Dear God! To read this baloney yet again, the second time around is very unsettling. This is not advancing the Truth, it is making excuse for what is missing,(by design) and going on the hunt for some shred of truth that might be present in a false
ritual. Of course it can be found, as just enough was left intact to fool the weak minded. Let us all go and nourish our Faith...............

You never answered this question, Happenby.  

Further, didn’t Pope Benedict speak of the “reform of the reform”?  Therefore, if the NO was never implemented as the Church wanted it to be (that’s why a reform is necessary) then it is FALSE for you to say that the NO is “approved” by the Church, right?

P.s.  the TLM is essentially PERFECT, no ifs, ands or buts.  The human part of the liturgy is changeable, to some degree, but not any longer, since Pope St Pius V and Quo Primum.  

The NO is NOT essentially or superficially perfect because no one has ever SEEN a perfect NO.  It’s a unicorn; a fantasy; a fable told by Freemasons to keep the laity thinking that the NO would “one day” be fixed.  After 50 years, we’re still waiting....

But you used to go.  And you keep defending it, and saying it's ok to attend, because the Church said it is.



It makes no difference if Pope Benedict wanted to reform the NO, or reform the modernist's version of it...the end result is the same.  The end result is that the NO that was/is being said in 95% of the churches both then AND NOW is deficient.  The "reform of the reform" never truly happened.

Let me give you an example.  Let's say that for 2,000 years every diocese had a beautiful olive tree(s) in the church backyard.  These trees would supply all the olive oil for all the church ceremonies for the year and were a symbolism for the health of the diocese.  These trees were of the utmost purity and 100% organic, having been received from Rome whenever a new diocese was founded.

In the 1960s, the pope planted an orchard of new olive trees that were a hybrid, GMO type.  They were supposed to be more hardy, more resistant to bugs and produce more fruit.  And he issued a decree saying that all dioceses in the whole latin rite world 'could' (but did not have to) use one of his GMO olive trees to plant in their diocese.  All the bishops readily agreed and they all had ceremonies in their dioceses to commemorate the planting of the 'papal olive tree' in the backyard of the church.  (However, in order to plant the "new" tree, they had to dig up the old, vibrant olive trees that were planted all over the yards, in all the dioceses...some of these trees had been there for centuries and were very healthy and very nutritious).  But the bishops told everyone "The pope said we MUST use his new tree (which was a lie), so the people went along with it).

As time went on, people started using the new olives and the oil from the tree, and they were getting sick and wondering why this GMO tree was so sickly looking.  Well, the Bishops would tell their flock that "it's because the soil isn't good.  We need to work on the soil".  Or, "well, this tree isn't meant for this weather, so we need to bring in some experts to solve the problem."  Or some other excuses...even though all the other ORIGINAL olive trees had grown fine and never had any problems.  In other words, there was always a reason the tree wasn't healthy.  "One day", the bishops would constantly say, "we'll get it right."  That day, for 40 years, never came.  Day after day, year after year, the trees all over the world were sick.

Then, 40 years later, new pope was elected and he said that the GMO olive trees which were meant to be shipped all over the dioceses were never planted by the bishops.  What was planted at each diocese was NOT what was from the papal garden.  So, he issued a "reform" of the bad trees, to try to repair the damage.  He sent new soil, issued new guidelines and gardening methods, drew up the exact chemicals that each tree needed to be healthy and prosper.  But still, the new trees did not get better and NEVER resembled the centuries-old, perfect, fruitful and healthy trees that all the dioceses had dug up to begin with.

Moral of the story:  The NO that Pope Paul VI approved never made it to 95% of the dioceses and still hasn't, 50 years later.  This means that the NO in 95% of parishes, in the entire latin world, for the last 50 years, is NOT APPROVED BY THE CHURCH.  And there's no plan for it to ever get there.

Did the Church fail?  No.  Did the Church fail when 95% of the catholic world was an arian heretic in the 300s?  No.  

Don't make excuses for the NO or the people that attend it.  Most of the people in the 1960s who accepted the NO did so wholeheartedly.  I've talked to many of them - they werent' duped, they weren't forced, they weren't blackmailed - most of them wanted the changes.  They were tired of catholicism being "hard"...especially the priests.  The post-war 1950s had softened the masses and the 60s had opened them up to immoral excesses and drugs.  They were spiritually ripe for a loss of faith - and most accepted the false, sickly, new olive trees with full knowledge of their choice.

Those who've grown up in the 80s and 90s have not had a true catholic church to guide them.  However, God had allowed Tradition to grow and flourish since then, as a "sign of contradiction" to those who still attend the NO.  There are many who have found tradition in spite of their not knowing of it.  God grants the truth to those who are open to it.  We can't make excuses for those in the NO; on the contrary, we must tell them THE NO IS WRONG AND SINFUL, so that they will refuse the false mass and accept the True one.  The hybrid olive oil trees need to be burned to the ground.  They can't be fixed.

I think we should focus our attention on Jesus, who is truly present in the Blessed Sacrament.
 

Regarding the Buenos Aires "miracle" --------------------  (If you don't misspell Buenos, then you manage to misspell Aires!)
Guess who put this out?    ---\/---    (You've got to admit, it's well worth reading this!)

...
Now there is a lie that is presently spread and it has become familiar with us in the last 11 months. Now we find it in the mainstream Society, in an unusual ploy. The mainstream Society is now following the liberalism of the resistance. We thought that the danger was that the resistance would follow the liberalism in the mainstream Society. But now we find the mainstream finding itself following the liberalism of a part of the resistance which says that there are miracles in the new mass.
.
So, we have here from the sspx.org on the website now. A few years ago whenever we gave a sermon about what’s on the website, a few days later it disappeared from the website. I don’t know if that will happen this time, maybe not, but in any case as of today, it’s still on the website. The sspx.org the miracles of the new mass, Eucharistic miracles. The latest Eucharistic miracles. New Eucharistic miracle in Poland. A report on the most recent Eucharistic miracle in Poland with an answer to a common objection. This miracle is a miracle of 2013 and this miracle almost looks completely identical to the miracle mentioned by Bishop Williamson and his first Eleison Comments of the five on the new mass in November of last year where he said that there were miracles in the new mass. Miracles, there are miracles in the new mass, points to the good, alas, in one of his little poems. So there's miracles in the new mass and he gives an example of Buenos Aires.
.
In Buenos Aires there was a host that was dropped on the floor. The priest put it into a bowl of water. Several days later when he opened up the bowl in the cabinet where the host was, that it turned into a human heart. It was sent to a laboratory. 2008 in Poland, he mentions that miracle a similar thing happened. 2013 in Poland also, now the Society of St. Pius X mentions a miracle. What happened? A host fell on the floor. The host was picked up. The host was put by the priest into a bowl of water allowed by the rubrics. Well the host was contaminated. He put the host in the water. He put the host in the tabernacle. A few days later they opened it up and it was turning into a human heart of a man who had been wounded. The same miracle. So we got the miracle in Buenos Aires in 1996, another one in Poland in 2008, and another one in 2013 in Poland also. All miracles of the new mass and then Bishop Williamson said about these miracles of the new mass, facts are stubborn, facts are stubborn things. These facts indicate that there's good coming out of the new mass. Yes, in general the new mass as a new religion is bad. But even then he doesn't say that. He says the new mass, like unto the new religion, is ambiguous. And the trouble with ambiguity is it depends if the good priest says it (the ambiguity) he turns it into the good, and the bad priest turns it into the bad. So he says, both the new mass and the new religion are ambiguous, and can be used for good or ill, depending upon the priest.
.
Now the SSPX follows suit with Bishop Williamson, and his part of the resistance, and they say, well, there's miracles in the new mass;  miracles in Poland:  "Recent miracles which are investigated by scientists and made public by the proper ecclesiastical authority, are they not in the plan of God? And today as in the past, are they not a reminder of His real presence, a powerful apologetical argument and an invitation to increase our faith and devotion?"
.
A powerful apologetical argument for what?!
.
Here there's a dispute. Some say it’s a powerful apologetic argument, that says only there may be valid masses in the new rite. And of course, where there's valid masses, well Christ is there, so certainly there must be some grace, since Christ is there. Others for whom are more reason to say, no, these miracles indicate that of course the new mass is good, the new mass is a true expression of the sacrifice of Calvary, it is pleasing to our Lord Jesus Christ and it is beneficial to souls.
.
Therefore, these are the facts. The facts are, there's miracles. How can you deny the miracles? Two priests in the resistance and Bishop Faure talked to me about the miracles. [They said] "These are our facts:  there are miracles in the new mass, there is miracles in the new mass." Is it a fact? No it is not.
.
No it is not at all. Just briefly, one point about this miracle which is different from the other Eucharistic miracles: There were no witnesses of the miracle. There was a host put in water. Come back three days later and it is changed. Is it changed or did someone make a switch? And furthermore, why the water? Is it water? Or is it some kind of fluid that preserves tissues. Is there a hoax? Or is it real? If It happens once maybe it’s real. But now we're finding a pattern of the same miracle in Buenos Ares.
.
The first miracle was in 1993, it didn’t work out. The second miracle was '94-'95, didn’t work out. The third miracle in '96, they finally got the miracle down. The same church. The third miracle worked. The third miracle is a charm, is how the saying goes. And then so the third miracle worked. Then the bishop Bergoglio and the other Bishop in Poland, they say it’s a miracle.
.
Now remember, these ones who say it’s a miracle, the proper ecclesiastical authority... the Pope is the proper ecclesiastical authority. The Bishop is the proper ecclesiastical authority. So ask them, "Do you believe in the miracle the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ?" [They'll say] "Well we're not certain". Well they believe in the miracles of this host, but they don’t believe that Jesus Christ necessarily rose from the dead. [Ask them] "Do you believe that Moses walked on dry land with six hundred thousand men and another million and a half women and children through the middle of the Red Sea with a wall of water on one side and a wall of water on the other side and walked up the other side and Pharaoh tried it and it didn’t work. And Pharaoh and all of his cohorts were killed by that sea and that same sea saved Moses do you believe that?" [Their reply] "Well we don’t know."
.
They don’t believe in the miracle of the crossing of the Red Sea;  they don’t believe in the miracle of the resurrection;  they don’t believe in the miracle of the raising of Lazarus; they don’t believe in the miracles contained in the Gospel;  they don’t believe in the miracles of the Old Testament.
.
But see these are the right experts to go to, so we go to see if this was a miracle. So, we go to the experts who do not believe the miracles of the Gospel, who do not believe in the miracles of sacred Scripture, who don't even believe that the Catholic Church is the true church and these are the "experts"! And they said it’s a miracle. Why do they say it’s a miracle? Because this miracle confirms Vatican II. Because this miracle confirms the new mass. This miracle means you can be madly in love with God and with your fourth wife, whereas a real miracle is going to tell you, that you gotta dump your 4th wife, and you’ve got to go back to God and you have to not live in sin anymore. The new miracle says you can have abortion and contraception. You don’t have to have all those children.
.
The old miracle says you have all the children God sends you. The old miracle confirmed 10 of the 10 commandments. 10 out of 10. The new miracle confirms 0.00 out of 10. Bad number, bad percentage. And so what is happening? These miracles are confirming souls unto damnation. They are not confirming souls onto salvation. Now, how is it causing confusion amongst our people? Well, Bishop Fellay says that it can be a real miracle, and he’s a man of tradition. Bp. Williamson's the man of tradition! He is the h0Ɩ0cαųst denier. You can't be more traditional than that. If you're a h0Ɩ0cαųst denier, then you are the most traditional man in the world. And therefore he is the most traditional man in the world since he's a h0Ɩ0cαųst denier, and he says that there are miracles in the new mass, so there must be miracles in the new mass. These miracles indicate that the new mass and the new church can do good for your souls.
.
(here he's speaking as some in the sspx might say)-Now I know the old Mass is better, I prefer the old mass but I can’t be against the new mass.
.
What is the purpose of this lie? It is to make traditional Catholics go one step closer to hell. What does that mean? That we will believe that the new mass, while it is not quite as good as the old Mass, essentially, it is good enough. It is like taking a cheap car and driving it, or taking a Lamborghini and driving it. You can take an expensive good car and take it from A to B. You can take a cheap car and take it from A to B. You can take a car that barely works and a car that is in magnificent condition but both of them will take you from A to B. So they're both essentially okay. One car might be faster. One car might be more beautiful. One car might be better, but they both get you there.
.
But what we say is the truth. and that is, the one car is owned by Al Qaeda and it has explosives in it. Don’t get in it! It’s going to be an unhappy experience for you and your neighbors. Don’t get in that car. That car will not get you to your destination. That car is deadly. That car is called the Novus Ordo Missae, which is straight from hell.
.
And not only that, but let’s see what the Church has to say about valid Sacraments. Confusion is coming to souls because they are saying, "well, if it's valid, then Christ is there. And if Christ is there, then it must be good - because Christ is there." I mean if a schismatic priest or a heretical priest says the Latin Tridentine Mass, can you go to it?
.
You know, that the Orthodox, the schismatics, - they have the Ukrainians and the Russians and so on - they say that they say the same Mass we say. It’s perfectly valid. They are real Priests, they're real Bishops. They are celebrating the same Mass, with the same words. And if you go to it, you commit a mortal sin. But that’s not all, that’s not all. The fact is, grace does not flow from that Mass. Christ is really present. We know the rules from Canon Law, if you walk by an Orthodox Church for instance, if you’re in that church and you have to attend a wedding. So what do you do if you have to attend a wedding in an Orthodox Church? You can't participate. Here is the rule of cannon law, you can’t participate but since Christ is really present in the tabernacle you can kneel down and you can genuflect, but you can’t participate. If you participate it’s a sin, but you can kneel down and you can genuflect because Christ is really present in the tabernacle, since it's a real Orthodox Priest. The Orthodox are validly ordained. They're valid priest and valid bishops and so on, but if you participate, it’s a mortal sin. It's a mortal sin, and grace does not flow from that valid mass.
...

The people during the Arian heresy were not obliged by the Pope or anyone to become Arian.  They chose to do it.  

You're saying that Pope Paul VI deceived 95% of the Church, placed them under obligation as the authority, put the NO in most every church and that isn't a an epic fail?  

If the NO is wrong and sinful, the Church by virtue of the Pope made an epic fail.  Or, the Church was guided to let down the walls and the bishops and priests went nuts.  

The Pope remains guilty for changing the liturgy because Pius V said anyone who did would answer to Peter and Paul.  I suspect he's done that.  But from my pew, it seems that he could only change it as far as it was technically possible before it was totally useless and couldn't confect the Sacrament.  

Not saying it was good.  Pius V warned for a reason.  But, I can't say it is intrinsically evil because it came from the authority of the Church.

But from my pew, it seems that he could only change it as far as it was technically possible before it was totally useless and couldn't confect the Sacrament.

Quote

But from my pew, it seems that he could only change it as far as it was technically possible before it was totally useless and couldn't confect the Sacrament.