The Great Sacrilege (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/the-great-sacrilege-pdf-44137/)Sadly, most modern traditional clerics deny its power to bind.
The law of Quo Primum is still the law and this law will remain in effect forever. Breaking the law of Quo Primum, the new mass is illegal, it is therefore illicit, therefore immoral, therefore a sin. Quo Primum is every trad's refuge.
For anyone who is interested, this (https://www.sodalitiumpianum.com/short-critical-exam-of-the-novus-ordo-missae/) is a short critical exam of the Novus Ordo Missae by Msg. Guerard des Lauriers.
All this, in short, changes the modus significandi of the words of Consecration–how they show forth the sacramental action taking place. The priest now pronounces the formulas for Consecration as part of an historical narrative, rather than as Christ’s representative issuing the affirmative judgment “This is My Body.”
Add to the uncertainty of the Novus Ordo that they also changed the ordination rite and the formula for the consecration of bishops, and you have three strikes and you are out.
Happenby, no one is saying there is no grace imparted at a NOM. There’s grace imparted at some Protestant services - it’s called actual grace. Even if a NO service has a valid communion, that doesn’t mean there was a valid (or moral, or perfect) mass.The OP wondered if there was Sacramental grace imparted at the NO. Personally, I believe there is. Fr. Pfeiffer and others do not believe there is. I agree the Church is more faithfully preserved in Tradition, which is why I reside within Tradition. But, if the NO Mass confects the Sacrament, it is a true Mass. This is new for me after much reflection. 5-6 Popes say it is a true Mass, so, either I have to assume the Church is without a Pope for the past 50 years, or the NO is a Mass. Don't get me wrong, the NO and I do not get along well at all. I have many misgivings about this conclusion but I'm not sure how else to understand what has happened in the Church. If the NO is false, then Christ was hoodwinked out of 99% of the laity and by trickery of His own Pope, He left them to the wolves for not being perfectly understanding. That doesn't seem possible when the confusion is as great as it has been. It's true, most of the laity lost their faith along the way, but that's their fault. It cannot be the Church's fault for failing to continue to be the Church for them. I remain open to correction but I feel I must place the blame where it belongs, on individuals, not the Church.
The point is, the Eucharist is separate from the Mass. Christ promised us His Church would survive until the end time; but it’s easily arguable that the Church is being preserved in Tradition; not in the novus ordo.
Japanese Catholics kept the Faith for decades without priests/mass. Novus ordo people can keep the faith too, without a true mass.
The novus ordo, no matter what language is used, has a doubtfully valid consecration. Even if the consecration is valid, it is FURTHER doubtful that it is a complete mass, due to all the prayers in the offertory, canon, communion which were deleted and altered. Even if the consecration is valid, I believe it is not a mass, but just a communion service.IN all of these the Archbishop recognizes that the Novus Ordo is valid. With this validity comes the sacramental presence of Jesus. For those of us who live in places that are far and away from the opportunity to attend a TLM. I am not asking you to trust in the priest or the Pope, but rather in the promise of Jesus himself who said, "this is my body, this is my blood" and also, "If youeat of my flesh and drink of my blood you will have life everlasting." Where the mass is valid you have the real presence of Jesus. It is in Him that I ask you to trust.
If you read what V2 theologians say about how they wanted to protestantize the mass, and change the meaning of 'sacrifice', it is logical to say that the purpose of the new mass is different than the TLM. If you question people who grew up with the novus ordo and do not have an orthodox understanding of the mass, they interpret (and are taught) that the 'sacrifice' of Christ is His offering of Himself in communion to us, instead of the TRUE sacrifice of the cross. The NEW understanding of the mass, is one that is centered on receiving Christ in Holy Communion, instead of the adoration and offering of Christ to God, in atonement for sin. V2 replaced Good Friday with Holy Thursday and most novus ordo catholics have no idea this even happened.
The novus ordo replaced the offering of God to God (God centered worship), with the offering of Christ to us (humanistic centered worship). It falsely teaches that Christ's Holy Communion offering to us is the purpose of His death on Good Friday. This is diabolically backwards!
Christ's death on the cross on Good Friday IS the mass. Holy Thursday and Holy Communion is an act of love, but it is NOT the sacrifice, nor is it the offering which appeases God for sin, or fulfills the 4 purposes of prayer. Holy Communion is a SACRAMENT, which is PART OF the mass, but it is not the mass. This is why the priest can say a private mass, with no communicants, because Holy Communion by the faithful is not required. It is also why anyone can attend as many masses in one day as possible, but can only receive communion once per day - because the mass is the re-enactment of the sacrifice of Calvary, not the re-enactment of Holy Thursday.
Happenby, no one is saying there is no grace imparted at a NOM. There’s grace imparted at some Protestant services - it’s called actual grace. Even if a NO service has a valid communion, that doesn’t mean there was a valid (or moral, or perfect) mass.I disagree, the Eucharist is not separate from the mass. Without the Mass there is no Eucharist.
The point is, the Eucharist is separate from the Mass. Christ promised us His Church would survive until the end time; but it’s easily arguable that the Church is being preserved in Tradition; not in the novus ordo.
Japanese Catholics kept the Faith for decades without priests/mass. Novus ordo people can keep the faith too, without a true mass.
There is reason to believe that people abandoned Christ. NO has nothing to offer. Chapter 12 of Daniel says the Sacrificial Mass will come to an end. We are very close.The end of the sacrifice of Daniel refers to the end of the Jєωιѕн sacrifice. Jesus said to the apostles before he ascended into Heaven, "Lo, I will be with you untiol the end of the ages." and earlier to Peter, "The gates of Hell shall not prevail."
Christ told Peter 3 times to feed His sheep. Although the new Mass is a compromise, it is not possible (in my mind) that it is utterly defective because the Church cannot fail.The Church has not failed, we know this because we still have the True Mass and certainly valid priests and sacraments. The NO is the product of the Church's enemies who found their way within the Church, but it is not the product of the Church, do not be deceived because like the Church on earth, the True Mass and sacraments will last until the end of time. As you said, God does not fail man.
IN all of these the Archbishop recognizes that the Novus Ordo is valid.That might mean something to those that think the ABL was some kind of a perfect traditionalist saint all along, but in reality, ABL was a cat that fell, and in the end managed to land on his feet. What do I mean by that?
Although the new Mass is a compromise, it is not possible (in my mind) that it is utterly defective because the Church cannot fail.
Happenby and Poche, you are missing the point. You assume that just because the consecration MIGHT BE valid (Card Ottaviani, one of the top theologians said this is doubtful) that the mass is pleasing to God. No, no, no. The Eucharist is a sacrament, and mass is mass. Two TOTALLY different things.They are indeed missing the point. The new order service was not created to serve the purposes of the Catholic Church. It is in fact a tool whereby the Catholic Religion might be weakened and eventually destroyed. It is not Catholic and has no place in the Church. It's validity is unimportant when exposed next to this fact. It was created to be almost impossible to pick out valid parts from the invalid. And while every one keeps arguing its construction, it has been allowed to remain in the Church and to do its work of deception and destruction. And still today, no one seems to get it.
If the priest starts a TLM and dies right after the consecration, canon law says the mass is incomplete, therefore not a mass.
If a priest says a TLM but does not receive his personal communion, there is no mass. If the priest omits the Offertory in a TLM, there is no mass, even though the consecration would be valid.
How much more is there doubt about a NOM, wherein the Offertory, Canon and Communion prayers have been gutted, and the words “sacrifice”, “offering”, “Oblation”, “sin”, etc have been TOTALLY DELETED? These changes affect the mass, even if they don’t affect the consecration/Eucharist.
The mass is the mass; it is for God and its intentions and purpose are affected by the 3 PRINCIPLE PARTS - offertory, canon, communion. The mass is bigger than just the consecration.
They are indeed missing the point. The new order service was not created to serve the purposes of the Catholic Church. It is in fact a tool whereby the Catholic Religion might be weakened and eventually destroyed. It is not Catholic and has no place in the Church. It's validity is unimportant when exposed next to this fact. It was created to be almost impossible to pick out valid parts from the invalid. And while every one keeps arguing its construction, it has been allowed to remain in the Church and to do its work of deception and destruction. And still today, no one seems to get it.I came across an ancient copy of the 1904 Lutheran Hymnal, and out of curiosity, I looked up their communion service only to discover that it is almost word for word the same as the English Novus Ordo. The only real difference is that the Thee, Thou, and Thine have been replaced by you and your. I showed this book to my confessor, and after looking at the Lutheran Hymnal Creed and the Offertory and Communion prayers, which were the same as those found in the Novus Ordo, my confessor tossed that book into the fireplace and advised me that he would never celebrate the Novus Ordo again. His superiors gave him permission to celebrate only the Traditional Latin Mass.
ABL celebrated the Novus Ordo mass for quite some time till his seminarians convinced him not to do it.
Happenby and Poche, you are missing the point. You assume that just because the consecration MIGHT BE valid (Card Ottaviani, one of the top theologians said this is doubtful) that the mass is pleasing to God. No, no, no. The Eucharist is a sacrament, and mass is mass. Two TOTALLY different things.Yes, the Mass/consecration is bigger than just the consecration, but consecration is the point. I mean, as lay folk, we aren't canon lawyers here. As a lay person, I do not have the privilege or duty to determine which consecrations are valid. I stay as connected to tradition for peace and safety, but beyond that, I cannot possibly know (given the confusion at hand) what constitutes Mass and/or consecration, except where the Church says it does. If consecration takes place, and as far as we know it does, because the Church officially says it does, then I have resolved to accept that. It seems I have two choices: believe the Church, or believe persons who can't agree on anything. Some people say no Mass takes place. Others say no consecration takes place. Others say, even if consecration takes place, no grace is imparted. Which is it? And who are they to say? Are any of them appointed, or living Saints, or Popes, or united in any way? At least I have the promise the Church will remain true. I believe the visible Church will remain true, at least to the extent that She continues to teach the truth, even if certain prelates are using the sound system to spread error. I don't have a promise from people who sit around and confuse each other with Church statements contesting only their position is true when each position pitted against the visible Church also has enormous flaws. I'm not saying we shouldn't discuss it, because we should try to know. Yet it seems we've reached the limits of our understanding on this one. But isn't that the beginning of humility?
If the priest starts a TLM and dies right after the consecration, canon law says the mass is incomplete, therefore not a mass.
If a priest says a TLM but does not receive his personal communion, there is no mass. If the priest omits the Offertory in a TLM, there is no mass, even though the consecration would be valid.
How much more is there doubt about a NOM, wherein the Offertory, Canon and Communion prayers have been gutted, and the words “sacrifice”, “offering”, “Oblation”, “sin”, etc have been TOTALLY DELETED? These changes affect the mass, even if they don’t affect the consecration/Eucharist.
The mass is the mass; it is for God and its intentions and purpose are affected by the 3 PRINCIPLE PARTS - offertory, canon, communion. The mass is bigger than just the consecration.
Some people say no Mass takes place. Others say no consecration takes place. Others say, even if consecration takes place, no grace is imparted. Which is it? And who are they to say?Happenby, you’re still missing the point. Cardinal Ottaviani, Cardinal Bacci, and their fellow theologians were the TOP theologians in Rome, and we’re appointed to study the “pure, perfect” NOM. They said 1) it’s theology is different from Trent, 2) it’s validity is doubtful, and 3) it doesn’t teach the same Faith which Catholics are required to believe and which the mass is supposed to impart to the Faithful. ...These 3 points alone are enough to damn the NOM as anti-catholic.
If it came from the Church, then it cannot be defective at all ... and not just "utterly" defective. That's one of the principles which drives sedevacantism. If it's defective, then it could not have come from the Church.It depends. I say this because, while the Mass was handed down throughout the centuries perfect in it's liturgy, what might be revealed in the Novus Ordo is that liturgy need not be perfect in the sense that the Sacrament does not depend on the perfection of the liturgy, but merely the words of consecration and that a Mass surround it. I don't know this for certain, just surmising and drawing out from the idea that if the Church permitted an imperfect liturgy, the essence of what that Mass produces, Eucharistic Christ, maintains the least of the promises Christ made to His people, to feed them. I say this because it seems to have a parallel to Christ feeding His people in the dessert. It is what He does. Don't get me wrong, I think there will serious punishments for those who messed with the liturgy, as Quo Primum attests. But the encyclical didn't say they absolutely COULD NOT change the liturgy, it says the one who does will answer to Peter and Paul. This seems to suggest that if they did get cocky and pull a stunt like they did, it would be valid, confect the Eucharist, but because of the changes, the Faith would suffer and the ones responsible would answer for it.
Happenby, you’re still missing the point. Cardinal Ottaviani, Cardinal Bacci, and their fellow theologians were the TOP theologians in Rome, and we’re appointed to study the “pure, perfect” NOM. They said 1) it’s theology is different from Trent, 2) it’s validity is doubtful, and 3) it doesn’t teach the same Faith which Catholics are required to believe and which the mass is supposed to impart to the Faithful. ...These 3 points alone are enough to damn the NOM as anti-catholic.No, really...I get it. We'll probably have to get really technical to see the specifics, so as we do so, if you prove me wrong, my opinion is of no matter. The validity of the NO may be doubtful, but the Church says it is not doubtful. That's kind of important. You're right, it doesn't teach the same Faith independently as TLM does, but if this is the disjointing of Christ's body on the cross as it seems, His Flesh holds it all together so that it remains One. It does not justify what they did to disjoint the Church, quite the contrary, but rather, that Christ held His Church together in spite of what they've done, what we've all done. "Not one bone of it shall be broken".
Your first question about if there is a mass or not, or if there is communion or not is irrelevant. No one knows with certainty! THIS IS THE PROBLEM! And the canon law principle applies - a catholic cannot go to a doubtful mass or sacrament without committing grave sin.
The NOM is surely doubtful, in many ways, therefore we cannot attend. Those that do attend put themselves in an occasion to sin, not only by endangering their Faith (because of the false and new theology) but also because they cannot be sure that such a mass fulfills their Sunday obligation. Thirdly, it is an occasion to sin because of all the immoral circuмstances (communion in the hand, gross irreverences of the clergy, talking and hugging of the faithful, women Eucharistic ministers, immodest dress, women altar girls, etc).
Even if the NOM was absolutely valid, and the above sacrileges were going on, it would be a grave sin of scandal to attend because you would be publicly participating in the blasphemous activity of the liturgy. Such sacrileges of the NOM are not isolated events, but are widespread, systematic problems in 99% of such “masses” worldwide. This proves that the “abuses” are not accidental but part of a freemasonic and coordinated plan to destroy the Faith of the laity.
The new order is not Catholic and it is not a work of the Catholic Church. 60 years later and with all the destruction, the loss of faith, the aberrations, the virtual ruin of the Church, and people are still arguing the novus ordo case for the modernist conciliar entity. It leaves one scratching their head. :facepalm:I agree the "new order" is a serious problem and I'm not defending it. What I'm saying is, that in the face of this disjointing of the body of Christ, Christ in His Mercy continues to hold it together. I'm not arguing a case for the Novus Ordo at all. I'm arguing for the case of Christ's Mercy to His Church.
A snip from a late 1980s interview with Fr. Wathen on this subject.....I actually thank Fr. Wathen for bringing me to TLM. He is correct to recognize that the value of Tradition and TLM are extremely important. But he also says that what is practiced by the Church is a grievous violation. How is that possible? The Church says the NO isn't a violation, but that it is a true Mass. And the Church, not Fr. Wathen is the arbiter of liceity. I desire only to honor Fr. Wathen in the sense that he saw the seriousness of the situation enough to stand up for TLM and Tradition and that is extraordinarily commendable, noble, even Saintly. But to insist that the Church is in error, sinning, flawed in Her governance, or fallen into the hands of the enemy to the point that She has become them, is not only extreme, but the level of where I have to say no. God governs the Church and has not hand it off to Freemasons, nor permitted 99% of it to be snatched from His hands. Those who say they are Catholic but aren't will answer for it. God remains at the helm in spite of Francis et all, proving to us that He extends Himself even to those who love Him least.
Question: As far as there are three main parts of the Mass, am I right? There’s the liceity, the morality and the validity. Would you explain each of these and give a little explanation of each of these in their different areas.
Fr.When you use the word liceity you’re referring to the question of whether the new mass is legal.
When you speak of validity, you are discussing whether the consecration of the mass is valid and true, whether there is truly transubstantiation.
When you discuss the matter of morality, you are questioning whether it’s a sin either to offer the new mass or to attend it.
I hasten to say that if the new mass is against the law, then it is immoral, and if there is a question of validity in the consecration, then it is immoral for anyone to use it.
Question: You believe it’s actually a sin, a mortal sin to use the new mass, is that not right?
Fr.That’s right. We believe that because the new mass is clearly against the law which governs the liturgy of the Roman Rite, that there is no legality to it - and we think that to violate the law with regard to the True Mass there is a moral violation, we believe that is a grievous violation, and therefore a sacrilegious violation of the True Mass. It is most important for people, when considering the new mass, always to bear in mind that the Traditional Latin Mass, which is to be found in the Missale Romanum of Pope Pius V, that, that is the standard whereby they judge any other Rite in the Roman Rite.
I actually thank Fr. Wathen for bringing me to TLM. He is correct to recognize that the value of Tradition and TLM are extremely important. But he also says that what is practiced by the Church is a grievous violation. How is that possible? The Church says the NO isn't a violation, but that it is a true Mass. And the Church, not Fr. Wathen is the arbiter of liceity. I desire only to honor Fr. Wathen in the sense that he saw the seriousness of the situation enough to stand up for TLM and Tradition and that is extraordinarily commendable, noble, even Saintly. But to insist that the Church is in error, sinning, flawed in Her governance, or fallen into the hands of the enemy to the point that She has become them, is not only extreme, but the level of where I have to say no. God governs the Church and has not hand it off to Freemasons, nor permitted 99% of it to be snatched from His hands. Those who say they are Catholic but aren't will answer for it. God remains at the helm in spite of Francis et all, proving to us that He extends Himself even to those who love Him least.The NOM is practiced by the conciliar church, the True Mass is the liturgy of the Catholic Church, as he said: "always to bear in mind that the Traditional Latin Mass, which is to be found in the Missale Romanum of Pope Pius V, that, that is the standard whereby they judge any other Rite in the Roman Rite".
The NOM is practiced by the conciliar church, the True Mass is the liturgy of the Catholic Church, as he said: "always to bear in mind that the Traditional Latin Mass, which is to be found in the Missale Romanum of Pope Pius V, that, that is the standard whereby they judge any other Rite in the Roman Rite".I agree that the problem lies within the Church's enemies and not the Church Herself. But because the two are indistinguishable while people live out their lives, and the contrariness within them is at epic levels, we have a circuмstance that puts Christ's promises to His Church on the chopping block. To the degree that I defend Christ's promises, I defend them only. I do not defend the error of those running the show. Christ actually might be employing the NO to reach the least of his people unable to otherwise be reached. I believe He maintains only what is true to do it. I'm making a case for the veracity of the Church, not the jerks who have made compromise with evil.
The Church is not ever in error, you confuse the Church's enemies within the Church, with the Church itself.
The validity of the NO may be doubtful, but the Church says it is not doubtful.Not true. Cardinal Ottaviani and other theologians, who are part of the Church, say it's doubtful. Even Cardinal Ratzinger said the new mass has issues.
.
I don't attend the Novus Ordo, nor do I recommend it because of said sacrileges in many churches and my previous understanding remains, but I admit I'm at the max capacity of knowing because is seems a mystery is involved.
Fr.When you use the word liceity you’re referring to the question of whether the new mass is legal.This is exactly what I am saying, because irregardless of whether this or that technical point is present, it is never allowable to make use of this un-Catholic device. There should not even be any question about this, and yet there is. The true Mass being held as a standard by which to judge, it is painfully and clearly obvious that it is not from the Catholic Church.
When you speak of validity, you are discussing whether the consecration of the mass is valid and true, whether there is truly transubstantiation.
When you discuss the matter of morality, you are questioning whether it’s a sin either to offer the new mass or to attend it.
I hasten to say that if the new mass is against the law, then it is immoral, and if there is a question of validity in the consecration, then it is immoral for anyone to use it.
Not true. Cardinal Ottaviani and other theologians, who are part of the Church, say it's doubtful. Even Cardinal Ratzinger said the new mass has issues.True, the theologians do say the NO is doubtful. I believe too, that the NO has serious issues. However, the Church practices it. Endorses it. Gives it license. The Popes for 1/2 century include it. Why? All I'm saying is this: can we be so sure that the practices that the Church actually "did" or "does" are ever sinful? This, only with the understanding that Christ is merciful to the point that He includes those individuals in the Church who want to be with Him at the expense of what appears to be too much. Catholics live their lives in many apparent contradictions. Mary, the Mother of God, was the height of contradiction. Mary was the person most richly endowed, yet a pauper. She was a mother, yet a virgin. She was a human being, but without sin. She was a servant of God, yet became the Queen of heaven and earth. It almost seems as though our glorious God necessarily challenges mankind with contradiction in order to teach not law, or human understanding, but love. And without actually breaking His Word. That way men will appeal not to laws, judgement, notions, or things we can never entirely be certain of, (with all due respect to Church teaching) but to God's Mercy. I emphatically insist that God does everything without doing a single wrong, and that His Church remains stainless.
Those of the Church who say the NOM is not doubtful, are speaking generally, and their comments are only accurate in theory. In theory, yes, the novus ordo CAN BE valid. Are all of them valid? No one can know that. It depends on MULTIPLE factors. To date, the Church, in an official capacity, has NEVER said all NOM are valid.
Putting validity aside, the NOM is still illegal (therefore sinful) and the circuмstances surrounding it (communion in the hand, irreverence, lay eucharistic ministers, etc) also make it immoral (sinful).
1. Sinful because invalid - probable, yet unknown
2. Sinful because illegal - yes
3. Sinful because of circuмstances and blasphemy - yes
True, the theologians do say the NO is doubtful. I believe too, that the NO has serious issues.Then you can't go, and you should tell everyone else they can't go as well.
However, the Church practices it. Endorses it. Gives it license.
The Popes for 1/2 century include it. Why?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.
Then you can't go, and you should tell everyone else they can't go as well.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.
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.
New Order as invalid ordination, since 1967 or so. There for NO receives nothing. No Precious Blood. The Redemptorist priest stated in the 1st chapter of the paper back book, "Holy Eucharist", that they knew the Mass would end, quoting Chapter 12 of Daniel. It is in Old Testament but the prophesy is for these times.No valid priests=no Mass, no Sacraments. An acquaintance of mine stays at home on Sundays and prays the Rosary, 15 decades on Sunday, 5 on week days. They raised their seven children this way, but they've all left the Faith if they ever had it! They tried to persuade me to join them citing a book whose author and title I cannot recall. They believe it is wrong to follow the Church liturgical calendar much as it's wrong to celebrate Passover or other superceded liturgy. They also do not observe any holidays for the same reason that Christ's Spirit has departed the Church Militant until His Return. For awhile, another family joined them until the wife refused, citing obedience to God over obedience to her husband. She went back to the SSPX by herself. I've no idea what became of them, only their two children are in their twenties by now.
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.You are conflating the new mass with the sacrifice of Our Lord, it does not apply, this is a man made blasphemy against Him and His Church. It was a deliberate and well planned assault against the integrity of the Faith, it is a repeat of all other heresies and attacks against Christ and His Church throughout the history of the Church.
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.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?
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?
You are conflating the new mass with the sacrifice of Our Lord, it does not apply, this is a man made blasphemy against Him and His Church. It was a deliberate and well planned assault against the integrity of the Faith, it is a repeat of all other heresies and attacks against Christ and His Church throughout the history of the Church.Yes it was evil and planned. I see it for what it is. My responses on this thread show that. You say Jesus does not have to overcome faulty and sinful liturgy. Is that not part of the reason Jesus suffered a cruel and bloody death? What is there in the NO that Jesus did not suffer for the day He died?
It needs to be seen for what it is. He does not have to overcome a faulty and sinful liturgy. Its evil spirit and imitation of the mass is not something that he needs to be present for. He comes to us in the true worship and absents Himself from the false ritual. It is the fault of men that they choose to attend a false mass and convince themselves that he is forced to be present in it, simply because of the laziness and ignorance of would be Catholics.
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?Christ suffered His passion and death for all sins, even the NOM and its sacrileges. The NOM is a sacrifice of a perfect Christ for an imperfect reason, which is an abomination. Are all sacrifices equal? Abortion is a sacrifice by witches of an innocent child to satan. Just because a sacrifice takes place, does not mean God is pleased.
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 validTruth is the conformity of the mind to reality. Just because your friends "see no difference" in the masses, does not make it so. The liturgy exists to express the Faith taught through the mass. If the liturgy of the SSPX, FSSP and the NOM is different, then the Faith taught is different.
Thank you for all your responses, Happenby.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.
My female friends are giving the same arguments as you have been.
I am trilled with the responses that Pax Vobis, JPaul, TxTrad, and others have given. You all have been extremely enlightening.
THANK YOU.
GOD BLESS YOU ALL
Some more related questions: 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 as are the confessions heard.
Yet, they admit that in confession, they get extremely contradictory advice.
For example, the Novus Ordo priests are telling my friends that they are racist if they attend an SSPX, FSSP, or Traditional Latin Mass, so they must confess RACISM if they attend any Latin Mass whatsoever. They are considered RACIST if they refuse to attend a Spanish Novus Ordo Mass with Mexican dancers and Mariachi Music performed by guitarists. They are considered RACIST if they refuse to attend a Black American Mass or a Native American Novus Ordo Mass and dance procession. The priests want them to change their ways and start attending such "Masses," including Clown Masses.
It is my opinion that these priests are engaging in brainwashing and putting guilt complexes on my friends. My friends explain that they disagree, and they now admit that they are racists.
Sometimes I wonder if my friends are being persuaded by these modernist priests to contact me and others and to dissuade us from holding our beliefs. Could this be the reason for the new penances? Penances used to be certain prayers like the Our Father, Hail Mary, and Memorare, but now these modernist priests are prescribing social activities like working at a food pantry, attending special modernistic retreats to broaden their horizons, seeking professional help for their racism, etc.
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.There is a huge difference between actual grace and sacramental (sanctifying grace).
God bless!
There is a huge difference between actual grace and sacramental (sanctifying grace).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?
Actual grace falls like the rain on the good and the bad. It can lead men and women to the truth, but it will not save.
On the other hand, sanctifying grace is only available in the Holy Sacraments.
While devout Catholics who attend a Novus Ordo mass may receive actual grace, it is doubtful if they are receiving sanctifying grace in the NO mass or in any of the NO sacraments.
We need to receive Christ in the Eucharist. Read St. John 6. If we do not receive the Sacred Body and Blood of Christ, then we will not be saved. Since the Novus Ordo is doubtful, we cannot be insured that we are receiving the Eucharist in that mass.
Christ talked about the Wedding Feast of the Lamb. Those guests at the Sacred Banquet (the Divine Liturgy wherein Christ is received in the Holy Eucharist) wear white garments. When receiving our First Holy Communion, we also wore white garments. Remember in that gospel story, that one guest at the banquet was not wearing a white robe, so he was cast out in utter darkness. We who receive Christ in the Eucharist are clothed in white.
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?There are a few hermit saints who do not frequent the Holy Sacraments.
There are a few hermit saints who do not frequent the Holy Sacraments.Thank you for your thoughtful answer.
Some of these "hermits" are bed-ridden with no one to bring them Holy Communion while others live alone in forests, in caves, and in deserts. However, these people are few. Our Lord provides as He did for St. Mary of Egypt. She prayed and did penance for her many sins in the wilderness, and our Lord answered her prayers sending a priest to give her absolution and the Holy Eucharist, which she received shortly before she died. She died in pure love. The priest came back a year later to commune her, but he found her incorrupt remains with a note in the sand to bury her as she had died immediately after receiving Holy Communion from his hands.
While I was in the NO convent, I met only a few very holy nuns. In fact, a few months after I had entered, the prioress gave a homily in Chapter where she chastized the nuns for their lack of holiness. She told us that the popular nuns were definitely not the holiest ones, and the reclusive nuns may not be the holiest of nuns either because some monastics harbor evil thoughts, but keep silent and also keep grudges, so no one knows their struggles with evil thoughts and desires. Thus, even nuns who depart from the world to be with God are not even attaining sanctity.
I have also met elderly NO men and women who radiated the love of God, who kept silent, and who seemed much holier than the NO nuns due to the hardships they had patiently endured with illnesses, occasional lack of food, lack of heat in the cold winters, and lack of air conditioning in the hot summers, but they never complained. When we visited them, we saw their dire poverty. These elderly men and women had received Holy Communion back in the times of Pius XII and before. They led sheltered lives much like those monastics in a convent. They received 'communion" from Eucharist ministers, not really understanding the evils of Vatican II and what the Vatican II church had ushered in so that Paul VI declared that the smoke of Satan had entered the Church. In their case, they probably received Spiritual Communion, and Our Lord provided for their salvation.
However, in todays Novus Ordo Church, with over 60 years of innovation and revolution (using Cardinal Mahony's words), can anyone be saved?
One last point on the FSSP. Though there may be many valid priests in the FSSP (only because they were properly ordained in the sspx and then left), the FSSP still only offers the indult TLM. The indult mass has conditions attached to it which make it immoral, just like the masses in england were immoral when said by priests who had accepted Henry VIII as head of the church. The indult mass, even if said by a valid priest, and if said perfectly, is still wrong because as JPII said when he started the indult and as Benedict XVI reiterated in his motu, to attend the TLM provided by new-rome, one is publicly accepting the NOM as being equal and of the same rite as the TLM. This, of course, is not only an untrue fact but it is a condition which is unnecessary, since Quo Primum provides, commands and allows the TLM to be said by all priests, anywhere at anytime. So, the indult has an anti-catholic condition which makes the TLM sinful and these masses must be avoided.So are you saying that if people go to these masses for that reason they are sinning, or mortal sinning? Do you believe the priests doing these masses are mortal sinning?
The FSSP website publicly acknowledges that they accept V2 and the NOM and will use this false-rite whenever new-rome asks them to, out of "obedience".
The FSSP website publicly acknowledges that they accept V2 and the NOM and will use this false-rite whenever new-rome asks them to, out of "obedience".
So are you saying that if people go to these masses for that reason they are sinning, or mortal sinning? Do you believe the priests doing these masses are mortal sinning?There is a difference between objective mortal sin and subjective guilt for it. For example, if a 3 year old blasphemes, this act is wrong and offensive to God. Objectively, it is a sin because blasphemy against God is evil. But subjectively, the child is not guilty since he doesn't know what he is doing. Just because the child is not guilty does not mean that God is not offended, nor does it mean that the act is not evil.
I think that the vast majority of FSSP priests wouldn't know how to celebrate the New Mass, even if they were asked. I doubt that they would ever be asked. Rome and ordinaries want to keep the FSSP fairly happy so that the faithful don't go over to the SSPX or independent chapels. They want to keep the money in the diocese.Just as the devil has no need waste his time to tempt a person who is atheist (for the devil already "has him"), so new-rome has no need to force indulters to attend/say the NOM, if they already accept it as good. And especially if they will keep quiet and not condemn the NOM for its sacrileges or errors. The FSSP isn't allowed to criticize the errors of V2 or the NOM and for this compromise, new-rome allows them (for now) some measure of independence. But their website openly states they will say the NOM if asked, so they accept it wholeheartedly.
That might mean something to those that think the ABL was some kind of a perfect traditionalist saint all along, but in reality, ABL was a cat that fell, and in the end managed to land on his feet. What do I mean by that?Could it be that what ABL taught about salvation is what has always been taught by the Catholic Church?
ABL celebrated the Novus Ordo mass for quite some time till his seminarians convinced him not to do it. ABL signed all the docuмents of Vatican II. ABL stopped the worldwide response against Vatican II, by obeying Paul VI. ABL passed on to his seminarians the teaching that is the pillar of Vatican II, his belief that people in any religion can be saved by their belief in a God the rewards, which to this day is the Achilles heal of the SSPX, bringing them back to the counterfeit VatII church. If people in any religion can be saved by their belief in a God the rewards, then there are no errors in Vatican II, for it dogmatizes the false theory. That is why ABL signed everything.
Happenby and Poche, you are missing the point. You assume that just because the consecration MIGHT BE valid (Card Ottaviani, one of the top theologians said this is doubtful) that the mass is pleasing to God. No, no, no. The Eucharist is a sacrament, and mass is mass. Two TOTALLY different things.I think you are mistaken on some points. When you said, "If a priest says a TLM but does not receive his personal communion, there is no mass. If the priest omits the Offertory in a TLM, there is no mass, even though the consecration would be valid." It the preceding instances the mass would be a valid mass but it would have been improperly said.
If the priest starts a TLM and dies right after the consecration, canon law says the mass is incomplete, therefore not a mass.
If a priest says a TLM but does not receive his personal communion, there is no mass. If the priest omits the Offertory in a TLM, there is no mass, even though the consecration would be valid.
How much more is there doubt about a NOM, wherein the Offertory, Canon and Communion prayers have been gutted, and the words “sacrifice”, “offering”, “Oblation”, “sin”, etc have been TOTALLY DELETED? These changes affect the mass, even if they don’t affect the consecration/Eucharist.
The mass is the mass; it is for God and its intentions and purpose are affected by the 3 PRINCIPLE PARTS - offertory, canon, communion. The mass is bigger than just the consecration.