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.

Quote from: J.Paul

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:

Well, we are going to have to disagree here.

Oremus said:

Quote

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.

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.

Quote from: stevusmagnus

http://www.christorchaos.com/ACompassPointingDueSouth.htm

Quote

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.