I have the opportunity to go on a retreat at a monastery later this month, and am wondering what people have to say about it. It is a novus ordo monastery without the TLM. I went to a retreat before and enjoyed it, and found it to be a spiritual help, and though the novus ordo monasteries are without TLM the monks i met last time were very orthodox. Do you think I ought to go?

No

Keep your time and money for a St Ignatius retreat which usually happen in the summer months.  One for men and one for women. It would take a whole lifetime of internet research to reach any where near the what you would get for your Faith in 5 days on a SI retreat.  Other than that there is the Marian Retreat next may by Fr Loschi.  This is 3 days but mixed.  Also very very worthwhile.  The May retreat is not set in stone yet.

TCat,
Do you not get that the NO, which you would most likely be expected to attend, is sacrilegious?  And how can you think it's valid?  I know you've cited some sources about its validity.  But if you're sedevacantist, by whose authority was it promulgated?  Certainly if you're sede, you believe Paul VI to have been an anti-Pope.

I have the opportunity to go on a retreat at a monastery later this month, and am wondering what people have to say about it. It is a novus ordo monastery without the TLM. I went to a retreat before and enjoyed it, and found it to be a spiritual help, and though the novus ordo monasteries are without TLM the monks i met last time were very orthodox. Do you think I ought to go?

I'm just going to use a (paraphrased from my recollection) quote from Father Bolduc (RIP) in regards to your question.

"Some people keep asking me, 'Can I go to this wedding,' or 'Can I go to that funeral' or 'Can I go to this Novus Ordo retreat?' They think I'm going to give them a different answer to the same questions. Are their heads so thick that the message isn't getting through, or are their heads so empty that it goes in one ear and out the other?"

His answer was always no.

If you are so interested in visiting and possibly joining a monastery, why not look into the Resistance ones?

The Resistance only has one monastery as far as I know, and they speak spanish.
It is not reasonable to expect me to learn spanish. I hate that language.

TCat,
Do you not get that the NO, which you would most likely be expected to attend, is sacrilegious?  And how can you think it's valid?  I know you've cited some sources about its validity.  But if you're sedevacantist, by whose authority was it promulgated?  Certainly if you're sede, you believe Paul VI to have been an anti-Pope.

I think people on here know that I think the new rites are valid, but are a sacrilege.
If the mass of the early church was valid, the new mass is valid. I dont care about pope's authority, it is not necessary to introduce a rite which is more like the early church forgotten rites. The church substitutes validity for anything doubtful about priest's intention. As for the new ordination rites. There were more basic rites in the early church with something as simple as laying of hands and saying "I ordain you",
therefore the new ordination rites are valid. Anyone who says otherwise is being overly legalistic about it all. The highest mission of the church is to save souls, and that being the case, if it would save souls for someone to become a priest and he is ordained in a doubtful ceremony, the church substitutes for the failings and he is a priest. The debate over the ordination rites is pure garbage. If it was valid then it is valid now. Just because Pope Leo 13th declared the Anglican rite invalid does not mean that it is invalid if the Catholic church does the same thing. The novus ordo is still the Catholic church, there are Catholics amongst the novus ordo, not many, but there are.

So I think that by going to a retreat I get to meet Catholics and discuss things of relevance to my faith and my future. I go there to get information and answers and I dont think it is a bad thing at all, in fact I think it is noteworthy. Some people spend too much time stuck in their own little groups and cut off from the rest of the world to know the merits of such a thing. It is easy to criticize isint it, sitting there at your computer, posting an opinion just to fit in with the other anti-novus ordo on here, but the world is bigger than the computer, and perhaps there is a reality that some of you are unwilling to recognize.

Hi SG, I'm in blue.

I think people on here know that I think the new rites are valid, but are a sacrilege.  That is probably accurate.  That represents my view on the new mass, at least distilled.
If the mass of the early church was valid, the new mass is valid.  That does not follow.  Sacramental theology requires matter, form and intent.  As long as the Novus Ordo satisfies those three things, it is "valid" inasmuch as transubstantiation occurs-- though of course, it must be performed by a true priest, and many traditional Catholics have doubts about the new orders, and a doubt against a sacrament obliges one to not participate in it. I dont care about pope's authority, it is not necessary to introduce a rite which is more like the early church forgotten rites.  No it wasn't necessary, but what do you mean you don't care about the pope's authority? The church substitutes validity for anything doubtful about priest's intention.  Actually, no She doesn't.  Where did you learn this?   As for the new ordination rites. There were more basic rites in the early church with something as simple as laying of hands and saying "I ordain you",
therefore the new ordination rites are valid.  A previously valid rite, if employed, is valid-- yes; however the new rites of orders are not identical to any previous rite, so they must be judged on their own merits.  In the case of the episcopacy in particular, Pius XII teaches that the form of the sacrament must express both the order and grace received, and must express them unequivocally (i.e., must express them BOTH, and separately) and such a form is not found in the new rite of episcopal consecration, ergo the doubts).   Anyone who says otherwise is being overly legalistic about it all.  Are they?  Sacramental theology is actually quite simple as concerns validity.  Only three things are required, and one of those things (intention) is presumed to occur so long as the other two are present (form and matter).  To insist that these conditions be fulfilled is hardly legalistic, it is the perennial teaching of the Church. The highest mission of the church is to save souls, and that being the case, if it would save souls for someone to become a priest and he is ordained in a doubtful ceremony, the church substitutes for the failings and he is a priest.  You are confusing concepts.  The Church supplies JURISDICTION when it is lacking (and only under certain conditions) but She does NOT provide orders, and She does not provide for validity when it is lacking.  Anyways, the mission of the Catholic Church is to save souls; the mission of the Novus Ordo Church is to confuse souls and obfuscate the truth, so it's quite apropos that the NO Church would be full of doubtful sacraments.   The debate over the ordination rites is pure garbage. If it was valid then it is valid now.  Except that the new rites share only accidental properties with older valid rites, the essential form is quite different. Just because Pope Leo 13th declared the Anglican rite invalid does not mean that it is invalid if the Catholic church does the same thing.  True, but the argument isn't that "because the Anglicans don't have valid orders, the Novus Ordo doesn't either.  The argument is that the Novus Ordo orders have a defect of form, and are therefore either invalid or doubtful, but in either case one must stay away if he regards them as such. The novus ordo is still the Catholic church, there are Catholics amongst the novus ordo, not many, but there are.  The Catholic Church CANNOT give error, so it cannot be said that the Catholic Church and the Novus Ordo are one and the same.  There are Catholics laboring under the unjust yoke of the Novus Ordo, yes, but that is not to say that the Novus Ordo Church is Catholic.  It does not follow. In fact, the opposite follows.

So I think that by going to a retreat I get to meet Catholics and discuss things of relevance to my faith and my future. I go there to get information and answers and I dont think it is a bad thing at all, in fact I think it is noteworthy. Some people spend too much time stuck in their own little groups and cut off from the rest of the world to know the merits of such a thing. It is easy to criticize isint it, sitting there at your computer, posting an opinion just to fit in with the other anti-novus ordo on here, but the world is bigger than the computer, and perhaps there is a reality that some of you are unwilling to recognize.

I don't have time to address your last paragraph, but what I've said so far should hopefully make you see that the problems in attending a Novus Ordo retreat far outweigh any perceived benefits.

I would go.

If that is what you want to do then do it.

If you believe that the NO is sacrilege but valid, then there is no reason for you to debate the issue with people who feel differently.