Then you can't go, and you should tell everyone else they can't go as well.


The post-V2 popes have endorsed the NOM, but they did not give permission, from their apostolic authority, to attend it.  The bishops of the world gave license to it, but they are not infallible, nor do they have papal authority.  This was the diabolical deception, from a process/implementation standpoint.  Paul VI introduced his new missal, but he did not order, authorize or command that any catholic use it or attend it.  Paul VI never said it was required, nor did he ever say that to avoid the NOM as an act of disobedience.  

The bishops from all the dioceses in the latin church (many of whom were/still are freemasons) were the ones who implemented/forced the NOM on the laity.  They are the ones who told everyone that it was required, that the pope commanded attendance, that it was part of V2 and must be accepted.  

People assumed the bishops were following what Paul VI wanted, but Paul VI never said any of this.  This is how the freemasons forced the NOM on the people - through satan's normal methods - deception, trickery and lies.

Because most, if not all of the post-V2 popes were freemasonic, or modernistic and freemasonic in their thinking.  Or they were weak and timid and caved to threats.  They either were for the NOM and actively tried to destroy the Church, or they allowed Her to be destroyed and said nothing.  We'll know on Judgement Day.  All that matters is none of the post-V2 popes commanded that the NOM be said or attended, therefore it is not an official liturgy of the Church, even if most bishops/priests say otherwise.


In regards to your other comments, yes, Christ has allowed the Church to undergo this passion, but that doesn't mean that it pleases Him, or that He is glorified by it, or that He wants it to happen.  On the contrary, the NOM is an affront to His holy sacrifice on Calvary, it is a mockery of His suffering and His perfect offering to the Father because through the NOM, the Father is not adored, not thanked for His forgiveness/remission of sins, and not satisfied for all the past and continued blasphemies that still happen.

The bloody sacrifice of the cross happened once and for all.  The True Mass is the unbloody sacrifice, which is perfect, and pleasing to God.  The NOM is not perfect, and not pleasing to God because it is an imperfect offering, through an imperfect liturgy, by an imperfect "priest" and scandalously acting laity.  It is a mockery of everything Christ did on Calvary; in this, Christ's enemies succeeded.  

I appreciate all you said here.  I agree with most.  But let me ask you, what part of the Passion actually did please Our Lord?  The entire thing was a mockery of Truth.  It isn't about the NO or TLM, exactly, (although each seems to represent different aspects of the sufferings of Christ) but about the Sacrifice of Christ so that men might be saved.  Our Lord's Sacrifice remains perfect no matter what.  Not even man's faulty liturgy can change that. 

Christ's sacrifice on the cross was pleasing to the Father because Christ was a perfect offering, a perfect priest making the offering, and with a perfect intention - one of obedience to God the Father's demand for restitution for sin and the adoration due to Him as God.

A sacrifice is composed of 3 parts -
1) OFFERTORY - the gifts are presented for the sacrifice,
2) CONSECRATION - the gifts are destroyed as an act of sacrifice and offered to God,
3) COMMUNION (of the priest) - the sacrifice is completed and participated in by the priest (and sometimes the faithful).

You seem to equate a valid consecration with the perfect sacrifice on Calvary.  This is not so.  The consecration is ONLY ONE PART of the mass, as a whole.  The consecration is the sacrifice part of the mass, but the Offertory is the offering part and the communion is the completion of the sacrifice.

The mass is said to be the most perfect prayer because it fulfills all 4 reasons that we pray - A.C.T.S.
A - Adoration
C - Contrition for sin
T - Thanksgiving
S - Satisfaction for sin

-- The NOM has a defunct offertory because it's prayers do not express the true, Catholic reason for why mass is offered.  The offertory of the NOM neglects to mention contrition for sin and satisfaction for sin as the purpose of the mass, therefore it is not a perfect offering and not a perfect prayer.

-- The NOM has a defunct consecration (i.e. the essence of the sacrifice) because
1) the new consecration formula of the bread is said in "narrative" form by the priest (ie. it is related as a story) instead of being prayed, as the priest taking the place of Christ.
2) the consecration of the bread uses "for many" instead of "for all".  This is invalid.
s) the new consecration formula of the wine removed the phrase "the mystery of faith" outside of the consecration, and this phrase now erroneously refers to the 2nd coming of Christ.

-- The NOM has a defunct communion where
1) communion in the hand is a blasphemous act, and the laity scandalously hold Our Lord as a simple piece of bread, thereby minimizing the belief in the Real Presence.
2) lay eucharistic ministers (and worse, women ministers) distribute "communion" in place of the priest, which is a sacrilegious and sinful act.

Even "if" the consecration is valid (which is a BIG if), the defunct Offertory and Communion make the NOM sacrilegious and unpure.  Christ's offering on the Cross was the redemption of Adam's sin in the garden of Eden.  It was an offering for man's sins, so that he could re-enter heaven and be at peace with the Father.  If you read the few and short offertory prayers of the NOM, you will not find the purpose of satisfaction or atonement or contrition for sin.  Therefore, each and every NOM does not appease God's anger for sin, or ask forgiveness, or make reparation for blasphemy.  This is an an utter travesty, in and of itself.  How can Our Lord be pleased with this?

Even "if" the consecration is valid, the defunct communion service is a mockery of the reverence and respect and love we owe to Christ.  The Church has made VERY clear through the years that reception of Holy Communion should be on the tongue, 1) as a sign of reverence to Christ and 2) as a sign of respect for the priesthood, which men alone have their 2 fingers consecrated and are allowed to touch the Our Lord.  Anyone who presumes to touch the Holy Sacrament with unconsecrated hands, except in an emergency, commits a grave sin of sacrilege and of irreverence.  Yet such sins are "encouraged" in the NOM.  What an outrage!  How can Our Lord be pleased with this?

If the consecration is valid, the Body and Blood of Christ suffices.  

I'm not saying it was good to change the liturgy, but it has been done and the Church permits even His liturgy to suffer with Him. 

It is not even the liturgy, but Jesus Christ, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity that appeases God's anger for sin, provides forgiveness, and makes reparation for blasphemy etc. 

God generously provided the externals, that is, the liturgy, to bring Christ to us in an unbloody manner, yet it is specifically Christ's Body and Blood that fulfill the perquisites for redemption and forgiveness of sin.  

So, if the  consecration is valid, Christ's sacrifice atones, and grace is given. 

You assume I make some sort of excuse for the NO.  I absolutely do not.  Jesus was sacrificed in the worst possible way, mocked, scourged, blasphemed...so what was done to Him that He refused? There is nothing Jesus didn't suffer from man at His crucifixion, including the infliction of the NO. Christ suffered man to pluck his Beard, strike His Face, whip Him bloody, but spared His liturgy? 
Not arguing with your defense of TLM, just making a point.

My friends are telling me that they see no difference between the Masses offered by the SSPX, FSSP, and the Novus Ordo English and Latin Masses. They believe that they are all valid

Your welcome, Maria Regina.  Thank you for inspiring this interesting conversation with incredible Catholics ever-ready to defend the Faith. These discussions are really important and everyone who chimed in gave excellent reminders of why Tradition is Catholic and Catholic is Tradition.  Your last question shows how vulnerable the NO priests have become with their new ecuмenical mindset ushered in by change.  It seems to me that if Christ is being received in the NO, it isn't because what man did to the liturgy was good, but because Christ knows that without Him, Catholics will certainly be lost. I believe Christ still hears their prayers, forgives them and feeds them, until they can make their escape. Their responsibility to Our Lord is probably greater because He endures much in order to reach them.  In the meantime, we should never quit trying to bring Catholics back to Tradition where truth remains untouched and unsullied by innovators.  
God bless!        

There are Saints who say it is nearly impossible to stay out of mortal sin without the frequent reception of the Holy Eucharist.  The Church says one must at least once a year receive Communion or you are no longer a member of the Church. So do you think that after the NO was foisted on people in the early 60's that all the Catholics who remained in NO Churches, probably tens of millions, fell into the state of mortal sin and/or outside the Church for lack of receiving communion even though they received It in the NO?  Wondering too, if you believe NO Catholics are outside the Church?  Also, do you believe anyone can be saved who remains in the NO Church?