Matthew said:

"Who can deny the Novus Ordo is evil and protestant?"

You can't say it is evil. But certainly protestanised.
But that doesn't mean it is invalid or illicit to attend if one cannot attend a Latin Mass or if a good-willed person, who knows not about tradition.

One thought that just entered my head -- perhaps it's significant here.

This iconoclastic (statue-breaking) protestant tendency towards minimalism in church decor, denuding the sanctuary, etc. tends to make the church surroundings very neutral (letting you be), rather than actively "good" (pulling you up to thoughts of God, heaven, the Saints, angels, etc).

In this way, the only attractive feature of the church is the CONGREGATION -- the people. You are going to notice only them, rather than the church around you. It "helps you" to focus on the people!

Could you imagine trying to stay in each of these churches (before and after) to pray and meditate outside normal Mass times, when no one else is present?

In the former, the decor would help to raise our puny human minds to thoughts of heaven, the presence of God, angels adoring God in the tabernacle, etc.

In the latter (wreckovated church), it would be bare and almost depressing. You would be psychologically encouraged to consider the church an "empty shell" when the "people of God" are not present.

I've been to the Novus Ordo in the chapel pictured. Not only is it ugly, they put extra ingredients into their homemade communion bread. I can't remember if it was just honey or some kind of leavening agent, as it has been so long. They were little puffy squares and they explained whatever they did to it before the service. There was a mostly untouched side chapel that was gorgeous. One of the things that surprised me is that women taken classes there sometimes, and that some seminarians dated. It was such a sad trip, I mostly remember the boys who went with us putting their hats on the statuary but also that wonderful "old church" smell of incense that gets into the wood. I should see if I have any old pictures, if I find one, I will post it.

ihsv said:

"I do find it interesting that you make the logical connection/conclusion and automatically leap from Matthew's criticism of the destruction of a Church to the question of the validity/liceity of the New Mass. "

Matthew said "Who can deny the Novus Ordo is evil"

The validity of the Mass is absolutely central to denying this conclusion, because being that the sacrifice of Christ is made (subject to the standard requirements), it cannot be described as evil. It can be described as being degraded without being subject to moral judgement; even as a King's robe richly woven and Jєωelled is of finer form than a plain one.

ihsv said:

"I do find it interesting that you make the logical connection/conclusion and automatically leap from Matthew's criticism of the destruction of a Church to the question of the validity/liceity of the New Mass. "

Matthew said "Who can deny the Novus Ordo is evil"

The validity of the Mass is absolutely central to denying this conclusion, because being that the sacrifice of Christ is made (subject to the standard requirements), it cannot be described as evil. It can be described as being degraded without being subject to moral judgement; even as a King's robe richly woven and Jєωelled is of finer form than a plain one.

I don't have an opinion on whether the new Mass is valid or not.  I hope it's invalid, as it lessens the offense to God each time it is "celebrated."

Validity isn't the issue here.   A black Mass is valid.  A Greek Orthodox Mass is valid.  Those events become sacrilegious because they are violations of God's Law and the standing law of the Church.  The same is true of the New Mass.  It simply is not Catholic.  It is a blasphemous parody and mockery of the true Mass, and ought not to be tolerated for a moment.  

It can absolutely be described as evil.  If it is not evil, then it is either good or morally indifferent.  If morally indifferent, then it is not a Mass.  If it is good, then it must be embraced, and the fruit of it must also be good.  

Those who accept or make excuses for the New Mass have no idea what the Mass itself truly is.

ihsv said of the NO:

"It can absolutely be described as evil."


As measured by what criteria?

Bonum est ex integra causa

Malum ex quocuмque defectu.

A thing is good if it is good in ALL its parts.
A thing is evil if it has even one defect.

Matthew said:

A thing is good if it is good in ALL its parts.
A thing is evil if it has even one defect.


What is the evil element?

Show you a defect in the Novus Ordo?  Sorry, I don't have that much time. There are too many to choose from. If you are blind to the evils of the Novus Ordo, I can't help you.

What do you think "evil" is?  Something that only exists in Hell? Dark, swirly black clouds? Does evil have to give you chills when you are less than 5 feet from it? Does it always involve killing Jєωs? Does it involve having a raspy voice?

No.

You're thinking of Evil Personified (usually by Hollywood).

An evil is the privation (lacking) of a good. Nothing more, nothing less.

Above, I quoted the Scholastic definitions of good and evil. Traditional Catholics should have the highest respect for St. Thomas Aquinas, Scholastic philosophy, and Scholastic theology.

The Scholastic definition of evil, for example, is the basis for Bishop Williamson's famous example of an airliner which has a brilliant, shiny exterior, has plush seats, excellent climate control, but the engines don't work. Or a car with a bunch of great points, but it doesn't start. Common sense dictates that you don't focus on, "But it has a great radio!" when a car has just one major problem: a bomb was detonated under the hood.