Quote from: stevusmagnus

Guys,

The Society issue is irrelevant here as Mrs. Z and family are nowhere near ANY TLM.

Mrs. Z,

Have you thought about building interest in the TLM in your parish and petitioning for one under the MP? Perhaps even one a month could be provided via a traveling priest. Perhaps a priest from the nearest TLM could travel to you.

I would try to contact Una Voce and get some advice on starting the ball rolling for a TLM at your parish. This is what the MP was supposed to empower Catholics to be able to do. Maybe this is what you are called to do in your situation. If you can't move to Tradition, perhaps you could bring Tradition to you?  :wink:

Other than the Mass, I'd try to keep up my Traditional devotions such as rosary, mental prayer, spiritual reading, morning and night prayers, etc. which I'm sure you do already.

Being out in the country already has palpable spiritual advantages than in the city. I'm certain if you continue to be open to God's will, His reasoning will be made apparent.

Good luck and God bless!

Thank you for your advice.   :smile:

I'll add to his advice, the society has many mission chapels that have as low as 20-30 people max. One was built on someone's property in idaho I believe(I talked to a girl from one on sspxsingles.com) They don't get mass every week, some get as few as 6 a year. But they get the sacrements and they know they are valid. If Stevus' suggestion dosn't work out maybe you can get a group that can get the nearest SSPX priory to send a priest to you.

FSSP might also be an option, working under the same lines as what stevus suggested.

Hope it works out.

P.S. As to the original question, you should bring it up to your priest. If he's a legit priest he'll do something about it. I have seen one or two older NO Priests that took it seriously. There are also many NO priests that have left the NO to join the society(Most are conditionally ordained and sent to seminary for at least a couple years) But they obviously were priests that cared. I know there are some in the NO. They are confused, just as there are many lay in the NO who are good legitamate devout catholics but are in a confused state of false obedience.

Novus Ordo is not a RITE, it is a mass form.

We are Latin Rite.

Byzantine is a Rite.

Novus Ordo was not promulgated, show me where it was.

Novus Ordo did not come from the CHURCH. The Church is the universal magisterum. In order for something a Pope says to be infallible it must move from the ordinary infallible magisterium be defined and moved to the Extraordinary infallible magisterium. It must have been believed for all time. It must be CATHOLIC(UNIVERSAL). Universal means not just throughout the whole church but through all time. It must have originated from Jesus through his Apostles.

It is a SIN to obey a heretical or wrongful, or evil command.

You must obey your parents, but if your parents demand you kill your neighbour you must NOT obey on pain of sin. Justly if the Pope tells you to commit a heresy or a sacriledge it is a sin to obey. Ordinary rules no longer apply and the extraordinary rules of neccessity apply.

By your statement you would be accusing St. Athanasius of not having jurisdiction or being schismatic. He disobeyed a Papal command, was "Excommuncated" Exiled from Jurisdiction and led the Traditionalists of his time. He was not only proven correct but most of the Bishops and Priests of his time were condemned as heretics. Same to the lay who followed them. This during the Arian Crisis a Crisis about the same in gravity as the one now. This is not the first crisis of the church.

St. Athanasius to his flock:
"Thus, the more violently they try to occupy the places of worship, the more they separate themselves from the Church. They claim that they represent the Church; but in reality, they are the ones who are expelling themselves from it and going astray. Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ."

The Neo-Cath's and the Sedecavantists are wrong on these points, the Neo-cath's deliberately and the Sede's through error.

Sigismund, I am not a sedevacantist (as you already know) but I do recognize Paul VI as an anti-pope. I have strong reason to believe that he was a Freemason, and if so that would automatically have excommunicated him from the Church.

It's not schismatic for the SSPX to say people don't have to attend the NO because people don't. They aren't the only ones who advise people not to, practically all Traditional groups do the same thing. That should tell you something. And I don't think Benedict saying they aren't schismatic means much. I'm just using what he said as an argument.

Um, what he said.

Another good one

Is the Novus Ordo Mass invalid, or sacrilegious, and should I assist at it when I have no alternative?

The validity of the reformed rite of Mass, as issued in Latin by Paul VI in 1969, must be judged according to the same criteria as the validity of the other sacraments; namely matter, form and intention. The defective theology and meaning of the rites, eliminating as they do every reference to the principal propitiatory end of sacrifice, do not necessarily invalidate the Mass. The intention of doing what the Church does, even if the priest understands it imperfectly, is sufficient for validity. With respect to the matter, pure wheaten bread and true wine from grapes are what is required for validity. The changes in the words of the form in the Latin original, although certainly illicit and unprecedented in the history of the Church, do not alter the substance of its meaning, and consequently do not invalidate the Mass.

However, we all know that such a New Mass celebrated in Latin is an oddity, doomed to extinction by the very fact of the reform. The validity of the New Masses that are actually celebrated in today’s parishes more than 30 years later is a quite different question. Additives to the host sometimes invalidate the matter. The change in the translation from the words of Our Lord, "for many" to the ecuмenically acceptable "for all" throws at least some doubt on the validity of the form. Most importantly, however, is the fact that the intention of the Church of offering up a true sacrifice in propitiation for the sins of the living and the dead has been obliterated for 30 years. In fact, most liturgies present the contrary intention of a celebration by the community of the praise of God. In such circuмstances it is very easy for a priest to no longer have the intention of doing what the Church does, and for the New Mass to become invalid for this reason. The problem is that this is hidden and nobody knows. Whereas the traditional Mass expresses the true intention of the Church in a clear and unambiguous manner, so that everyone can be certain of the priest’s intention, the New Mass does no such thing. Consequently, the doubt of invalidity for lack of intention, especially in the case of manifestly modernist priests, cannot be easily lifted or removed.

Clearly, an invalid Mass is not a Mass at all, and does not satisfy the Sunday obligation. Furthermore, when it comes to the sacraments, Catholics are obliged to follow the "pars tutior," the safer path. It is not permissible to knowingly receive doubtful sacraments. Consequently nobody has the obligation to satisfy his Sunday obligation by attending the New Mass, even if there is no other alternative.

However, even if we could be certain of the validity of the Novus Ordo Masses celebrated in today’s Conciliar churches, it does not follow that they are pleasing to God. Much to the contrary, they are objectively sacrilegious, even if those who assist at them are not aware of it. By such a statement, I do not mean that all those who celebrate or assist at the New Mass are necessarily in mortal sin, having done something directly insulting to Almighty God and to our Divine Savior.

Sacrilege is a sin against the virtue of religion, and is defined as "the unbecoming treatment of a sacred person, place or thing as far as these are consecrated to God" (Jone, Moral Theology, p.108). The moral theologians explain that sacrilege is in itself and generally a mortal sin (ex genere suo), but that it is not always a mortal sin, because it can concern a relatively small or unimportant thing. Here we are speaking of a real sacrilege, the dishonoring of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, by the elimination of the prayers and ceremonies that protect its holiness, by the absence of respect, piety and adoration, and by the failure to express the Catholic doctrine of the Mass as a true propitiatory sacrifice for our sins. Here there are varying degrees. Just as it is a grave sacrilege and objective mortal sin for a lay person to touch the sacred host without reason, so it is, for example, a venial sin to do the same thing to the chalice or the blessed linens, such as the purificator or pall.

Likewise with the New Mass. It can be an objectively mortal sin of sacrilege if Holy Communion is distributed in the hand or by lay ministers, if there is no respect, if there is talking or dancing in church, or if it includes some kind of ecuмenical celebration, etc. It can also be an objectively venial sin of sacrilege if it is celebrated with unusual respect and devotion, so that it appears becoming and reverential to Almighty God. This in virtue of the omissions in the rites and ceremonies, which constitute a true disrespect to Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament and to the Blessed Trinity, and of the failure to express the true nature of what the Mass really is. In each case, the subjective culpability is an altogether other question that God only can judge.

However, regardless of the gravity of the sacrilege, the New Mass still remains a sacrilege, and it is still in itself sinful. Furthermore, it is never permitted to knowingly and willingly participate in an evil or sinful thing, even if it is only venially sinful. For the end does not justify the means. Consequently, although it is a good thing to want to assist at Mass and satisfy one’s Sunday obligation, it is never permitted to use a sinful means to do this. To assist at the New Mass, for a person who is aware of the objective sacrilege involved, is consequently at least a venial sin. It is opportunism. Consequently, it is not permissible for a traditional Catholic, who understands that the New Mass is insulting to Our Divine Savior, to assist at the New Mass, and this even if there is no danger of scandal to others or of the perversion of one’s own Faith (as in an older person, for example), and even if it is the only Mass available.  [Answered by Fr. Peter R. Scott]

Quote from: Sigismund

It was issued then.  Choose whatever word you like.  The point is that it was issued by an official act of Pope Paul VI.  It an official and approved liturgy for the Mass.

And technically you are right about the NO being a form of Mass rather than a rite.  The Latin rite has two forms.  I was imprecise there and I appreciate the correction.

The Traditional Mass is the Latin Rite of the Roman Church.

The Novus Ordo is a protestantized un-Catholic prayer service, and is not another form of the True Mass.


JMJ

 :applause:

Another good one

Quote

Is the Novus Ordo Mass invalid, or sacrilegious, and should I assist at it when I have no alternative?

The validity of the reformed rite of Mass, as issued in Latin by Paul VI in 1969, must be judged according to the same criteria as the validity of the other sacraments; namely matter, form and intention. The defective theology and meaning of the rites, eliminating as they do every reference to the principal propitiatory end of sacrifice, do not necessarily invalidate the Mass. The intention of doing what the Church does, even if the priest understands it imperfectly, is sufficient for validity. With respect to the matter, pure wheaten bread and true wine from grapes are what is required for validity. The changes in the words of the form in the Latin original, although certainly illicit and unprecedented in the history of the Church, do not alter the substance of its meaning, and consequently do not invalidate the Mass.

However, we all know that such a New Mass celebrated in Latin is an oddity, doomed to extinction by the very fact of the reform. The validity of the New Masses that are actually celebrated in today’s parishes more than 30 years later is a quite different question. Additives to the host sometimes invalidate the matter. The change in the translation from the words of Our Lord, "for many" to the ecuмenically acceptable "for all" throws at least some doubt on the validity of the form. Most importantly, however, is the fact that the intention of the Church of offering up a true sacrifice in propitiation for the sins of the living and the dead has been obliterated for 30 years. In fact, most liturgies present the contrary intention of a celebration by the community of the praise of God. In such circuмstances it is very easy for a priest to no longer have the intention of doing what the Church does, and for the New Mass to become invalid for this reason. The problem is that this is hidden and nobody knows. Whereas the traditional Mass expresses the true intention of the Church in a clear and unambiguous manner, so that everyone can be certain of the priest’s intention, the New Mass does no such thing. Consequently, the doubt of invalidity for lack of intention, especially in the case of manifestly modernist priests, cannot be easily lifted or removed.

Clearly, an invalid Mass is not a Mass at all, and does not satisfy the Sunday obligation. Furthermore, when it comes to the sacraments, Catholics are obliged to follow the "pars tutior," the safer path. It is not permissible to knowingly receive doubtful sacraments. Consequently nobody has the obligation to satisfy his Sunday obligation by attending the New Mass, even if there is no other alternative.

However, even if we could be certain of the validity of the Novus Ordo Masses celebrated in today’s Conciliar churches, it does not follow that they are pleasing to God. Much to the contrary, they are objectively sacrilegious, even if those who assist at them are not aware of it. By such a statement, I do not mean that all those who celebrate or assist at the New Mass are necessarily in mortal sin, having done something directly insulting to Almighty God and to our Divine Savior.

Sacrilege is a sin against the virtue of religion, and is defined as "the unbecoming treatment of a sacred person, place or thing as far as these are consecrated to God" (Jone, Moral Theology, p.108). The moral theologians explain that sacrilege is in itself and generally a mortal sin (ex genere suo), but that it is not always a mortal sin, because it can concern a relatively small or unimportant thing. Here we are speaking of a real sacrilege, the dishonoring of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, by the elimination of the prayers and ceremonies that protect its holiness, by the absence of respect, piety and adoration, and by the failure to express the Catholic doctrine of the Mass as a true propitiatory sacrifice for our sins. Here there are varying degrees. Just as it is a grave sacrilege and objective mortal sin for a lay person to touch the sacred host without reason, so it is, for example, a venial sin to do the same thing to the chalice or the blessed linens, such as the purificator or pall.

Likewise with the New Mass. It can be an objectively mortal sin of sacrilege if Holy Communion is distributed in the hand or by lay ministers, if there is no respect, if there is talking or dancing in church, or if it includes some kind of ecuмenical celebration, etc. It can also be an objectively venial sin of sacrilege if it is celebrated with unusual respect and devotion, so that it appears becoming and reverential to Almighty God. This in virtue of the omissions in the rites and ceremonies, which constitute a true disrespect to Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament and to the Blessed Trinity, and of the failure to express the true nature of what the Mass really is. In each case, the subjective culpability is an altogether other question that God only can judge.

However, regardless of the gravity of the sacrilege, the New Mass still remains a sacrilege, and it is still in itself sinful. Furthermore, it is never permitted to knowingly and willingly participate in an evil or sinful thing, even if it is only venially sinful. For the end does not justify the means. Consequently, although it is a good thing to want to assist at Mass and satisfy one’s Sunday obligation, it is never permitted to use a sinful means to do this. To assist at the New Mass, for a person who is aware of the objective sacrilege involved, is consequently at least a venial sin. It is opportunism. Consequently, it is not permissible for a traditional Catholic, who understands that the New Mass is insulting to Our Divine Savior, to assist at the New Mass, and this even if there is no danger of scandal to others or of the perversion of one’s own Faith (as in an older person, for example), and even if it is the only Mass available.  [Answered by Fr. Peter R. Scott]

Maybe someone can explain this to me as a new trad because it sure is confusing to me: how can something be both valid and sacrilegious?