The "new mass" itself is an abuse of the True Mass. Had they dubbed it what it actually is, the "false mass", perhaps that would strike a cord with faithful NOers and they might finally figure out that they do not belong assisting at a non-catholic service that mocks the true Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

As it is now, after +40 years of exposure to the abuse, it's as +ABL said -  they believe as protestants believe: "One cannot imitate Protestantism indefinitely without becoming Protestant".

The NO is a different faith with a Lex orandi that is not Catholic, as such the NOer's Lex credendi do not see the abuse as an abuse, when they finally see it, they  either tolerate, welcome or leave it all together. Many of them seek out the true faith and shake the dust from the new faith - but many, like +ABL stated,  become prots and do not even realize it, they think the abuse they participate at is, indeed, Catholic.

Then there's the whole false / misguided obedience doctrine which is so completely misunderstood that many otherwise sincere NOers seek out and attend only the "Reverent" false mass, thinking that is really how the false mass is supposed to be celebrated - this last group of NOers are possibly the ones who are most in need of our prayers - I don't know, but often, they are the most willfully blind since they know that the false mass needs to be done away with yet they go to it anyway.  

 

What keeps them coming to church?  Liturgical abuses are so common and worship has become so difficult I wonder why they keep coming to church.  Is it something in their heart that tells them to come, even if they don't get much out of it?  

I think there needs to be a focus on essentials.

It is evident that given enough time, people invent their one doctrines and dogmas based on their perceptions and feelings.

With that in mind, perhaps you can consider:

* There is "Catholic" and "not Catholic" and "in a state of grace" and "not in a a state of grace". There is no "NO Catholic", "Quasi-Catholic-Twice-Removed" or other such labels in essence.
* Some people are weak, and rely heavily on the passions. Others are stronger, and do not. People who need the Mass and all they perceive to be helpful to them are at a disadvantage. Others, who can see the essence and use reason primarily may be able to cope with things that weaker people cannot.
* People do not have the authority to hold others to new doctrines, or to invent them. This frequently is evident in posts on this subject.

Now, what is important?

* Baptism
* The Creed (holding the basic doctrines necessary to be Catholic)
* Submitting to the authority of the Church

The Precepts of the Church are few and easy.

After this, living a Catholic life is not that difficult if one desires it. It is not about debates and discussions about bishops, but about one's interior life.

Others have accused me of heresy for not denouncing the Roman Rite as celebrated by the Pope, and this is wrong. That is a personal insertion into the Creed.

In short, people who rely on sensual confirmation are weak, and this is not new. Choosing to attend the TLM is the easy part, and it does nothing to strengthen one against most things. The same weaknesses exist. The main danger for Catholics is not Church politics, but the same moral dangers confronted by all throughout time.

The Catholic life is to move forward, to grow closer to God. It is not to obtain the seeds of Faith, and then be stagnant and hope nothing happens to endanger one's faith.

One becomes more Protestant once one makes oneself the authority to which one is held. One can look at the misguided, confused, and unaware Catholics lost in the world, and think oneself better, but what good is it to accuse them of becoming protestants, when oneself is holding the same errors intentionally?

All heretics, such as Protestants, thought they were doing good, and being better Christians. They all were able to overcome mental objection to defying God, and convince themselves they were right. They did not plan to be wrong.

We have scripture and tradition and defined dogmas concerning the nature of the Church and the authority possessed by the Church.

For this topic, one must look at both the Title and the Opening Post in order to understand the question:

Faithful Novus Ordo Catholics:  What keeps them coming to church?

We’re not talking about the radical Modernists who are, in fact, Protestants who call themselves Catholics.  We are talking about “faithful Catholics”.

Now, I have a certain amount of experience on this matter.  I was a faithful Catholic who, for many years, attended the Novus Ordo.  What kept me going to the Novus Ordo?

First of all, when “the changes” came in the late 1960s, I was a young child, but I did notice the changes and I didn’t like them.  I receive “religious education” through the parish C.C.D. program through to the 1970s where I learned almost nothing about the Catholic religion.  Upon becoming an adult and having Protestant evangelicals try to “save my soul”, I decided to learn something about the faith and happen to find the book, Catechism of the Council of Trent.  It was an eye-opener because I discovered that the Catholic religion is quite easy to understand in its basics and is completely logical.

Over the years, I remained with the Novus Ordo because I didn’t know anything about tradition except what I read in books.  This, of course, confused me greatly, but it is actually quite easy when you are part of the Novus Ordo to never hear anything about tradition at all.  Even though I had many questions, answers just didn’t come.  We didn’t simply go to the nearest parish, but would shop around for a “conservative” parish where the Mass was said in a “reverent manner”.  This, I think, is what all “faithful Catholics” in the Novus Ordo do.

In the past, there was no internet to look for answers on and even today, one might not think there is a need if they happen to have one of those priests at the parish who is “conservative” and provides services that feel reverent.  Faithful Catholics still attached to the Novus Ordo still want tradition, but they don’t really know what tradition is and they continue to trust the apostates and heretics that run their churches.

For every faithful Catholic in the Novus Ordo, I think, there will be a breaking point.  For me, it was the “Luminous Mysteries”.  Well, actually, that’s not quite right.  I was all set to accept them and incorporate them but my wife was not so sure.  She had just read a short biography of Saint Dominic and couldn’t understand how the pope could just add a whole set of mysteries to the Rosary given to us directly by the Mother of God.  If the Rosary was good enough with 15 decades for Mary, why should we add five more?  Who told John Paul 2 to add them?

This is when I started to research the subject using a new (at least for me) tool:  the internet.  As I searched in those first days after the announcement of this newest change, I found internet articles praising the Luminous Mysteries and internet articles condemning them.  The ones condemning them actually explained why this was not a good thing.  The ones praising them gave, unanimously one reason:  They were given to us by the great John Paul 2.  This one thing led me to a number of websites and periodicals that were devoted to tradition that I had never before known about.

That one event was the catalyst for me finding tradition.  Frankly, I think that what keeps the faithful Catholic in the Novus Ordo is essentially the same thing that keeps the traditional Catholic attached to or long to be accepted by the Conciliar structures:  The firm conviction that the man who claims to be the pope is, in fact, a Catholic and a pope.  This being the General Discussion Forum, however, I will say nothing further on the subject.

Quote from: Cato

What keeps them coming to church?  Liturgical abuses are so common and worship has become so difficult I wonder why they keep coming to church.  Is it something in their heart that tells them to come, even if they don't get much out of it?  

I think there needs to be a focus on essentials.

Yes, focus on essentials by all means. Appeasing God in the manner in which He taught us to appease Him is the first and most essential of the essentials. When we mock the way He taught us to worship Him as the Ordinary Form of worship, plainly we are among those who offend him - which is why we are not permitted to have anything to do with the false mass.

 

It is evident that given enough time, people invent their own doctrines and dogmas based on their perceptions and feelings.

Well said albeit incomplete. When it comes to the NO, those are the people who follow the doctrines of modernists, thinking they are following the doctrines of the Church - such is the modus operandi of modernism.
Once people begin to follow corrupted modernist doctrines, that is when their  feelings and perceptions step in to misguide them - usually to the point of compromise then complete indifferentism. That is what the most pernicious of all heresies does to those who do not condemn it.

With that in mind, perhaps you can consider:

* There is "Catholic" and "not Catholic" and "in a state of grace" and "not in a a state of grace". There is no "NO Catholic", "Quasi-Catholic-Twice-Removed" or other such labels in essence.

This is not true. We identify ourselves by what we are and there most certainly are such people as NO catholics - they're all over the world since V2 - the pope himself is one and demonstrates this fact often - the latest was his Holy Thursday example.  
I know a NO catholic family that stops on their way *to* their NO service every Sunday for breakfast - sometimes their priest joins them.

These are two miniscule examples of NO catholics who, aside from their participation in a service that mocks the Sacrifice of the Mass,  do things that Roman Catholics have never done nor will ever do.

We, as Catholics, identify them as NO catholics because they are not like us no matter what label *they* choose to use to identify themselves. We are the ones who are expected to have eyes to see and are expected to know better, as such, we do not deny there is a big and opposing difference between our faiths, so hence, we identify the difference via the label "NO catholic."

To simply say: "there is no such thing as a NO catholic, there are only Catholics", is in itself an example of the whole NO mindset.
 

After this, living a Catholic life is not that difficult if one desires it. It is not about debates and discussions about bishops, but about one's interior life.
 

How is one expected to  live a Catholic life while one is worshiping at a service that was previously condemned and is  completely opposed to the Catholic Holy Sacrifice of the Mass? -  and exactly what kind of an interior life can one expect when one participates in that faith which was created to confuse and destroy the interior life?
 

No one should attend the Novus Ordo, even if it's all one has access to.

No one should attend the Novus Ordo, even if it's all one has access to.

Says it all. :rahrah:

It is hard to change what you've always known. For those who don't have easy access to weekly TLM, it is easier said than done to just stay home. There are lots of bad things in the Novus Ordo, but many people still see the Vatican as the Catholic authority, and the catechism says we cannot skip mass.

PW,

I know leaving the NO altogether can seem difficult at first, but once you do it, trust me, you won't regret it, even if it means staying home on Sunday. The Faith is more important than the Mass. What good is it if you attend the NO to meet your Sunday Obligation but lose your Faith in the process?

Also, if the catechism you're refering to is the "Catechism of the Catholic Church", I'd advise you to ditch that, you won't learn the true Faith from reading it. The Catechism of the Council of Trent is the way to go.