Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Catholic Living in the Modern World => Topic started by: MrsZ on May 09, 2011, 01:50:39 PM
-
First, I realize that I'm not likely to get much sympathy here considering that we're talking about a modern Novus Ordo Mass. We are stuck here and have no options FYI.
But this is really getting to me. Most of the parishioners are covered ... but many of them are in skintight clothing either out of: ignorance, being fat or trying to be "fashionable/ hot" (i.e., still ignorant).
Several of the younger girls participate as lectors ... almost without fail, they approach the altar in either short skirts or skin tight pants. They idiotically show their "respect" to Our Lord at the Altar, by bending over at the waist to bow. (In fact all lectors EMEs do that, young/old, male/female. So the parishioners get the full effect of having that particular part of one's body outlined and emphasized as they take this posture.
No. I'm not shocked anymore. I'm just annoyed and disgusted. I strongly believe that my H and son should be able to attend Mass without having to practice custody of the eyes ... however, what can I do about this?
Our priest just averts his own eyes and looks heavenward...maybe he's saying a prayer for deliverance from the blindness of those whom he serves. But I feel he's in a bind because in our current cultural climate two things exist: one, if a man mentions that a woman is dressing immodestly, he is a creep and a pervert, and two, everyone will likely fret over the potential "loss" of the young people (women) if they are told they need to follow a dress code at church.
I'm thinking about writing a little note to father ... but he's also not really in charge of anything ...older women run the show here .. so should I send a note to one of them with the quote from Titus 2 ? Or should I bother?
-
Mrs. Z,
Oh, how I sympathize with you. All doctrinal arguments regarding the NO aside, you have hit on a huge reason why assisting at most NO Masses can be an occassion of sin anyway. Not only of lust but of wrath.
The same thing goes for any Mass. If you had a TLM where the congregation consistently dresses immodestly and nothing is done about it, it would be an occasion of sin also in my opinion.
Then, besides the immodesty, you have congregants who simply dress inappropriately for Sunday Mass hanging out in shorts, cut offs, bare shoulders, flip-flops, band t-shirts, etc. as if they were going to a Barbeque instead of Calvary.
Again, if this were the standard practice at one's weekly TLM, I don't think any of us would recommend assisting.
Ironically one of the foremost things I found refreshing about the TLM at the Society was that this was not a problem. I was simply shocked my first time at a Society Mass that the people there actually dressed like Catholics going to Mass! I almost cried out of grattitude. SO SIMPLE a thing and I could not find it ANYWHERE in my entire diocese (including the indult church) nor at hardly any NO Masses in my life (with a few exceptions). It is truly as if the priests & bishops DO NOT CARE. Every excuse in the book is made for them, but in the end actions speak louder than words. They do zip. And when they do try, like posting dress guidelines on the door of the church) they are ignored with impunity and the pastor does nothing to back them up.
Maddening. Absolutely maddening. All arguments about the substance of the NO aside, this one factor, the dress and demeanor of the faithful and the inaction of the priests, ALONE, in my opinion, is enough to make one flee the NO milieu for fear of losing one's faith. I could be wrong, but that's how I feel.
-
First, I realize that I'm not likely to get much sympathy here considering that we're talking about a modern Novus Ordo Mass. We are stuck here and have no options FYI.
This is not accurate. You DO have options.
From the SSPX website about attending the Novus Ordo when there's "no other options":
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]
Emphasis added.
Source: http://www.sspx.org/Catholic_FAQs/catholic_faqs__traditional.htm#attendnovusordo
-
I still sympathize with Mrs. Z. When one has no TLM anywhere around, one begins to seriously miss receiving Holy Communion and also some semblance of Catholic life. Also does one just not go to confession rather than confess to an NO priest?
In effect one in that situation becomes an isolated home aloner through no fault of their own. That said I see what you are saying TKGS. It sounds like a crummy no-win situation.
Are there no TLM's within drivng distance of you, Mrs. Z?
-
The true definition of a home-aloner is someone who stays home from Mass on Sundays because they think the Faith can be kept at home and that one does not need the Mass (Traditional Latin Mass). You aren't a home-aloner if you refuse to attend the Novus Ordo.
I don't go to Confession in my area simply because there are no Traditional priests where I live, not unless I were to travel 2+ hours. Confession at a NO parish is more of just a casual meeting, there's nothing serious about it really. It reminds me of this one SSPX priest who walked into an NO parish one day and the parish priest was sitting in the pews with his feet propped up. The Traditional priest (he may not have been a priest at the time) said "I'd like to go to Confession". The NO priest turns around and asks him why. The Traditional priest responds 'I have some sins I'd like to confess". The NO priest then gets up and says "Alright, if you really want to know that Jesus still loves you". The Confessional had been used as a broom closet for a number of years (this is a true story, by the way).
Anyway, as far as Confession, in such a situation as this you're better off just privately confessing your sins to God. You can say both the Confetior (it's not just for the TLM, it can be said at home) and Act of Contrition at night. I, too, sympathize with you Mrs. Z. It sounds like you're in a similar situation that I am in.
-
SS,
Even the DIMONDS, of all people, recognize the validity of the NO form of confession.
If it is impossible to get to a Traditional priest, I would confess to the most conservative NO priest you can find if you are aware of serious sin on your soul or are even in doubt. Better safe than sorry...
-
No, there are no traditional masses for hundreds of miles north or south of us. We do not believe that it is an option to just stop attending Mass. Our belief is that for whatever reason the Lord allowed this crisis to hit the Church and that He wouldn't allow a situation to occur where we were obliged to abstain from the Sacraments or the Mass entirely ... or that it would be more clear: such as not having any Mass anywhere at all. Frankly, I'd almost prefer that at times .. at least it wouldn't be left up to each person to discern the right thing to do here.
I realize this is a pro SSPX forum and I do not wish to debate that with anyone. We just don't feel safe operating outside of our diocese and outside the hierarchy of the Church. We do recognize the many errors of the Church in the last 4 decades, but have not come to the conclusion that those errors indicate a complete loss of the Magisterium or the hierarchal structure that is there for the safeguarding of the Faith.
The positive aspect of this particular parish, is that within the limitations of what goes on for a N.O. Mass, our priest is fairly devout and the Mass itself is mostly carried out in a serious manner.
But we have also have the earmarks of the modern Mass: the altar girls, all the laypeople on the altar, mostly women, and the immodest or overly casual dress. I just wish there was some way of at least communicating the idea that the women of the parish can and should say something to assist these young women in doing the right thing. I wish they understood that they will have to answer for what they've done or failed to do in this regard.
For that matter, I, too am going to have to answer for this as well. :sad:
-
if they showed up at padre pio church wearing provocative clothing he would have beat them up
is there anything wrong with a priest beating up people who show up in skanky/innapropriate clothing?
-
I recommend you get a subscription to The Four Marks. Perhaps you'll get a better understanding of the hierarchy of the Church.
I understand that there is a crisis in the Church today. I am wondering why you think that God will ensure that you, personally, will always be able to attend Mass when, through history, there have countless numbers of Catholics deprived of the Mass (e.g., the English in the time of Elizabeth I, the Japanese after all priests were expelled from Japan by the Japanese Emporer, Catholics throughout the Roman Empire during the Arian Crisis, etc.) for long periods of time, even for generations.
I would like to know what city you live near, because there may be many viable options for you that you are just unaware of. The Conciliar church does wonders in keeping its captives from knowing the Truth about the Church.
The website where you can find subscription information for The Four Marks: http://www.thefourmarks.com/
-
Even the DIMONDS, of all people, recognize the validity of the NO form of confession.
Maybe they should put themselves up for their "Heresy of the Week" and... :scared2:...excommunicate themselves!! :laugh2:
:roll-laugh2: :dancing-banana: :jester: :roll-laugh1:
-
The true definition of a home-aloner is someone who stays home from Mass on Sundays because they think the Faith can be kept at home and that one does not need the Mass (Traditional Latin Mass). You aren't a home-aloner if you refuse to attend the Novus Ordo.
I don't go to Confession in my area simply because there are no Traditional priests where I live, not unless I were to travel 2+ hours. Confession at a NO parish is more of just a casual meeting, there's nothing serious about it really. It reminds me of this one SSPX priest who walked into an NO parish one day and the parish priest was sitting in the pews with his feet propped up. The Traditional priest (he may not have been a priest at the time) said "I'd like to go to Confession". The NO priest turns around and asks him why. The Traditional priest responds 'I have some sins I'd like to confess". The NO priest then gets up and says "Alright, if you really want to know that Jesus still loves you". The Confessional had been used as a broom closet for a number of years (this is a true story, by the way).
Anyway, as far as Confession, in such a situation as this you're better off just privately confessing your sins to God. You can say both the Confetior (it's not just for the TLM, it can be said at home) and Act of Contrition at night. I, too, sympathize with you Mrs. Z. It sounds like you're in a similar situation that I am in.
From my understanding this post is correct, out of neccessity you can confess to God directly but once you find a true mass and are able to confess to a legitamate priest you must do it.
I believe it works just like general absolutions in war, a general absolution is not licit under normal circuмstances, but under extrordinary circuмstaces it can be in say just before a battle the priest conditionally absolves everyone of sins. If they die it is valid, if they live they still have to confess.
I am not a Priest, I believe that what I have written is truthful but I suggest making sure.
I also do not know if your mass is valid or not. I believe all the Novus Ordo masses around me are invalid. That is my belief. I drive 30 min to the SSPX chapel in the next city over.
-
SS,
Even the DIMONDS, of all people, recognize the validity of the NO form of confession.
If it is impossible to get to a Traditional priest, I would confess to the most conservative NO priest you can find if you are aware of serious sin on your soul or are even in doubt. Better safe than sorry...
And I care what the heretical Dimonds think because...?
Confessing to a conservative NO priest doesn't change the fact that the NO form of Confession isn't the way I want my sins confessed. I'm better off doing what I am now.
-
Mrs Z, if you have access to an SSPX chapel, I suggest you attend. Attending an SSPX Mass does not "place you outside the Church". For the record, Benedict lifted their excommunications and said it was ok to attend their Masses.
-
Please don't stop going to Mass. The SSPX is not the Church, and the fact that they seem to think they can absolve you of your Sunday Mass obligation sounds very like an exercise of jurisdiction, something they cannot claim, to have without schism. The theological opinion that a rite officially promulgated by the Church is and objective sacrilege, not matter how rubrically and reverently it is offered, is not a hook I would hang my soul on.
-
Confessing to a conservative NO priest doesn't change the fact that the NO form of Confession isn't the way I want my sins confessed. I'm better off doing what I am now.
Well, it's all about the way YOU want your sins confessed, isn't it? I wouldn't want that to be my only argument when Our Lord asks why I died with an unconfessed mortal sin on my soul.
"I knew I could have validly confessed to the NO priest Lord, but it's just not the way I want my sins confessed, so I didn't do it.
Good luck with that one!
-
Mrs. Z,
I'd scout around and see if you can find a more conservative NO within driving distance. Ask around and see which priest/ parish has a reputation of being the most conservative. Look for perpetual adoration, statues, tabernacle in the center, crucifix, frequent confession times, etc.
-
Please don't stop going to Mass. The SSPX is not the Church, and the fact that they seem to think they can absolve you of your Sunday Mass obligation sounds very like an exercise of jurisdiction, something they cannot claim, to have without schism. The theological opinion that a rite officially promulgated by the Church is and objective sacrilege, not matter how rubrically and reverently it is offered, is not a hook I would hang my soul on.
This is absurd. How can the SSPX be in schism? Come on, Benedict lifted their excommunication and said people could attend their Masses. If not for the SSPX there would likely bo ne Traditional Latin Mass. You think the Novus Ordo is a valid Catholic Rite? That's highly debatable. How can a service created by Freemasons to please the Protestants be Catholic? It is not! You seem to be a semi-Trad.
-
Confessing to a conservative NO priest doesn't change the fact that the NO form of Confession isn't the way I want my sins confessed. I'm better off doing what I am now.
Well, it's all about the way YOU want your sins confessed, isn't it? I wouldn't want that to be my only argument when Our Lord asks why I died with an unconfessed mortal sin on my soul.
"I knew I could have validly confessed to the NO priest Lord, but it's just not the way I want my sins confessed, so I didn't do it.
Good luck with that one!
No, it's about the way my sins are supposed to be confessed. If you ask around, I gaurantee I'm not the only one who won't confess their sins to an NO priest. I've seen one or two other people say the same thing. Again, you can also have your sins confessed by confessing them to God Himself!
-
Mrs. Z,
I'd scout around and see if you can find a more conservative NO within driving distance. Ask around and see which priest/ parish has a reputation of being the most conservative. Look for perpetual adoration, statues, tabernacle in the center, crucifix, frequent confession times, etc.
No, the NO should be avoided at all costs because it is not Catholic. A "Mass" founded on the the foundations of Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ and Protestantism cannot be Catholic. She's better off staying home and making a Spiritual Communion.
-
Again, you can also have your sins confessed by confessing them to God Himself!
Luther would be proud!
If you ask around, I gaurantee I'm not the only one who won't confess their sins to an NO priest. I've seen one or two other people say the same thing.
Another argument I wouldn't want to rely on at my Judgment. "Lord, other people were doing it too!"
-
Maybe an explanation from SS as to why he believes the NO form is invalid? Is it the vernacular SS? The prayers and intent? What about it leads you to doubt its validity?
I personally will go to a NO priest- but I only go to a very old one who is getting ready to retire unfortunately. He had been chastised by the bishops in California for a remark he made against Clinton and abortions years back... You don't want to offend the liberal Bishops now do you...?
-
I'm not going to enter into the debate about whether or not the SSPX is valid or not. I never thought of our perspective on the N.O. Mass and lack of trad mass opportunities to be an indicator of our own personal selfishness, as has been implied here. :thinking:
Even if we were so inclined to attend an SSPX service, the nearest one to us, again is in the same city that the FSSP is, and that's hundreds of miles from here. A couple of hours from here, a regular N.O. parish has a "Latin Mass" once a week ... but it's not a traditional parish by any means. And that's still 2.0 - 2.5 hours from where we live.
We live in a rural town that has about 3,000 pop. The nearest "city" is an hour from here and has only N.O. masses at two different Catholic churches.
-
Also, what I wanted to know, and why I posted this question was wondering if I should try to communicate with Father or the women who run the parish about advising young (and sometimes older) women to have modesty in dress and in posture.
Can anyone give me some suggestions about that?
-
I'm not going to enter into the debate about whether or not the SSPX is valid or not.
MrsZ- there is no debate- sorry, only calumniations and other insincere attacks from evil people who are there only to confuse the sheep.
I never thought of our perspective on the N.O. Mass and lack of trad mass opportunities to be an indicator of our own personal selfishness, as has been implied here. :thinking:
I don't see you as being selfish, only mislead. I wonder how much history research you've done on Vatican II Mrs. Z. Did you have a chance to read "Archbishop Lefebvres Personal Reminiscences of Dealing with Bugnini JPII "
Here it is:
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Archbishop-Lefebvres-Personal-Reminiscences-of-Dealing-with-Bugnini-JPII
Please excuse me if you have read on the subjects. I just don't see how anyone could have and not have a different opinion on the NO and NO Church as you seem to want to keep allegiance with...?
We're not able to attend traditional masses more than a couple times a year, if that.
I don't know if it makes a difference, but have you looked into an independent priest as an option?
-
I'd definitely raise the issue with the Pastor.
If he does anything about it, I'd be surprised, but at least you will have done your duty.
-
s2srea: let me see if I can make this more clear to you. I am a married wife and mother. My H works and provides for the family and always has. We've lived in this county since 1998, before I converted to Catholicism. My H was raised N.O. in the 70's and 80's. We had never heard of tradition until Mel Gibson made "The Passion of the Christ." I, personally, took it upon myself to learn more on the internet.
We've read many books, subscribed to The Remnant, Latin Mass and Catholic Family News in the past.
My H while he believes the traditional Mass is the better form and is much more conservative and orthodox than he's ever been ... has never felt, as I did, that we needed to leave this town to move to a place that had a Traditional Mass. He refused to even consider it for one second. He will not move to a big city to accomodate such a plan, valuing the small town life we have here.
I tried FOR YEARS to talk to, persuade and convince my H that we were doing the wrong thing by staying here and attending the N.O. Mass. He has refused to budge.
We currently own a home that has dropped tremendously in value over the last few years, and we would not be able to sell it or have enough money left over to buy another house. We are not leaving our house here and renting elsewhere, either.
I came to the conclusion that God was either allowing or willing our circuмstances for a particular reason. That my fighting my H about this issue was causing a divided household and that wasn't God's will, of that I'm sure.
I've also learned that there is no ideal trad Catholic community and that there seems to be a lot of infighting and and judgmentalism going on. Yes, it's everywhere ... but I woke up to my silly dream that there was some perfect place, isolated from the world where we could live as perfect Catholics.
It seems to me that God doesn't want us all to group together and hide from the ugly worldlings. He wants us to be salt and light wherever we are and try to lead by example.
That's why I'm asking about this issue..the N.O. types are smiling blindly at the cirumstance I described and they needed to be awakened from their slumber.
The question is how to do it ... and if I personally should be doing it.
-
I'd definitely raise the issue with the Pastor.
If he does anything about it, I'd be surprised, but at least you will have done your duty.
I agree.
-
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!
-
Maybe an explanation from SS as to why he believes the NO form is invalid? Is it the vernacular SS? The prayers and intent? What about it leads you to doubt its validity?
First of all, as you can see by looking at my signature, Archbishop LeFebvre didn't think the NO was Catholic, apparently. Also, it was no doubt created by a Freemason whose goal was to make a "Mass" that would please the Protestants. My thing is, how can such a creation be Catholic? Not to mention that they changed the words of Our Lord during the Consecration. I think the Consecration during a Latin NO would be valid, but I doubt that would make the Mass itself valid.
-
Again, you can also have your sins confessed by confessing them to God Himself!
Luther would be proud!
If you ask around, I gaurantee I'm not the only one who won't confess their sins to an NO priest. I've seen one or two other people say the same thing.
Another argument I wouldn't want to rely on at my Judgment. "Lord, other people were doing it too!"
Stevus, I would do this even if nobody else did it. I could not care less who does what, I only said that because you acted as if though I'm the only one here who thinks in such terms.
-
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:
-
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.
-
Please don't stop going to Mass. The SSPX is not the Church, and the fact that they seem to think they can absolve you of your Sunday Mass obligation sounds very like an exercise of jurisdiction, something they cannot claim, to have without schism. The theological opinion that a rite officially promulgated by the Church is and objective sacrilege, not matter how rubrically and reverently it is offered, is not a hook I would hang my soul on.
This is absurd. How can the SSPX be in schism? Come on, Benedict lifted their excommunication and said people could attend their Masses. If not for the SSPX there would likely bo ne Traditional Latin Mass. You think the Novus Ordo is a valid Catholic Rite? That's highly debatable. How can a service created by Freemasons to please the Protestants be Catholic? It is not! You seem to be a semi-Trad.
I have said I was a semi-trad from the very moment I introduced my self on this forum. Yes, I do think the NO is a valid Catholic rite because the one true Church of Christ promulgated it. I am painfully aware of the frequency with which it is celebrated badly, and I have seen NO Masses that were invalid. However, it is inconceivable that the Church could promulgate an essentially invalid and sacrilegious rite. If you are a Sedevacantist and are convinced that the "Conciliar" Church is not the Church at all and that the men in white who have promulgated this rite are not popes, then I understand this point. However, if you believe that they are popes, as the SSPX claims to believe, then this is simply incoherent.
Also, I did not say that the SSPX was in schism The pope says they are not. I am a bit puzzled that you seem to think the fact that the pope says they are not means very much. I simply said that arrogating jurisdiction to yourself when you don't have it is a schismatic act. Telling people they don't have to go to Mass if the rite in which it is celebrated is not to their liking sounds a lot like schism, though. It certainly would be if my son, who is a Byzantine rite priest, told his congregants they did not have to attend a non-Byzantine Catholic liturgy if that is all that is available.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Novus Ordo was not promulgated, show me where it was.
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/apost_constitutions/docuмents/hf_p-vi_apc_19690403_missale-romanum_en.html
-
Um, what he said.
-
I was looking for the quote I saw that says that the Novus Ordo was not technically promulgated(made law). But while I was looking I found a quote that is far better for this thread.
From Father Scott of SSPX, former District Superior of the USA and currently the head of the SSPX School about an hour away from me.
Can a traditional Catholic go to confession to a Novus Ordo priest?
It would certainly be valid to go to confession to a priest who still celebrates the Novus Ordo Mass, provided that the penitent were assured of the doctrinal orthodoxy of the priest, his intention of doing what the Church does, and his use of the correct formula of absolution. It would furthermore be permissible in a state of necessity, such as when a person is dying and no traditional priest can be found.
However, it is not easy to have the assurance of a valid absolution, given the fact that the post-Conciliar Church consistently downgrades the reality and gravity of mortal sin, the benefits of confessing venial sins, the graces to be obtained from frequent confession, and the necessity of doing penance. Very often souls who have felt the urgent need to go to a Novus Ordo priest have come to me afterwards in confession, doubting the validity of their confession to this priest, on account of his trivializing of their sins.
Furthermore, I do not hesitate to strongly recommend against going to confession to such a priest, even when there is an assurance of a valid absolution. A penitent does not go to confession simply to receive the absolution of his sins. He has the desire to receive all the effects of the sacrament, including the direction, and if need be reprimand of the confessor, growth in the love of God and in sanctifying grace, a firmer purpose of amendment and the satisfaction of the temporal punishment due to his sins. All this is only possible if he sees in the confessor a judge, a teacher, and a physician. It is to guarantee these full effects of the sacrament of Penance that the Church supplies jurisdiction so that the faithful can ask any priest to hear their confessions, for any just reason (canon 2261, §2, 1917 Code and canon 1335 of the 1983 Code).
Manifestly it is not possible to have confidence in the guidance of a priest who compromises with modernism by celebrating the New Mass, even if he otherwise appears orthodox. Neither his judgment as to the reality of our contrition, nor his instruction as to the gravity of our sins, nor his remedies for the ills of our sins can be depended upon. The supernatural vision of Faith will necessarily have been undermined by the humanism and naturalism of the New Mass and the spirit of Vatican II. Our souls are much too precious to place in the hands of those who lack conviction.
Consequently, outside case of danger of death, it is preferable to make an act of perfect contrition, and to wait until one can open one’s soul to a traditional priest that can be trusted. [Answered by Fr. Peter R. Scott]
-
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]
-
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
-
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:
-
Mrs. Z,
Here you go...
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2011/05/editorial-note-we-apologize-for-late.html
Your weapon! Print a copy and attach it to your request for the TLM at your parish. See if you can get a petition going.
-
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]
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?
-
Mrs. Z,
Oh, how I sympathize with you. All doctrinal arguments regarding the NO aside, you have hit on a huge reason why assisting at most NO Masses can be an occassion of sin anyway. Not only of lust but of wrath.
The same thing goes for any Mass. If you had a TLM where the congregation consistently dresses immodestly and nothing is done about it, it would be an occasion of sin also in my opinion.
Then, besides the immodesty, you have congregants who simply dress inappropriately for Sunday Mass hanging out in shorts, cut offs, bare shoulders, flip-flops, band t-shirts, etc. as if they were going to a Barbeque instead of Calvary.
Stevus, when it comes to the doctrinal arguments against the NO, I would say that the way these people behave is a reflection of what they really believe. They don't have the faith, so essentially almost anything goes.
-
Oremus said:
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?
Trent already covered this, when it declared that anyone who said the rites of the Catholic Church could be "incentives to impiety" was anathema. SSPX wriggle around this by saying that the framework of the Novus Ordo Mass as proposed by Rome is not sacrilegious, but that it lends itself to sacrilege, more or less, depending on the priest who performs it.
In this article the writer mentions certain examples of when he considers a NO Mass to be sacrilegious, but doesn't say that the NO is sacrilegious in itself.
-
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.
Would you be willing to share the strong reasons for beleiving that Paul VI was an a Freemason?
Even if he was (which I know of no reason to believe) that would have been a private heresy, no? He would still be pope.
-
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:
Well, we are going to have to disagree here.
-
LordPhan,
The quotes you offer ably and eloquently set out the SSPX position. They are also an indication of why I think the SSPX wrong. Not wrong about everything, certainly. But I think they are wrong about the NO (when celebrated rubirically).
-
Oremus said:
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?
Trent already covered this, when it declared that anyone who said the rites of the Catholic Church could be "incentives to impiety" was anathema. SSPX wriggle around this by saying that the framework of the Novus Ordo Mass as proposed by Rome is not sacrilegious, but that it lends itself to sacrilege, more or less, depending on the priest who performs it.
In this article the writer mentions certain examples of when he considers a NO Mass to be sacrilegious, but doesn't say that the NO is sacrilegious in itself.
So one could argue that if a person finds a priest that celebrates the NO Mass exactly according to the prescribed rubrics, then they are attending a valid, licit Mass (according to the SSPX)?
I'm not trying to be difficult as I prefer the TLM, but anyone that prefers the NO Mass can use this argument and then we're back at square 1.
-
http://www.christorchaos.com/ACompassPointingDueSouth.htm
While we must pray for our shepherds daily, we do not owe them obedience when they demand us to abandon the Church's authentic Tradition and when they promote or tolerate things repugnant to the Faith. We are not obliged to render obedience, even to those who have lawful authority, when they command us to do or believe things that are offensive to God and injurious to our own souls. This has pertinence to Novus Ordo Missae itself, as Father Ronald Ringrose noted so succinctly and so precisely in The Angelus Press's Priest, Where is Thy Mass? Mass, Where is Thy Priest?:
Well, there you've got the crux of the problem. See, insofar as it is a Mass, of course, it can't be evil. But, insofar as any Mass is schismatic, it is evil. The sacrifice of Jesus Christ is of infinite value and is infinitely acceptable to the Father. But the circuмstances of the Mass can be evil, and certainly if it is a Mass said by a schismatic, it is evil under the aspect. The New Mass is evil under the aspect that it is Protestant, ambiguous, not a clear expression of Catholic doctrine. No Mass is per se evil, bit it is evil secundum quid.
-
No Mass is evil because a true Mass cannot be evil. The NO is evil because it's a Freemasonic service, not a Mass. Overall I agree with your post, Stevus.
-
http://www.christorchaos.com/ACompassPointingDueSouth.htm
While we must pray for our shepherds daily, we do not owe them obedience when they demand us to abandon the Church's authentic Tradition and when they promote or tolerate things repugnant to the Faith. We are not obliged to render obedience, even to those who have lawful authority, when they command us to do or believe things that are offensive to God and injurious to our own souls. This has pertinence to Novus Ordo Missae itself, as Father Ronald Ringrose noted so succinctly and so precisely in The Angelus Press's Priest, Where is Thy Mass? Mass, Where is Thy Priest?:
Well, there you've got the crux of the problem. See, insofar as it is a Mass, of course, it can't be evil. But, insofar as any Mass is schismatic, it is evil. The sacrifice of Jesus Christ is of infinite value and is infinitely acceptable to the Father. But the circuмstances of the Mass can be evil, and certainly if it is a Mass said by a schismatic, it is evil under the aspect. The New Mass is evil under the aspect that it is Protestant, ambiguous, not a clear expression of Catholic doctrine. No Mass is per se evil, bit it is evil secundum quid.
I've read that book twice and I've attended Mass at St. Athanasius a few times (that's where Fr. Ringrose is located). Fr. Ringrose gives excellent homilies. On a side note, I've gotten the impression that he is borderline sedevacantist...he seems to have a difficult time acknowledging Benedict XVI (you can visibly see that he has a hard time with it).
Given his ability to give excellent homilies, I was surprised when I read that he stated the NO Mass is evil secundum quid. The secundum quid argument means that the argument is made by applying a general statement to an irrelevant situation. For example, a secundum quid argument would go something like:
Guns kill people.
Policeman carry guns.
Policeman are killers.
(Not the best example, but the only one I could think of at the moment).
I'm asking these questions here because my RCIA sponsor (who is a good friend) and I had these same arguments recently. He is very modernist; the NO people have convinced him that it's ok to cohabitate with his girlfriend. I've been trying to steer him towards traditionalism because I feel it's my duty. But I'm not a smart traditionalist; I know why I avoid the NO Mass but I can't defend my reasons with canon law or teachings of the Church's best teachers. So I pointed him to the SSPX website, hoping that he would understand. But it confused him even more for the reasons I've stated (NO Mass is valid but sacrilegious etc).
So any help one could give is appreciated.
(And I'm sorry to the OP for hijacking the thread. If you like, I can move this to a new thread).
-
http://www.christorchaos.com/ACompassPointingDueSouth.htm
While we must pray for our shepherds daily, we do not owe them obedience when they demand us to abandon the Church's authentic Tradition and when they promote or tolerate things repugnant to the Faith. We are not obliged to render obedience, even to those who have lawful authority, when they command us to do or believe things that are offensive to God and injurious to our own souls. This has pertinence to Novus Ordo Missae itself, as Father Ronald Ringrose noted so succinctly and so precisely in The Angelus Press's Priest, Where is Thy Mass? Mass, Where is Thy Priest?:
Well, there you've got the crux of the problem. See, insofar as it is a Mass, of course, it can't be evil. But, insofar as any Mass is schismatic, it is evil. The sacrifice of Jesus Christ is of infinite value and is infinitely acceptable to the Father. But the circuмstances of the Mass can be evil, and certainly if it is a Mass said by a schismatic, it is evil under the aspect. The New Mass is evil under the aspect that it is Protestant, ambiguous, not a clear expression of Catholic doctrine. No Mass is per se evil, bit it is evil secundum quid.
I've read that book twice and I've attended Mass at St. Athanasius a few times (that's where Fr. Ringrose is located). Fr. Ringrose gives excellent homilies. On a side note, I've gotten the impression that he is borderline sedevacantist...he seems to have a difficult time acknowledging Benedict XVI (you can visibly see that he has a hard time with it).
Given his ability to give excellent homilies, I was surprised when I read that he stated the NO Mass is evil secundum quid. The secundum quid argument means that the argument is made by applying a general statement to an irrelevant situation. For example, a secundum quid argument would go something like:
Guns kill people.
Policeman carry guns.
Policeman are killers.
(Not the best example, but the only one I could think of at the moment).
I'm asking these questions here because my RCIA sponsor (who is a good friend) and I had these same arguments recently. He is very modernist; the NO people have convinced him that it's ok to cohabitate with his girlfriend. I've been trying to steer him towards traditionalism because I feel it's my duty. But I'm not a smart traditionalist; I know why I avoid the NO Mass but I can't defend my reasons with canon law or teachings of the Church's best teachers. So I pointed him to the SSPX website, hoping that he would understand. But it confused him even more for the reasons I've stated (NO Mass is valid but sacrilegious etc).
So any help one could give is appreciated.
(And I'm sorry to the OP for hijacking the thread. If you like, I can move this to a new thread).
To your first point, it allowable in the SSPX to hold privately that one of or all of the last 4 Popes are not valid due to heresy. It is not allowable to condemn someone for holding a differing view on it. Even if your Priest believes they are not real Popes, he would know we do not have the authority to condemn a Pope. We need a future Pope to do so, which some of us believe will happen, on the example of Honorius.
To your second point. I am not an expert so this is opinion.
The Original Rubrics of the Novus Ordo Mass had it in Latin, and it was different then what is happening now. I believe Father Scott means that if it was done perfectly the way it was originally written without the sacrilidges it might be valid if you had a validly ordained Priest who had the proper intention and who didn't allow any of the other heresies in, then it MAY be a valid mass in such that it came from a Pope(assuming he was a Pope, which I agree with SS in that I believe he wasn't) though even if that were the case, it would still be displeasing to God, just as the story of Cain and Abel. Abel worshiped the way God wanted, Cain worshiped the way HE wanted to, and God was displeased.
Now the main sacrilidges I know in the Novus Ordo off the top of my head are(and there are probably more):
Touching the eucharist with an unconcecrated hand. Even minor orders are not allowed to touch the eucharist.
extraordinary ministers are heresy, especially women.
Alter Girls
Taking out the statues of our Saints
Not Genuflecting while recieving the eucharist
Allowing women to speak and teach to the laity
Allowing non-priests to speak and teach to the laity
Protestant songs
The dancing and singing etc,.
Clown masses and the other total heresies
Mistranslating of For Many to For All
Preaching modernisms
Preaching equality
Preaching obedience to the UN(This I saw in person)
Furthermore, they changed the rituals on concecration and Paul VI suppresed minor orders. This alone is a heresy. Most if not all NO Priests who convert to the catholic faith are conditionally ordained.(The condition being that they wern't previously)
I might not be the best at describing this, maybe someone else would be of better help, but I thought I'd answer anyway.
-
Actually I should have wrote sacrilidges and heresies in my post above, since some of what I listed might be heresy and not sacrilidge.