"The Novus Ordo violates St. Pius V's Quo Primum. The Mass is not supposed to be altered. "


Totally! But it is still valid and not evil. In our times, we must be pragmatic. Thus one may legitimately attend.
   

1 Thessalonians 4:3

"For this is the will of God, your sanctification."

Since, as you seem to admit here, the Novus Ordo violates Quo Primum, its usage is clearly a violation of standing Church law.  

While on that note, Quo Primum expressly forbids any priest from using any other missal (except ones 200 years or older from the time of the decree). Read here In order to use another missal, a priest must receive express permission from the same authority.  I submit that no priest anywhere has ever received permission to use the Novus Ordo Missae.  As such, each time it is celebrated it is a sin of a serious nature, causing the act itself to be an act of sacrilege.

As for your "In our times, we must be pragmatic", statement.  I say, in our times we must be FAITHFUL.  Pragmatism with evil will send you to hell.

Pope John Paul 2 IS A SAINT!! Declared by the infallible church. So he can't have been that bad then!

Have you listened to Fr Malachi martin on St J P 2? His reasoning is sound and you can see that God gave him much wisdom, so he knew what was the best approach for the time.



(1hr - 1hr 1o mins if you are rushed)

Simply stated, the Church is a broken and listing ship, that cannot be fixed until Our Lady's comes with the necessary grace (or in symbol below - money) and people oncemore find God's "book of the law":

4 Kings 22:1-8

"Josias was eight years old when he began to reign: he reigned one and thirty years in Jerusalem: the name of his mother was Idida, the daughter of Hadaia, of Besecath. And he did that which was right in the sight of the Lord, and walked in all the ways of David his father: he turned not aside to the right hand, or to the left.  And in the eighteenth year of king Josias, the king sent Saphan the son of Assia, the son of Messulam, the scribe of the temple of the Lord, saying to him:  Go to Helcias the high priest, that the money may be put together which is brought into the temple of the Lord, which the doorkeepers of the temple have gathered of the people. And let it be given to the workmen by the overseers of the house of the Lord: and lot them distribute it to those that work in the temple of the Lord, to repair the temple:

 That is, to carpenters and masons, and to such as mend breaches: and that timber may be bought, and stones out of the quarries, to repair the temple of the Lord.  But let there be no reckoning made with them of the money which they receive, but let them have it in their power, and in their trust.  And Helcias the high priest said to Saphan the scribe: I have found the book of the law in the house of the Lord:"

To ihsv:

The NO is illegal according to Church law, but still valid. Grace is still available and one receives according to individual disposition.

Calling me fork-tongued and posting mocking pictures are signatures of why the Holy Ghost deprives you and many in tradition of full understanding, You should read the exorcism testimony again


"We have to reveal the error which many priests are making. It is a fundamental error to instill into men that they must not go to any New Mass, that it comes from the devil, etc... That also is throwing the baby away with the bath-water, it is going to the opposite extreme. Never does such a condemnation have any place under the mantle of love of neighbor.

Love of neighbour is very much what is lacking in many puffed up traditionalists.


Irrespective of Quo Primum, if a priest is saying the NO mass with the right intention, in obedience to the Church as he sees it, it does not invalidate it and make it as you say "an act of sacrilege". It is a messy situation for sure, but the protest of many traditionalists against the NO is not founded on fealty to Catholic integrity, but rather:

   

Luke 18:11

"The Pharisee standing, prayed thus with himself: O God, I give thee thanks that I am not as the rest of men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, as also is this publican."

To ihsv:

The NO is illegal according to Church law, but still valid. Grace is still available and one receives according to individual disposition.

Calling me fork-tongued and posting mocking pictures are signatures of why the Holy Ghost deprives you and many in tradition of full understanding, You should read the exorcism testimony again


"We have to reveal the error which many priests are making. It is a fundamental error to instill into men that they must not go to any New Mass, that it comes from the devil, etc... That also is throwing the baby away with the bath-water, it is going to the opposite extreme. Never does such a condemnation have any place under the mantle of love of neighbor.

Love of neighbour is very much what is lacking in many puffed up traditionalists.


Irrespective of Quo Primum, if a priest is saying the NO mass with the right intention, in obedience to the Church as he sees it, it does not invalidate it and make it as you say "an act of sacrilege". It is a messy situation for sure, but the protest of many traditionalists against the NO is not founded on fealty to Catholic integrity, but rather:

   

Luke 18:11

"The Pharisee standing, prayed thus with himself: O God, I give thee thanks that I am not as the rest of men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, as also is this publican."

Since the NO is illegal, its usage is objectively sinful.  A Catholic who attends an illicit "mass" has to confess that.  And making the excuse that "grace is still available" is never a justification for attending an illicit, sinful, sacrilegious "mass."   One corresponds with grace by avoiding the foul thing altogether.  

I call you forked-tongue because you are forked-tongue.  You seek to serve two masters, God and mammon; you seek to hold two opposing religions, the new religion and the old; you seek to serve God with the sacrifice of Cain and that of Able.  You attempt to justify fellowship with light and darkness, and your concord with Christ and Belial.

If a priest says the Novus Ordo with "the right intention", in obedience to the Church "as he sees it", and it doesn't make it "an act of sacrilege", then quite frankly the laws of Christ and His Church are useless.  There are no consequences, as one can do as he pleases irrespective of the truth.  It no longer matters what the Church binds upon us, so long as we have "good intentions".  Objectivity is no longer important.  Revelation, positive Divine Law, ecclesiastical law, etc., are now subject to the whimsical, clouded notion of "intention".  This is Modernism.

If an act is against the law, it is against the law.  Our job is to correspond with the law, not make the law correspond with us.  The world must conform to Christ, not He to it.

The Novus Ordo is a sacrilege because it violates Quo Primum. The Mass, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass cannot be changed by anyone. Paul VI is a blasphemer, heretic and antipope for daring to do just that.

The Novus Ordo Church deserves the wrath of Almighty God for taking the first steps to declare that man a "saint".

Matto said:


"So the Novus Ordo is not evil because demons say it is not evil. Trust in devils, they never lie. Lol."


The devils can be forced to tell the truth according to the power of the Most High/Our Lady:


True devotion to Mary - St Father Montfort


"One is recorded in the chronicles of St. Francis. The saint saw in ecstasy an immense ladder reaching to heaven, at the top of which stood the Blessed Virgin. This is the ladder, he was told, by which we must all go to heaven.

Here is another related in the Chronicles of St. Dominic. Near Carcassonne, where St. Dominic was preaching the Rosary, there was an unfortunate heretic who was possessed by a multitude of devils. These evil spirits to their confusion were compelled at the command of our Lady to confess many great and consoling truths concerning devotion to her. They did this so clearly and forcibly that, however weak our devotion to our Lady may be, we cannot read this authentic story containing such an unwilling tribute paid by the devils to devotion to our Lady without shedding tears of joy.

Moreover, God has given Mary such great power over the evil spirits that, as they have often been forced unwillingly to admit through the lips of possessed persons, they fear one of her pleadings for a soul more than the prayers of all the saints, and one of her threats more than all their other torments."


Moreover:

"The prophets of the demons do not always speak from the demons' revelation, but sometimes by Divine inspiration. This was evidently the case with Balaam, of whom we read that the Lord spoke to him (Numbers 22:12), though he was a prophet of the demons, because God makes use even of the wicked for the profit of the good. Hence He foretells certain truths even by the demons' prophets, both that the truth may be rendered more credible, Wherefore also the Sibyls foretold many true things about Christ.

Yet even when the demons' prophets are instructed by the demons, they foretell the truth, sometimes by virtue of their own nature, the author of which is the Holy Ghost, and sometimes by revelation of the good spirits, as Augustine declares (Gen. ad lit. xii, 19): so that even then this truth which the demons proclaim is from the Holy Ghost." St Thomas - Summa Theologica

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3172.htm#article5

(Article 6 - reply objection 1)


Maybe Matto you should by the book detailing the exorcism and ask Our Lady to give you the grace to know if it is authentic

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00B56CLP0/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B00B56CLP0&linkCode=as2&tag=httpwwwchanco-20


The book essentially exposes the remarks and gestures made by a possessed woman in Switzerland during 1975‑1978. Speaking through the possessed woman, the demons were forced to tell the truth by Our Lady under the Solemn Church Exorcism, which was witnessed by the following priests who have all expressed their conviction of the authenticity of the revelations made by the demons upon the order of the Blessed Virgin.

1. Abbot Albert‑l`Arx, Niederbuchorten

2. Abbot Arnold Elig, Ramiswil

3. Abbot Ernest Fischer, Missionary, Gossau (St.‑Gall).

4. Rev. Father Pius Gervasi, O.S.B., Disentis

5. Abbot Karl Holdener, Ried

6. Rev. Father Gregoire Meyer, ‑ Trimbach

7. Rev. Father Robert Rinderer, C.P.P.S., Auw

8. Abbot Louis Veillard, Cerneux‑Pequignot

All eight priests are Swiss, except Father E. Fischer, a German. All participated in the exorcisms except Father G. Meyer who was spiritual director of the possessed woman. Two other French priests also participated in the exorcisms.

DECLARATION

 

Some of the shepherds of the Church who ought to be protectors of the Faith and of the Truth are that no longer. That is why the Blessed Virgin Mary forces Satan -the father of lies - to tell the truth and to teach the pure doctrine of the Church, even while he fulminates against these Warnings. It is a question of waking the shepherds up and bringing about the triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, the Mother of the Holy Church.

It must be understood that all these communications should be compared with the authentic doctrine of the Church and with its present situation. But it is certain, here and now, that the contents of this book show the way towards a profound renewal of the Church.

 

Reverend Father Arnold Renz.

To Stubborn;


Without doubt the NO is a diluted and degraded form of mass. But one can still licitly attend and indeed there are pious Novus Ordo people, (more so than some traditionalists it should be noted).

The perspective is exactly as outlined in the confession of the demon as posted earlier.

Ask Our Lady if it is true.

To Stubborn;


Without doubt the NO is a diluted and degraded form of mass. But one can still licitly attend and indeed there are pious Novus Ordo people, (more so than some traditionalists it should be noted).

The perspective is exactly as outlined in the confession of the demon as posted earlier.

Ask Our Lady if it is true.

It is the sacrifice of Cain, displeasing to God. The new "mass" *is* the abuse of the True Mass.
It is a mockery, a charade of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, the Sacrifice of Calvary, whether "the Narrative" is valid or not.

"Some may say, you are identifying the abuses with the "New Mass" itself. I am saying that the "New Mass" IS the abuse of the True Mass! I am saying that, with the jettisoning of both the law and the spirit of Quo Primum, by that very Act, the Pope has not only substituted something totally different from the Mass, but that it is of the very essence of the "New Mass" to permit every form of profanation, because the "New Mass" makes the good pleasure of the people its "liturgy." - The Great Sacrilege (1971)  by Fr. Wathen