CathInfo.com

I can only speak for myself.  As per my from signature,  I don't assign any labels.  It saddens me that people are dividend into Traditionalist versus NO camps.  This only serves to advance Satan's ultimate desire to rend God's flock into pieces and thereby destroy the Church.

I attend both Tridentine and NO Masses.  I have no problem with the NO Mass as long as it is celebrated reverently.   Personally I have never observed any grave abuses at any NO Masses.  The worst being people holding hands during the "Our Father" and at times excessive use of extraordinary Eucharistic ministers.  Both of these practices do not diminish my faith in the least.  

The Catholic Church is, simply the Catholic Church and has been since Jesus established it in 33 A.D.  Therefore, keeping this in mind and firmly believing that God never reneges on any of His promises, it's impossible that the Church would or ever could institute and foist upon the faithful invalid sacraments injurious to the faith.  

IMO, the problems so prevalent in the Church today have not been caused by NO Mass, but rather all the abuses perpetrated by modernists, the shoddy translations of the Rite which went uncorrected for too long, and breakdown of catechesis in the last 40 or so years.  The blame for all these problems is people, not the Mass.

I can't speak for others but, my faith has not in the least bit been injured or diminished by attending the NO.  This is because of my intractable belief and trust in God.  I have had the very good fortune of being born into the faith prior to V2 and all the ensuing problems.  I have also consistently studied to learn more and more and to nourish my faith.  Jesus will never abandon His Church.  This doesn't mean that the enemies of God will ever cease in their attempts to undermine and destroy the Church.  Sometimes God permits these evils.  There have been heresies and bad popes and clergy throughout the Church's entire history.  The Church has never enjoyed a perfect golden age this side of heaven and never will.   Perhaps St. John Eudes explains it best, it is a sure sign that God is angry with His people when he allows bad pastors.  It's Gods way of punishing us.  Rest assured that in the end, God will bring about far greater good than all the mess can possibly cause.

That the simple, sound and practically realizable proposal of Bishop Fellay should have so many detractors is not altogether unsurprising perhaps. At any rate, it is not primarily about aesthetic or linguistic changes, but substantive doctrinal and theological revisions and additions in the actual Mass texts that he asked for, and which could be easily done by Rome, and accepted worldwide, without her losing face or authority. It is the inherent ambiguity of some prayers, the equivocations and the glaring omissions that make the new rite rather impoverished in comparison with the doctrinal splendor and theological precision of those of the old. I doubt Bishop Fellay doesn't find himself in complete agreement with the letter and spirit of the Ottaviani intervention.

It has a lot of "detractors" because it's not Traditional. To accept the 1983 Code of Canon Law and the Vatican II docuмents is liberal, and is a slap in the face to Tradition.

If the new Mass was always offered in Latin versus Deum many people may never have noticed the differences in the Mass text, but those are in fact the most troubling. These can be corrected to a large extent without too much difficulty and a gradual return to orthopraxis will assuredly follow. Again, some of the Roman authorities have been favorable to some of His Excellency's proposals and have readily admitted that reasonable corrections could and should be made.

Again, instead of wasting time making all of those changes to the New Mass, why not just throw it in the trash bin where it belongs and give us back the Traditional Latin Mass? Did you read the quote from Archbishop Lefebvre? He said that even when said reverently, the Novus Ordo Missae is still impregnated with the spirit of Protestantism and bears within it a poison harmful to the Faith.

The fact is of the estimated 1.1 billion Catholics in the world, there are about an estimated 1 million or so who identify as traditional Catholics. The vast majority of Catholics currently live and die without access to the traditional Mass. If then the Society has a reasonable opportunity to secure some improvements in the condition of the mainstream Church, without changing anything on its part, does it not have the obligation to try?

It's not a reasonable opportunity. You're clearly ignorant to many of the serious issues in the conciliar church, issues that a small Society of about 500 priests won't be able to fix. Archbishop Lefebvre said that, amongst the whole liberal Roman curia, he would have been "swamped", and would have been able to do nothing.

Still in other places, the situation is better, the claim that the new Mass always and everywhere inevitably and without regard to other external factors and to how it is implemented definitely and invariably leads to a loss of faith, an emptying of churches, a collapse of vocations is contradicted by the facts. In places in Africa, for example, the complete opposite is true, in the last 30 odd years, vocations have increased, belief in the basics of the faith is solid, the Church has grown in leaps and bounds, and vocations have skyrocketed.

The overall number vocations has significantly decreased since Vatican II. You can't look at just one area where the numbers are good and say "See, the New Mass doesn't always lead to fewer vocations". You must look at the overall numbers.

Archbishop Lefebvre always had a pastoral solicitude for faithful Catholics in the mainstream Church and was concerned that they by habitual exposure to abuses may lose their faith and reverence for Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament. In my opinion, sure to be met with another torrent of downthumbs, in this at least Bishop Fellay has demonstrated only exemplary fidelity to Archbishop Lefebvre.

Nishant, with all due respect, as someone who admittedly supports the FSSP, you really shouldn't try to tell people what Archbishop Lefebvre's mindset was. You clearly don't understand what his mindset was, nor does Bishop Fellay.