A sedevacantist evaluation from Novus Ordo Watch. No thanks.

See, Meg, this here conclusively reveals that you are not of good will and are not sincerely seeking the truth.  You dismiss something out of hand without considering the arguments due to your preconceived bias.

See, Meg, this here conclusively reveals that you are not of good will and are not sincerely seeking the truth.  You dismiss something out of hand without considering the arguments due to your preconceived bias.

We all have a certain amount of bias. That's just how it is. You bully me because I won't read sede material. I expect that. Next you'll be saying I'm overly-emotional, or a heretic or schismatic, as you so often have.

Michael Davies extensively studied the problem with the New Mass. I read an excellent assessment of his study on the Una Voce UK website a few years ago, but I can't find the series of articles now. You don't have to accept Davies view. That's fine. But you have dismissed his view out of hand, without ever having read it, is that correct?

I realize that Davies' came from mostly an Indult background, but he was far more gutsy than the average Indult-type. 

We all have a certain amount of bias.

Bias is normal.  You typically have a "hero worship" complex where you follow certain people and admittedly ignore all others.  There's nothing wrong with this approach, in real life, as most people don't have time to study everyone.  The problem arises when you enter a debate (such as this site) and you are close-minded to other views, which is contrary to the whole purpose of debating.  Your approach here is just a waste of time and annoying to those who want to discuss various ideas.

Whenever the topic of the sspx comes up and you ask "What did +ABL say about it?" when the issue wasn't even an issue when +ABL was alive, that is the definition of 'hero worship'.  +ABL was not an expert on all things and he wouldn't say he was.

Secondly, your posts are not a waste of time for me, just for yourself.  If you decide to enter a debate without an open mind and without the mindset to learn something new, you are wasting your own time.

We all have a certain amount of bias. That's just how it is. You bully me because I won't read sede material.

You really need to stop mixing it up with men when it comes to theological argument and stop crying "bully" every time I call you out for what you are ... a completely irrational, emotional, and  biased individual who "reasons" with her emotions rather than her mind.  And, as such, you have no business being involved in theological arguments.

There are some women on this board who can argue rationally (Cantarella, JayneK come to mind), but we get very little from you by way of substance ... usually just emotional one-liners and ad hominem shots at various individuals.  You should remain a lurker on theological threads and not post at all.

Agreed.  As Fr Wathen points out in his "The Great Sacrilege", the validity question is left up to the Church and overall, is irrelvant to the moral imperative to avoid the novus ordo.  The doubts about the validity, the sinful illegality of it, and the sinful/sacrilegeous atmosphere are more than enough reasons to avoid it.

Yet, the problem remains for uneducated catholics who over-simplify the debate by assuming that if a novus ordo is valid, then it's ok and good.  They think this way because their priests (many of whom are in the sspx) incorrectly (or purposefully..only God knows) framed the debate around the validity question and irngored the 2 other, larger elephants in the room.

The sspx has also sidestepped the legality/morality issue because these issues are inherent in the novus ordo and can't be fixed, unless new-rome were to totally get rid of its new theology.  The validity issue could be fixed, while still leaving the novus ordo's humanistic, freemasonic and anti-catholic atmosphere (which is the main problem with it).  Thus, by concentrating on the smaller problem, and acting like it's the only problem, the sspx could be "friends" with new-rome and have a reason to negotiate and "fight for the Church" as novus ordo-ites often say.

Pax, you have hit it on the head, most Traditional Catholics have been taught according to the SSPX model which concentrates upon validity, and sacrifices the moral and legal issues which has for generations allowed people to be ignorant of the import of their implications.
The laity cannot negotiate many of the theological issues surrounding validity and thus are easily led into relying on what this or that cleric says.

Legality is simple but damning to the new service as it is clear that it is always illicit, and that cannot be gotten around which is why it is more or less ignored.  But the morality or actual immorality of the new mass cannot be denied.  
The moral implications indeed, do make it imperative to avoid and reject this mass. In fact one's obligation to God is what makes it and imperative.  The Church has condemned most features of this service by decree and canon, and when life is over how are we going to answer to God for a lifetime of disloyalty to Him?


The moral,  that is to say, the religious morality, of this alien service is in no way equal to, or on an equal footing with issues of legality and validity, is is by far over and above these technical distinctions, and it is the factor in this debate for which we are culpable, and it is in this that we can commit a sin against God. It is not matter of education as in this arena, that a simple sense of the faith, should inform a Catholic of the danger to their souls and their eternal salvation

most Traditional Catholics have been taught according to the SSPX model which concentrates upon validity, and sacrifices the moral and legal issues which has for generations allowed people to be ignorant of the import of their implications.

Agree totally.  When you read Card Ottaviani's analysis, he repeatedly stresses the novelties of the new theology and its detriment to the Faith.  The anti-catholic, freemasonic theology, which spills over into the atmosphere of the new liturgy (by design) is what makes the novus ordo IMMORAL, which Fr Wathen so eloquently detailed.

Card Ottaviani spends a small % of his report on the validity aspect, because the false theology is much more damning.  And he didn't mention the legality at all, because at the time when he was studying it, the novus ordo hadn't been implemented, so it wasn't yet illegal.  Now that we know that Quo Primum wasn't revised or revoked, we know the novus ordo is illegal and gravely sinful - an additional damning aspect.

I can understand why the sspx (and others) didn't want to argue on the legality issue, since until Benedict's motu of 2007, it was still debatable.  But now, we know for sure.  What I can't understand is why the immorality of the new mass was never agreed upon by most Trads.  Many would say "Don't go to it" but they would never call it a sin outright. 

In my opinion, it's because 1) many believed that a valid novus ordo was somehow a "good thing" and would outweigh any "circuмstantial" sacrilegeous aspects.  In other words, a bad theological argument of "it's better to say a blasphemous prayer to God than no prayer at all."  By this false logic, it would be better to go to protestant worship on sundays rather than miss mass if there is none available.  "A bad prayer is better than none."  Not a catholic notion.

2) Most priests would not call the new mass a sin outright because (deep down) they don't believe in the Conspiracy and the true revolution which happened at V2, therefore they can't accept that the Church was fully infiltrated, to its core, and that freemasons had invented a new mass, with the SOLE purpose of destroying catholicism.

Of course it's human nature to have trouble coming to terms with such events, and to have trouble realizing that God would allow such horrors be committed to His Church, especially when so many of our family members, friends and coworkers are "nice" and they go along with the changes and see nothing wrong with it.  But the facts show, ESPECIALLY AFTER 50 YEARS, that V2/novus ordo were not accidents, not isolated errors, but systematic destruction which was implemented with precision, scheduling and very much premeditated.