https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=X2bymrcN93M#fauxfullscreen

Bishop Williamson talking about eucharistic miracles in the novus ordo.

From minute 47

"Fasten your seatbelts"

Does the pope speak from the Chair of St Peter when he says mass?  Is he teaching dogmatically during mass?  Of course not.  You need to read up on what infallibility is.

In a way, the Pope speaks from the Chair of St. Peter every time he says the NO, or permits the NO to be said by his bishops and priests. The NO certainly has recent Popes' approbation.  Are you suggesting the Mass isn't a matter of faith? The Mass is unquestionably a matter of faith, not just discipline. Popes are protected in matters of Faith and Morals--infallibly.  Since the Mass is a matter of Faith, does it not follow they Popes were protected from making the Mass defunct?  Either Popes have erred in this matter of Faith by providing a Mass that isn't a Mass, and the NO does not confect the Sacrament.  Or, the NO is valid, teaches the bare minimum basics of faith and actually does confect the Sacrament, because the Church protected the sheep as far as was possible, and Christ lovingly feeds them His Flesh as promised.  No one here on CI doubts that the NO is not what the TLM is, but in order to protect the veracity of the Church, should we doubt what the Church did under the authority of Popes?  Should we depart from the Church's authority because they permitted the NO?  Or should we submit as Christ did (in all things but sin), fight the modernism within, stay with the TLM, yet refuse to give up what belongs to us--millions of fellow Catholics!  It seems to me Trads are far too willing to count as lost the NOs by saying NOs are not Catholic. (Ok, many are not...but not all). Those who insist NOs are not Catholic sounds to me like people who are setting up their own Church separate from the authorities to which they know they are bound. I keep getting faced with these two options: either the Popes erred promoting a false Mass and lost 95% of Catholics back in 1970, or authorities (in spite of themselves) were protected from going too far so that loyal stragglers, weak minded and the uninformed might still be fed by Christ until they wake up.  The latter makes more sense to me.   


    
  

As Bishop Williamson has said in the past, it would be a mistake to think that there is no faith left in the Novus Ordo. He thought that the Novus Ordo priest in the alleged Polish eucharistic miracle seemed sincere.

That's all personal opinion and sentimental reasons.  The Church says we are to distrust such "miracles".  If the Church were functioning properly, +W would be told to keep quiet about all of this, until the local authorities made a decision about it.  So +W is not being prudent.

In a way, the Pope speaks from the Chair of St. Peter every time he says the NO, or permits the NO to be said by his bishops and priests.

No he doesn't.  That's absurd.

The NO certainly has recent Popes' approbation.

The NO that is said in 95% of the dioceses was NOT approved by the popes, using their APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY.  If they approve it by other means (i.e. saying it, attending it, promoting it, etc) this is not an OFFICIAL CHURCH ACT.  It is their actions as PRIVATE THEOLOGIANS or as the "Bishop of Rome"...but not as the pope, specfically.  The pope's actions have different levels of authority and these levels require different levels of obedience.  I'm not making distinctions to confuse; these distinctions are VERY necessary and they exist for a reason - so people will know what they have to believe and why.

The V2 era has promoted the false idea that 'whatever the pope says, goes'.  This is EXTREMELY false and is not the constant Church teaching on papal authority.  The V2 era has an exaggerated view of papal authority which is wrong.

Are you suggesting the Mass isn't a matter of faith? The Mass is unquestionably a matter of faith, not just discipline. Popes are protected in matters of Faith and Morals--infallibly.  Since the Mass is a matter of Faith, does it not follow they Popes were protected from making the Mass defunct?  Either Popes have erred in this matter of Faith by providing a Mass that isn't a Mass, and the NO does not confect the Sacrament.

No.  It's way more complicated than that.  I'm sorry, but it is.

Paul VI, arguably was ok to create his Liturgy A.  But this is not what is said in 95% of dioceses...liturgy B is said.  You want to argue that just because Paul VI says, promotes, and stays quiet while liturgy B is used everywhere that he is "approving" of it.  No!

Paul VI issued a papal docuмent approving liturgy A.  Until he issues a docuмent approving liturgy B, then it's not "from the Church" no matter how many speeches, or masses he attends personally.

An official, papal docuмent outweights personal actions, talks or interviews of the pope.  In the former action, he is using his OFFICIAL capacity as POPE.  In the latter actions, he is not acting as the pope, but merely a bishop/theologian.  See Vatican 1 and how they defined infallibility, for more details...

Or, the NO is valid, teaches the bare minimum basics of faith and actually does confect the Sacrament, because the Church protected the sheep as far as was possible, and Christ lovingly feeds them His Flesh as promised.

The NO MIGHT BE valid.  It also could not be.

Christ never promised that the mass would be available everywhere, in every diocese, at 9am, for all time in history.  He never promised that we'd have access to the sacraments or that they'd be available at regular times.  He never promised that the NO mass wouldn't cause confusion, just like the arian masses caused confusion.

All He promised was that the Church would last til the end of time.  Which it is still is in existence, at all traditional chapels.

Those that choose not to go with tradition will have to answer to God for this.  He will give them graces to see the NO's corruption, if they are open to seeing it.  Most are not, so they continue in the NO because it's "easy", it's "diverse" and "not boring", it's "where my friends go", it's "shorter", it's "what i grew up with", it's "not a crazy chapel" or "it's not filled with weirdos."  ..the excuses are endless.

No one here on CI doubts that the NO is not what the TLM is, but in order to protect the veracity of the Church, should we doubt what the Church did under the authority of Popes?  Should we depart from the Church's authority because they permitted the NO?  Or should we submit as Christ did (in all things but sin), fight the modernism within, stay with the TLM, yet refuse to give up what belongs to us--millions of fellow Catholics!  It seems to me Trads are far too willing to count as lost the NOs by saying NOs are not Catholic. (Ok, many are not...but not all).

True Catholics, throughout history, stand for Truth even when it's hard.  They stand on principles, even when the result is martyrdom.  They love Christ, AS HE WANTS TO BE LOVED, by practicing the PERFECT liturgy, even when people call them "weird" of their family deserts them.

True Catholics do not change their faith through blind obedience to men (even bishops or popes)...especially when THEY AREN'T REQUIRED to change their faith (and the NO is not required).

True Catholics do not attend DOUBTFUL masses/sacraments because they know this dispeases God, who doesn't want them to miss graces.  God wants us to be holy and get to heaven - something we can't do when we continually "roll the dice" and go to a doubtful mass.

True Catholics go to mass in basements, bunkers, catecombs, caves, hotel rooms, or houses - anywhere to attend the PERFECT "mass of all times".  They do not attend an irreverent, sacrilgious, loud, dance-like atmosphere, where prayer is gone and a impious "celebration of man" is taking place, instead of the quiet, peaceful, reverent, and holy adoration of God.

Those who insist NOs are not Catholic sounds to me like people who are setting up their own Church separate from the authorities to which they know they are bound. I keep getting faced with these two options: either the Popes erred promoting a false Mass and lost 95% of Catholics back in 1970, or authorities (in spite of themselves) were protected from going too far so that loyal stragglers, weak minded and the uninformed might still be fed by Christ until they wake up.  The latter makes more sense to me.

I've never said that NO Catholics weren't catholic.  You again put words in my mouth.  All i've said is that the NO mass is not catholic and sinful in it's atmosphere, nor in its theology, it's illegally sinful and it's doubtfully (and thus, sinfully) maybe-valid.  The conclusions from these 3 facts are hard to swallow, which is why you agree with me one minute but then protest another.

You are trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.  It will never work.  You will never have peace until you quit trying to apologize for the NO.  

Happenby,
You (and many others) seem to totally ignore the ATMOSPHERE of the novus ordo and think that it doesn't matter to God how people act in Church.  Why is that?  You seem to argue that "all that matters is validity".  How is that all that matters?

Sanctity of Church
If the Church building doesn't matter to God, then why does a Bishop have to consecrate a church (a ceremony which takes many clerics and 3-4 hours to perform) before a mass can take place there? 

If a Church doesn't matter, why are catholics forbidden to marry outside of a church?  Why are outdoor masses forbidden from being offered, unless certain rules are fulfilled? 

Why does the Church ORDER a re-consecration to a church, and FORBID ceremonies to take place, if a sacrilege has taken place inside?


Reverence due during the Liturgy
Why is it piously held that each church has a specific guardian angel, who protects it and who records the holiness and irreverences committed there?  Why do we piously tell little children to be quiet during mass (if that's even possible at a NO), to be reverent, or else their guardian angel will mark them down as being bad?

Why do we genuflect, if reverence doesn't matter?
Why is there holy water at the entrance?
Why is there a tabernacle at the center and focus of the church?

Why do we have the blessed bells, holy candles, nice vestments, clean altar cloths, statues, gold trimmings, etc, etc if the beauty of the liturgy doesn't matter?  If we can worship God "however we please...as long as communion is valid"...why does ANY of this matter?

Why not just have mass at the local gym, or the local bakery...so we can pray during a workout or drink coffee with a donut RIGHT AFTER communion. 


Purpose of the Mass
If a valid communion is all that matters...why is there even an Offertory?
If a valid communion is all that matters...why did God die on Good Friday?  All that matters is Holy Thursday, right?
If the consecration is all-important, why is there an Epistle and Gospel?

If communion is why we go to Mass...why does the Church allow/encourage us to go to extra masses, even multiple each day?  Why did some saints go to 10+ masses a day?  They could only receive communion once, so what's the point?

Why does the priest pray for the living and the dead during the mass, if communion is the reason for Mass?  Shouldn't these prayers be AFTER his communion, since he would pray for them after the most important part of the mass?

Yet, these prayers occur BEFORE the consecration/communion, which makes no sense, if these are 2 most important parts?


Validity of the Mass
If a priest starts Mass and dies right after the consecration, the mass is not a mass, and is incomplete.  It does not fulfill one's obligation and it must be finished by another priest, or re-said from the beginning.  If the consecration = mass, then why does the Church consider the above scenario to be incomplete?

If a priest consecrates outside of a mass, why does the Church consider this a grave sacrilege and also a sin of an illicit liturgy?  If the consecration = the mass, why does the church say the above is wrong?


Morality of the Mass
If a priest says Mass in shorts and sandal, without vestments, why is that mass considered a grave sin?  Why would the faithful commit a sin by attending this horrible sacrilege?

If a priest says Mass with rock music blaring (or any non-liturgical approved music), why is this a grave, sacrilegious sin?  Why would the faithful commit a sin by attending?

Etc, etc, etc....the list of things which make the ATMOSTPHERE of a mass immoral is LONG.  And the NO is full of such things.

No, I don't ignore the atmosphere.  It is out of control in many NO churches.

Sacrilege definition:  "A violation or misuse of what is regarded as sacred."

That definition is pretty general, right?  It could be applied in many, many areas and to many bad circuмstances, right?  So whether the NO is 100% "out of control" and blasphemous or if it is only 10% (or even 5%) scandalous, that means it is wrong and immoral and sinful.

99% of NO masses have some aspect (or many aspects) which "misuse sacred objects", therefore the question of validity is irrelevant, because they are sinful, even if valid.  Therefore, no one should go for this reason alone.

Ok, I'll take that as your answer.  So, heretic Paul VI took over the Church and taught major error in matters of faith and morals replacing nearly all Masses with fake ones, but the Church and Pope are still infallible?
If Paul VI was an heretic and destroyed the Mass as you say, was he infallible when he did this?  

I would suggest that Pope Paul VI was speaking infallibly when he said that artificial contraception was evil.