the political realm as cuckservatives and in the religious realm as CatholiCucks.
I recommend reading Chapter 10, entitled “The Myth of Equality,” of Fr. Wathen’s book, Who Shall Ascend?
SF, correct in your conclusion; But hey! Pike to Mazzini 1872 – the three world wars, the New Religion – No God, just a collective of “new prayerfuls” surrounded by an absolute Atheistic nihilism. We are all disillusioned in the beginning, until we notice the “lying wonders”, the rejection of the Truth, very truth, dogmas, all dismissed as a “solemn nonsense” by you know who
Can you see the bigger than Fiasco Frank picture.? As he said “who is he to Judge” The Triple Satanic Trinity is headquartered in three places, Charlotte NC, Rome Italy and…[ see if you can find the third location] with its 23 outposts.? Read Fr Villa and Dr Franco Adessa on point. Chiesa viva website.
Benedict is wearing their “regalia and symbols” on this Mitre and pallium.
Once you grasp the reason Our Lady wanted Russia consecrated to Her Immaculate Heart- that it is likened to these men wearing aprons, tearing down the Church from the inside, starting at the Top, JP11 free to travel in and out of Poland to study in Rome, while the prelates are banned or imprisoned for putting Paul iv in his place, and now we know why. Communism has spread its errors into the Vatican hierarchy itself. Papa Fiasco is overjoyed no less – gloating? Really?
My choice of word for the Month for the “quote by the Jesuit” is CERTAINTY.
Unlike the word irreversible spiritually speaking, the sacramental remedy to return to the sheepfold is in that particular confessional.
Certainty on Judgement, Heaven and Hell – these are inflexible- timeless- not subject to error! Our Lady of Perpetual Help – Ora pro nobis
Dear Louie, I came across this eye-opening and frankly frightening article quite by chance yesterday and would be very interested in what you think: http://www.jesusmariasite.org/exorcism-human-demon-judas-speaks/
“Ethnomasochist”—excellent! will remember that one.
The Novus Ordo severed the ties with the Catholics in the sixties and seventies had with all the previous generations. Apart from the spiritual harm it has caused, on a natural level it has created a massive loss of identity among the faithful. Catholics don’t have a sense of themselves, being shattered into a million fragments.
Yes, having renounced Christ and thus life, Europeans everywhere now crave death.
Yes , indeed. May the Immaculate Heart triumph and may it be sooner rather than later. Our Lady said that when all seems lost that would be her time to triumph. All doesn’t seem lost yet but we are quickly getting there.
And he said to his disciples: It is impossible that scandals should not come: but woe to him through whom they come.
It were better for him, that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should scandalize one of these little ones.
Nothing is set in concrete. A new council and with it an assembly of the world’s bishops would provide the conditions for a late but valid Consecration of Russia; declare Vatican II illicit and thereby confine it to history. Keep praying the story is far from over.
Say the Rosary each day with your family and be prepared.
The Novus ordo sect is not Catholic.
Their bishops are invalid. Their priests are also invalid except for a select handful.
Their “worship” service is not Catholic nor is the Blessed Sacrament confected there.
They (novus ordo sect) do have the vast majority of the Catholic buildings. Once Our Lord fixes this, (real) Catholic priests must exorcise each edifice utilized by the Novus ordo “clerics” where they had their devil-worshiping services.
Remember: An altar where God is not worshiped and present is because the devil is being adored.
The Catholic Church is presently in the catacombs. Not in the local novus ordo “parish”.
Our Lady, ora pro nobis.
I wish I could edit this comment above to correct the bad syntax a little. Basically the Novus is bad, really bad, and nothing can fix it.
Is it that Cardinal Ottaviani kneeling at Montini’s left in the photo? Is he wondering if the consecration he just witnessed is valid?
There’s something about the photo in this article that strikes me each time I see it. It captures something terrible and pivotal in human history.
Is Paul-Montini holding the body, blood, soul and Divinity of Our Lord in his hands, or an unconsecrated communion wafer?
Did the new rite he just presented to the world make manifest in him the intention to do what the Church does? Did the new words of the Cconsecration, with “for you and for all men” signify what the Sacrament ought to effect?
If either of these questions answers No, then this photo captures the most astonishing moment in the history of Western Civilisation.
Can anyone prove that both of the answers are answered with an incontrovertible Yes, and back it up with solid sacramental theology that the layman can understand? I’m still looking…
Dear Simple Shepherd, you tied up this package with a very precise little bow. Chiesa Viva covers the Freemasonic takeover in depth. Our Lady of Fatima, Ora Pro Nobis!
The answer is no, TPS. The only “authoritative” proclamation of validity comes from the very people who chose to alter the form and intent of Mass itself. It is pure wishful thinking on the part of most to assume the validity in light of no authoritative figure proclaiming otherwise. You are correct, there can be no theological certitude as to validityand it therefore should be avoided.
GMU, for the edification of all the readers, please name which bishops, priests, and deacons actually received valid ordinations. Which ones did not? I am eager to know. Is it only the SSPX bishops and priests? Furthermore, what is the methodology used to make such determinations? I truly want to know. And, what of all the twenty-three other Catholic Eastern rites with their bishops, priests, and deacons? If what you say is true, then the Gates of Hell have prevailed against Christ’s One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. That then makes Christ a liar- which I do not believe. If so many prelates and clergy received invalid ordinations/consecrations (at least in the west under the Roman/Latin rite), it then stands to reason that God abandoned nearly 99% of Roman Catholics under the Roman rite. I look forward to your response.
Excellent question. What does Church teaching say would happen if a priest grabs a piece of bread and a glass of wine at a restaurant and pronounces the valid formula of consecration even with full intent? NOTHING. Why? Because the consecration can only be effected during the Mass—it cannot be effected outside of Mass period. Is the Novus Ordo the Mass since it lacks the essential character of being Apostolic in origin? Can the consecration take place within a “banal, fabricated, on the spot product” that a modernist Pope was comfortable calling “the Lord’s Supper”? VERY GOOD QUESTION.
The Mass of Paul VI was fabricated in the late 1960s in imitation of the services of what in America we call the Mainline Protestants — Episcopalians, Methodists, Presbyterians, et al. — even as those groups were declining fast and being replaced by a man or woman only preaching while holding a Bible in front of a TV camera.
It isn’t really utterly bizarre and unbelievable if you are aware of the historical events that led to the contempt the prelates in the institutional Church have for the Catholic faith as well as Scriptural texts, numerous warnings by Popes of what to expect if the failure of bishops, priests and the laity do not heed their warnings, and prophesies of various visionaries that also told us what will happen if we do not consistently “watch and pray” and neglect our duty and responsibility to be faithful followers of Christ.
The Church does address consecration outside of mass as far as it being “utterly forbidden” (nefas est). Check the code of canon law, Can. 927—and for the old code: Canon 817. A new (not apostolic) mass would certainly be illicit but not necessarily invalid.
Al, if the gates of hell prevailed against the Church then Christ lied. However, your implication is not definitive since we as human temporal beings cannot define what “prevail” implies. You seem to find it unacceptable that God would allow 99.9% of Catholics to fall into error. Your thinking as man thinks and ot as God does. You nor I can determine at what point does hell prevail. In addition, as you correctly mention, the Church also is composed of the Eastern Rites. One fact often overlooked is the ecclesiological fact that the Church is also made up of the Church Triumphant and Suffering as well as Militant. Roman Catholics seem to have a very narrow concept of what Church actually entails.
Tom, I appreciate you attempting to bail out GMU, but my question remains unanswered. Namely: Please name which bishops, priests, and deacons actually received valid ordinations. Which ones did not? I am eager to know. Is it only the SSPX bishops and priests? Furthermore, what is the methodology used to make such determinations?
But, thanks for trying.
Holy moly! Louie wrote, “For one, Francis means to say that the protestantized rite of the conciliar sect, otherwise known as the Novus Ordo, is here to stay.” There is only one church, the Catholic Church as established by Our Lord. All other “religions” are, indeed, sects. I don’t know about everything we have called “catholic” since VII, but it’s clear that the one-world-order, one-world-religion criminal enterprise that Jorge Bergoglio runs is not truly Catholic. He is forming, if he hasn’t already de facto, a new sect. If you follow the logic of Louie’s post, the Catholic Church may have, indeed, branched off into a new sect with the establishment of the novus ordo with its protestant-appeasing accompanying, rationalizing documents. That means Archbishop Lefebvre, others like him and all those who followed them are the remnant of the true Catholic Church, which can never be destroyed. Uh, oh. I’m not sede, but… Is it possible that we only veered off the path of faithfulness when Jorge appeared. Or was Jorge a gift to help the faithful to finally see the errors of following a more and more protestant course that is the result of VII?
“Do the Mohammedans do this? Do the Buddhists? Do the Hindus? Do the Russian Orthodox? Do even the Protestants hate their own heritage like this, going back to 1517?”
The devil wisely leaves in the comfort and stability of their errors those whom he already has in his pocket.
Al, no, Christ is NOT a liar. Salve Regina! https://youtu.be/t3lvelMjY10
Please understand that I am not a defender of the Novus Ordo Mass in any way, but I’m not certain if I am correctly understanding your position on this Paul VI image. Perhaps you might clarify a couple of points for me.
First, are you saying that the Consecration of both the bread and wine into the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of both species was invalid because of his failure to pronounce the proper words of Consecration over the wine? I have often heard that the wine would not be properly Consecrated, but that the bread would be. I believe it goes to the same issue that had often been raised when an emergency event occurs after the Consecration of the bread, but before the priest has a chance to Consecrate the wine. I believe St. Thomas may have addressed that issue but I don’t remember what he concluded.
But secondly, you seem to be implying that if the pope had said “for you and for many” (as the priest does in the Novus Ordo today), then the entire Consecration of both species would have been proper and complete. Quite obviously that goes to the heart of the issue as to the “validity” of the Novus Ordo Mass––the only Mass that is available for most Catholics today. Many, as are aware, would argue that it is not. Fortunately, we are reasonably close to an SSPX Chapel so that’s not an issue for us.
You may be interested in this Episcopalian who witness the replacement of his religion with the (even more) false gospel of liberalism
J. Gresham Machen (1923 CHRISTIANITY & LIBERALISM, p 160
“The greatest menace to the Christian Church today comes not from the enemies outside, but from the enemies within; it comes from the presence within the Church of a type of faith and practice that is anti-Christian to the core.
Weary with the conflicts of the world, one goes into the Church to seek refreshment for the soul. And what does one find? Alas, too often, one finds only the turmoil of the world. The preacher comes forward, not out of a secret place of meditation and power, not with the authority of God’s Word permeating his message, not with human wisdom pushed far into the background by the glory of the Cross, but with human opinions about the social problems of the hour or easy solutions of the vast problem of sin.’
Well first of all you have to define what is a valid ordination. Then simply apply the standard. There are many validly ordained priests and bishops in the Eastern Churches and likewise there are many in the Roman Rite. Also in the Roman Rite are many with doubtful ordinations who “ordained” with the rites propsed by Montini.
While I will remember “cuckservative” and “Catholicuck”. These make me laugh every time I read them. I’m not yet exactly sure to what kind of person they describe, but I have a feeling they fit perfectly.
This is a great, and helpful, narrative Louie. Please continue to give us the benefit of your astute observations. The comments here are also terrific.
This Bergolio enjoys draining real Catholics of hope. He must have heard we were waiting him out as it were, and we must abandon all hope, there is no hope (he would say) because he is all powerful and if in the future we have some shred of hope, we must remember that no, he has ordained this all to be “irreversible”.
Power in the wrong hands is an intoxicating drug.
The second one, tradprofessor. At least, that’s what finally did it for me.
This is a tangential point to this discussion, and I probably shouldn’t even make it, but, as the Catholic world seems to get smaller and smaller and some are trying still to figure out who is wearing black hats and who is wearing white hats, I must say I am not at all impressed with the SSPX during this relentless apostasy. This is the time for them to speak up, whether it costs them or not, and once this period passes, that opportunity to defend the faith is lost and can’t be reclaimed. Believe me, I want to see the SSPX as the defenders of the faith, or the catacombs, if it all comes crashing down, but their silence is deafening, to me anyway.
Al, I have thought lost about this, and have relied upon the teaching of the Church to guide me through to my conclusion.
I recommend you read Apostolicae Curae – twice if necessary – through to understand the mind of the Church regarding the Sacraments. Then apply it to the changes that came in after Vatican II and the new mass and see where it leads.
The only way to be certain of valid orders is to look up which priests were ordained in the old rite by a bishop in the old rite. Then look at the Bishops. Were they ordained to the priesthood in the old rite and consecrated to the episcopate by a Bishop who likewise was consecrated in the old rite?
The SSPX have this unbroken lineage, although there are a few they have let in without conditional ordination, which, while it doesn’t immediately affect me, is pretty careless on their part.
The SSPV and the CMRI also have this unbroken lineage.
Unfortunately, this excludes most of the FSSP, (apart from the ex-SSPX priests) as they were ordained in the old rite, but by Bishops consecrated in the new rite. This was a most difficult thing for me personally to face up to, but facts are stubborn things, and always trump emotions.
The trouble began in 1968-69 with Paul VI’s new rites of Orders. The rites lack the clear theology of the Church regarding that Sacrament. They suppress what ought to be affirmed in the rite. They also mutilated the sacramental form for the priesthood and the episcopacy. So there is a double danger: One of defect of Intention, and the other, being defect of Form.
If you know of an older diocesan priest, ordained at least fifty years ago, then there is no doubt that he is validly ordained. If he says the new mass, then I am convinced he has a manifest defect of intention, and you can’t be certain that it is valid. If he says the old Mass, then he does manifest the intention to do what the Church does saying Mass. As long as he says “I absolve you of your sins in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost”, then you can go to him for confession.
One example I can think of to apply this. Cardinal Pell. He was ordained to the priesthood in 1966 or 67 from memory. He certainly has valid priestly Orders. But he was consecrated a Bishop in the new rite in the 1980’s I think. So that is doubtful, because the new rite of Orders to the episcopate does not express the faith of the Church, and the form is clearly contrary to what the Church says is necessary. It fails to signify the the effect of the Sacrament. So it suffers from both a defect of intention and a defect of form. As much as it still shocks me, I cannot say that he is a Catholic Bishop with any certainly at all.
When Cardinal Pell says the new mass, which is most of the time, he does not manifest the intention to do what the Church does, because the new mass – to paraphrase Cardinal Ottaviani – is a “striking departure from the theology of the Mass as defined by Trent”. Most notable is the absence of an Offertory. There is no offering of the Divine Victim. There is only a victimless offering of bread and wine, for no purpose, by the people, presided over by the priest, who does not act in persona Christi.
But when Fr Pell says the traditional Mass, it is certainly valid, because he does manifest the right intention.
It’s not too hard to work this through, but it can be personally distressing to realise what it means in regards to certain clergy you may know.
“…the consecration can only be effected during the Mass”.
This is true. And what is the Mass? The renewal of the sacrifice of Calvary upon the altar under the appearance of Bread and Wine.
The ceremony surrounding the form and matter must express what the Church believes and teaches regarding the sacrament it “contains”. Leo XIII said, in Apostolicae Curae, that the Catholic rite is the cause that manifests the intention to do what the Church does in the minister when it comes to using the proper matter and form. The rite cannot express something different or contrary to the faith of the Church. If it does, then the minister manifests a defect of intention, and the sacrament is not effected.
So the priest in the restaurant does not manifest the intention to do what the Church does, and the bread and wine don’t change.
The new mass suppresses the essential character of the Mass as the renewal of Calvary. Most notable is the absence of an Offertory, but both the prayers and the rubrics from beginning to end are completely oriented away from the theology of the Mass. There is no offering of the Divine Victim. It is merely an offering of bread and wine by the people, and officiated by the presider. So even though he says the proper words of consecration and uses the proper matter, he cannot be said to intend to do as the Church does.
As Tom A pointed out recently, it is comparable to the offering of Cain. Fruits of the earth and work of human hands, but no victim.
In contrast with this is the offering of Abel. He offered a spotless and perfect victim – at least the best he could before Christ – and this was accepted by God. The novus ordo is like the offering of Cain. No priest, no victim, no mass.
They could certainly tighten up on some things, but they will not cave in to Rome’s demands for acceptance of the errors of the Council or the legitimacy of the new mass. I have heard Bishop Fellay say this recently and often. I agree with you to a point, but the fact remains that they are the best safe haven in the world for valid Mass and Sacraments in our terrible time.
Tom A and Papal Subject: For what it’s worth looks like Arch. LeFebvre and SSPX whom you say have valid priests themselves would disagree with you on PPVI’s new rite validity concerns . If you scroll down to number # 5 should see what I mean. http://sspx.org/en/must-priests-who-come-tradition-be-re-ordained
We are also greatly fortunate to be near a Society chapel. I thank God every time. Every single time.
Because the book he is using has for you and for all men in the consecration of the Chalice, then his intention is manifest from the start. When he consecrates the host, he is intending in the next moment to use a form for the consecration of the Chalice that fails to signify what the Sacrament ought to effect.
St Thomas says that the effect of the Blessed Sacrament is the union of the Mystical Body with the Head. This is the reference to “many”, because only many, not “all”, are or ever will be members of the Mystical Body.
Sacramental theology specifies that the form of any Sacrament must “signify what it effects, and effect what it ought to signify”. Saying “for all men” fails to signify the effect of this Sacrament, and thus is not valid, according to the Church.
If the Priest in the old Mass dies before the consecration of the Chalice, the Host is consecrated because he intended to use the proper form for the chalice, but never got to do it. In this case, another priest must finish the Mass from the Chalice onwards.
The other problem is the manifest defect of intention that the novus rite causes in the minister. Leo XIII said that the Catholic rite is the way the Church judges whether or not the intention to do what the Church does is present. There is no other criteria.
Since the novus has the essential character of a protestant memorial meal and not a sacrifice, then the minister manifests a defect of intention, even if he’s “really, really good and orthodox”!
Please see my other posts that are around here for more. I hope they help you! God bless you.
john, abp lefebreve may disagree with us but he is no more authoritative than you or I in this matter. It all comes down to doubt. Abp L can raise doubts by comparing the new to the old but one thing Abp L cannot do is authoritatively declare the new as valid. No one has that authority on earth at this moment. Not you, not me, not the modernists in Rome. That is why they are DOUBTFUL and to be AVOIDED. Who knows, they may be perfectly acceptable and pleasing to God, but I am not going to base that conclusion on the word of MODERNISTS. Are you?
Even if the consecration of the NO were valid (which is doubtful), the purpose is not a sacrifice. In the NO, the rubrics and prayers state that the bread and wine are turned into the body, blood, soul, and divinty of our lord Jesus Christ in orrder thay we may share in an eucharistic banquet. This is completely at odds with the traditional understanding of the the Sacrifice at Calvary. Validity is not the real issue. Even satanic black masses need valid hosts. The NO, if valid, is still an affront to the Divine. It is not a sacrifice.
I read that page and it was uncanny reading the account of what went on with Pope Paul VI because this is what I have believed is happening with Pope Benedict XVI.
The website you link here has a picture of the alleged “Lady of Medjugorje” (picture to the right of the gargoyle), a false “apparition.”
I would avoid this site because it promotes the false “Lady of Medjugorje,” and therefore, promotes error. It cannot be trusted to give us the truth.
God bless you.
A side note: if and when the SSPX sides with the vatican 2 faith, then it will almost be a given that future SSPX ordinations will be conducted by at least one NO bishop, therefore likely making those ordinations invalid.
THIS, among many other reasons, is why the SSPX cannot ever become one with the false vatican 2 faith.
The FSSP priests, ordained by vatican 2 “bishops” should be avoided at all costs.
That’s ok John, but let’s go a little higher than Archbishop Lefebvre, as much as I admire him and am grateful for his stand against the enemies of Christ and His Church.
Let’s go to Leo XIII’s Apostolicae Curae and apply his infallible teaching to the horrible situation we have before our eyes.
Fr Scott admits that the rite does not express the Church’s teaching regarding the priesthood.
Leo XIII declared the Anglican rite of ordination to be “utterly void and absolutely null” in the Bull, Apostolicae Curae.
There were several reasons given, each sufficient in and of itself to invalidate their rite. One of these causes of invalidity taught by the Pope was a manifest defect of intention in the minister performing the rite. Why? Because the Anglican rite does not express the Church’s teaching on the nature of the Priesthood – just as the Novus Ordo rite fails to do.
If the Anglican rite is invalid due to this reason, then why would this not apply to the rite of Orders issued by Paul VI in 1968, given that the pattern of theological suppression of the priesthood is almost identical to both?
John, could you please have another look at this? Why should I trust the new rite of Orders?
They won’t, Rich.
Rumours that say it will happen are Novus-backed media beat ups, designed to divide and distress the faithful – and it works!
It’s news to Bishop Fellay if you ask him.
Catholics were taught before the Council that to fulfil one’s Sunday obligation, one had to be at Mass at the minimum for the Offertory, the Consecration and the Priest’s Communion. These theee elements together make up the Holy Sacrifice.
The Novus Ordo doesn’t have an Offertory, so how can one knowingly fulfil his Obligation to God on Sunday by attending it?
Since it does not have an Offertory, how does the “presider” manifest the intention to do what the Church does?
No apparition or canonization post V2 is to be trusted. Not even Padre Pio as holy as he was. These issues were decided by enemies of the faith, modernists.
Papal Subject, maybe I have been looking at their silence incorrectly. Maybe their public defense of the faith should not even be an expectation, and I need to adjust my opinion on it. As long as they do not come into agreement with Rome, and maintain the Catholic faith intact, then I suppose you are correct and there is nothing to criticize, because they are doing their part. I don’t know if an agreement with Rome is off the table, and I know little about it, but I would dread if there was an agreement. No good could possibly come from that that I can imagine, and I am always surprised when I read some faithful Catholic say it would be a good thing.
Excellent points Papal Subject. The narrative form of the institution in the New Mass is also very protestant and also very concerning. Indeed “work of human hands” sums up the Novus Ordo, like Cain totally content to give God ‘second best naturalism’ inferior worship. Just look at Paul VI’s demonic stare in that photo—that alone is terrifying.
Good Sunday morning The Papal Subject,
The problem is that the same Bishop Fellay of whom you write, is the Bishop Fellay who wrote the forward to the 700 page diatribe of Siscoe and Salza, “True or False Pope”, supporting their lengthy error which implodes under its own errant weight on page 19, whereby they have the spiritually blinded hubris to supplant the exact word of the authentic Vatican Council (I), which is “SHOULD”, and they implant their own word which suits their purpose, and that is the word “WILL”. It is as blatant an error as error can be and it definitively undermines by implosion their entire foundational premise, that being that there ever was a definitive proclamation, protected by the charism of Ecclesiastical infallibility, that there “WILL” be a Roman Pontiff until the end of time. The word, “SHOULD”, that word which the Council actually used, affirms the holy Will of Christ our Lord and Savior, as it relates to the Papacy which He commanded, and therefore as it is fully in accordance with the Will of the Son of God, the Papacy “SHOULD” continue into perpetuity, until the end of time. Almighty God does not, as He cannot, impose His Will upon His miserable human creatures, as if He did and as if He could, then He simply could not be, “Deus Caritas Est”.
Bishop Fellay places an internal contradiction into Holy Mother Church in his forward to their diabolically disoriented book. Internal contradictions, as we know with metaphysical certitude, simply cannot exist within the Mystical Body of Christ–His Church–as Truth cannot oppose Himself. Fellay, in his forward to the book, actually had this to say:
“The victims who most readily come to mind are those of the “left.” Through unwitting obedience to recent Popes, these now profess and practice a faith unrecognizable to our forefathers.”
In that suggestion, he affirms that which is contrary to the deFide teaching of Holy Mother Church, as it relates to the teaching authority of the Holy Roman Pontiff on all matters of Faith and Morality, which can never be “resisted”, as he suggests, but must be submitted to, deFide. He actually has the unmitigated audacity to use the words, “unwitting obedience”, when what is required, deFide, of the faithful in response to the authentic Chief Shepherd is “willing obedience”, without exception, or suffer the fires of hell.
The authentic Holy Roman Pontiff can never place an affront to the charism of Ecclesiastical infallibility, that charism which guards and protects the authenticity inerrantly of Holy Tradition and that is why his teaching must be submitted to in toto. If there is an affront placed to the teaching authority of Holy Tradition by a man who claims the Chair of Saint Peter as his own, we the pathetic faithful, then know with certitude that he cannot be the authentic Vicar of Christ Jesus. It is that simple. Lucifer places one Truth against another Truth using his preternatural powers. The charism of Papal infallibility is always brought to the fore when the “neo-traditionalists” like Siscoe and Salza posit their argument and they will then say something like, “Francis didn’t formally teach error (aka: heresy) because he didn’t pronounce it ex-cathedra. The reality is that a true Holy Roman Pontiff cannot posit any error in what he promotes formally (re: “A.L.” for instance) as coming from him regarding Dogma and Morality, as error from him places de-facto an affront to the Ecclesiastical infallibility which the Pope, in union with his bishops, enjoins until the end of time as the Universal Magisterium.
You see how cunning Lucifer is, playing on the intellective powers of we mere miserable human creatures, his intellect even beyond our imaginative powers to gaze upon. The infallible charism commanded by Christ Jesus, through the power of the Holy Ghost, is a two sided, both/and coin. The converse side is the charism of Ecclesiastical Infallibility and the obverse side is the charism of Papal Infallibility, neither of which and of course, can ever place an affront to the other, or the gates of hell prevail against Christ’s Church, which we know through divine Revelation is infinitely impossible. I pray this helps. In caritas.
Irreversible he says.
If the Conciliar popes reversed what prior popes had taught, such as Pope Pius IX’s condemnations of pantheism, naturalism, absolute rationalism, moderate rationalism, socialism, communism, secret societies, biblical societies, clerico-liberal societies, and errors concerning the Church and Her rights, errors about civil society, both in itself and in its relation to the Church, errors concerning natural and Christian ethics, errors concerning Christian marriage, errors regarding the civil power of the Sovereign Pontiff, and errors having reference to modern liberalism, (Syllabus of Errors Condemned by Pope Pius IX (1864), and Pope St. Pius X’s “Lamentabili Sane” (Syllabus Condemning the Errors of the Modernists) (1907), a future pope can also reverse anything Francis has done-and let us pray feverently that happens!
French anti-Catholic romantic historian, Michelet (1798-1874), entitled Nos Fils:–
“We must examine and penetrate the full meaning of the faith, for which we are combating. . . . There is no such thing as original sin. Every child is born innocent and is not marked beforehand by the sin of Adam. That impious myth is disappearing. In its place, justice and humanity stand forth. Accordingly, two principles are now face to face; the Christian principle and the principle of 1789. There is no possibility of reconciliation between them. Odd and even numbers will never agree, neither will justice and injustice so in the same way 1789 and the heritage of original sin will be completely opposed to each other. . . . Education then will be completely different according as it takes as its starting point the old or the new principle.” (Father Denis Fahey, The Mystical Body of Christ in the Modern World.)
Joseph Ratzinger wrote the following in “Principles of Catholic Theology”,1982:
“Let us be content to say here that the text [in Gaudium et Spes] serves as a countersyllabus [to both Pope Pius IX’s condemnations and Pope St. Pius X’s condemnation of Modernism] and, as such, represents on the part of the Church, an attempt at an official reconciliation with the new era inaugurated in 1789.”
I would say yes to the questions presented regarding the picture because all the clerics around the altar are kneeling and the Pope is in at least implicit agreement. So the intention is manifest in this action. QED.
You are a breath of fresh air for my weary lungs (due to my being stranded in the hinterlands without the proximate blessing of the SSPX – unless I drive into the neighboring county- which I intend to do – Deo Gratias!
God bless you for your tireless succinct replies.
Thanks for that. I enjoy your posts. I was told that Bishop Fellay did not read the TOFP propaganda, and now regrets writing it. I wish he would tighten up on certain things, but I am certain Tain he will not cave in to Rome’s demands. I’m there for the Mass and Sacraments, and to be in contact with Catholic faithful.
You are very welcome. Thank you for your kind words.
How did you get a picture on your profile by the way?
Putting those two quotes together does a great service to the faithful Katherine. Thank you!
All the important details in that photo of the first public Novus Ordo are striking, especially the look on his face and the stare in his eyes
The safest conclusion I can arrive at is that it is neither an acceptable act of worship, nor sacramentally valid. At best it’s gravely doubtful on both counts, and must be completely avoided.
“Validity is not the real issue.” Totally agree, but that won’t stop post after post after post hammering this to death. I would say that the Novus Ordo is in invalid and 100% doubtful — ON THE INTERNET!
In the real world there are plenty of arguments for the validity of the Novus Ordo yet posters do not seem to know any of them or they pretend they do not exist. And everyone is so cock sure of there position. This doesn’t add up.
Could you name a few of these arguments, or even just one for now? Any link? I’m interested.
I didn’t survive the crisis this far by turning a blind eye to points of view that may require me to back up a few paces and take another turn. I have always, only and ever been interested in getting to the truth of these matters. They aren’t my pets! I can give them away if I’m wrong about them.
John, my conclusion is based upon the infallible teaching of the Church, especially in Leo XIII’s Apostolicae Curae. He teaches that the intention to do what the Church does is made manifest in the minister when he seriously and properly performs the Catholic rite. I have studied the issue, and nowhere in sacramental theology does it mention anything about clerics kneeling around the altar. Can you please show where this is taught? I am happy to recommend Apostolicae Curae to you for your own betterment and benefit, and so you can see where my position is coming from.
The Papal Subject: I can’t take credit for it. I found it in the writings of one of those men who are faithful to the true teachings of the Church, a former professor who has the most excellent website available in my opinion, for rooting out the truth and the lies we are bombarded with daily. One of the most interesting things about his website is its historical content and writings on the Saints. His name is Dr. Thomas A. Droleskey.
The Novus Ordo mindset is simply the most recent rejection of the Catholic faith and one more revolution against Christ and His Church while being the most insidious as it is the synthesis of heresies, Modernism, and almost the entire hierarchy has it in one form or another, which begs the question as to whether they have any valid authority as teachers when what they teach has been condemned by the certain, valid authority of prior popes and dogmatic Ecumenical Councils.
Ah! If only I could remember exactly — it was some years ago.
I think it was at the original setting up of my WordPress account, that the option for a file (photo) presented itself.
were not the words, “Fruits of the earth and work of human hands”, taken from the jewish seda prayer ?
To all contributors. Thank you for the edifying and testifying. Now for a watertight argument on invalidity. ‘Res Sacramenti by Rev Fr Meuli of NZ. Currently aged 90 yrs. Using Henry Patrick Omlors arguments Denzil Meuli demolished the work of human hands Nov us ordo Nov elty. It’s been handed to JP2 Ratizinger and bishops world wide. No counter arguments were received. Card Stickler commended it. Any one wanting a copy post your address.
Our Lady of Quito or a pro nobis
I’ve looked at his site several times. He has a large amount of good material. I remember he also moderated the John Lane VS Robert Sungenis debate back in the day.
I believe he used to write for The Remnant, but they’d never have him these days!
Thanks for that Simple Shepherd.
The res Sacramenti is expressed by “pro multis”, (for many).
“For you and for all men” fails to do so, and thus is not valid.
That is the centre of Omlor’s argument, which I assume is what this NZ priest argues. It’s very very strong and has a lot of weight behind it.
On the other hand, the arguments against this position are pretty good too, and at the end it’s almost impossible to decide which is right.
So the net result is that it remains positively doubtful. The Church cannot produce positively doubtful sacraments. It ts impossible. There was some grave defect therefore in the body of men who approved such a hideous smear of a thing. The vacancy of the Holy See? Something else? Whatever the defect was, this was the same body of men who gave us the new rite of Orders, which is also loaded with grave doubts and problems. Why should I trust it?
Quite right. He simply states the Truth and defends it with the kind of love all of us ought to have.
Thank you Servant of Our Lady and Tom, thank you for your considered replies. I hadn’t noticed the pictures at the top of the page, it was the headline that caught my eye and got me off-track. I also didn’t realize there were “messages” on the site as I hadn’t ventured off that page. That will teach me to pay more attention to what i’m reading! I appreciate your insights.
IMO Omlor performed a disservice to the Church. Instead of focusing on the –fact– that the New Mass is clearly illicit, he started an obsession over validity which continues to this day. This argument gets us nowhere. It only serves the purpose of people who are already sedevacantists because harping on it over and over again creates the very doubt which confirms their theory. It may serve the politics of other groups as well.
Whenever “all” is used in the mass it refers to all of the elect, just as “many” refers to the many who are saved, or, all of the elect. A supplied Catholic understanding is always assumed and it doesn’t matter who is Pope. Pius XII did more to promote the heresy of universal salvation with the Letter from the Holy Office Concerning Fr. Feeney than Paul VI ever did by using “all” in the mass. And they have now changed it back to “many.” Have they rescinded the Letter From the Holy Office? So put the blame where it belongs.
It is easy to create doubt, or a straw man. For example, in the Traditional Roman Mass, I could argue that you can’t hear the words of consecration so how do you know they were properly said. Is this not doubt? You may say that this is not a positive doubt and so I would agree that we can assume the words are properly said, but some fringe group could very well, in this age of social media, begin to harp on this over and over again on the blogs. Well before long you have got a problem or at least a major pain in the a$$.
Good morning John314,
You would be well served by reading the actual words of the man who falsely claimed the papacy as “Paul VI”, Giovanni
Batista Montini, a documented Freemason and active sodomite, through the work of Don Luigi Villa, as his work occurred over 50 years, at the behest of Padre Pio, with the Papal Mandate of Pius XII. The words of Montini you will find here in his profane, purported “Apostolic Constitution”, “Missale Romanum”—- http://w2.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-vi_apc_19690403_missale-romanum.html.
Contrast this profane language with the beautiful and closed, Apostolic language of Saint Pope Pius V, in his authentic Apostolic Constitution, “Quo Primum”—-http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius05/p5quopri.htm.
In “Missale Romanum” of Montini, look to the last sentence of the 6th paragraph for the movement OUT of a valid Consecration, fully orchestrated and arranged by Montini, as Almighty God will not be mocked. Montini had this to say:
“The words MYSTERIUM FIDEI, taken from the context of the words of Christ the Lord, and said by the priest, serve as an introduction to the acclamation of the faithful.” (emphasis his)
Montini had the unmitigated audacity to actually and literally proclaim that his “formula” of Consecration is NOT the same formula of Consecration that flowed from the mouth of the Son of God, given us in Apostolic succession over the centuries. He literally says as is plainly seen above, “taken from the context of the words of Christ the Lord.” Montini boldly proclaims that he has “TAKEN FROM THE CONTEXT”, the words from the very Mouth of God as the Logos, the Eternal Word made flesh, the Beloved Son. What happens John314 when literally anything is “taken from the context” within which it once rested? The meaning of course is then precisely changed. It is forever altered into something other than what it was, as it is removed from its original context. He actually emphasizes that which he has removed from its original context as, “MYSTERIUM FIDE”, and further edifies the “words” as having come from “Christ the Lord” Himself. This is the masterstroke of the abomination of desolation which Montini fully engineered along with the Freemasonic minions in his service (Bugnini as a principle). The “abomination” is self evident. The “desolation” is the result of the taking out of context the words of our Blessed Lord, Jesus the Christ, yielding the Sacrament invalid and therefore desolate, as incapable of yielding Supernatural Grace to the receiver and instead placing the reality of material idolatry into play, as one worships a piece of bread as “host” and a cup of wine. Fully Protestant as fully diabolical.
Lastly, a brief analogy. Removing the words of our Lord and our God, “Mysterium Fide”, from His formula of Consecration, is tantamount to, in an infinitely lesser understanding, “taking out of context” one number in the series of numbers which opens the lock on a safe, and placing that same number somewhere else in the series. It is then ontologically impossible for that new combination of numbers, which has been taken out of context, to ever again open that same safe. The Truth is hard but He is a Divine Person and He commanded that He did not come to bring peace, rather the sword, as it is in division where the truth springs forth and is plainly seen. I pray this helps. In caritas.
First point: Patrick Omlor published his first criticism of the bogus “for you and for all men” in 1968. It was,
in response to the ICEL’s introduction of the all-English Canon which made its debut in the USA in October 1967. This was more than two years before the new mass. St Thomas, Pope Eugene IV, the catechism of the Council of Trent, and Pope St Pius V all say that the FORM for the chalice is how it appears in the Roman Missal. None of the scriptural accounts of the Last Supper have any reference to “all men”. There are 76 rites of Mass recognised by the Church, and not a single one of them uses “for all men”. “For many” signifies the members of the Mystical Body. “For all men” clearly does not. “All men” are NOT the elect. To say they are is heresy. Sacraments must signify what they effect. All men fails to do so.
Second point is a question. When you say illicit, what do you mean? Defective in its theology? Not capable of fulfilling the Sunday obligation? Not pleasing to God? Not able to make manifest in the priest (or presider as they say) the necessary intention to do what the Church does?
Thanks John. Sorry if it seems like a barrage of questions. I’d look forward to hearing your thoughts.
Excellent! Context is the key. The same issue is in the Governing Spirit phrase in the NROEC. What was the context for that in the place they lifted it from? Not what it is meant to mean in the new rite of Orders of 1968.