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.  

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.  

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.  

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.  

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".  
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.   Some say the Novus Ordo is a schismatic rite.  I used to believe that.  But the Church, (true, the part in question) says it is Catholic.  This promotes dissemination.  The broader thought that all are Catholic no matter what they believe, leads to chaos.  Not that I'm a middle of the roader type, I'm just trying to understand what is going on.  I don't see anything as justification for what has been done to the Church, rather, because of it, Christ is manifesting his Mercy for more people than we might otherwise think possible.   He stays to be immolated even further, for their sake. 

A snip from a late 1980s interview with Fr. Wathen on this subject.....

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.

A snip from a late 1980s interview with Fr. Wathen on this subject.....

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 Church is not ever in error, you confuse the Church's enemies within the Church, with the Church itself.

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.  

 
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.   

.
When in doubt, do without.

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.
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.  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. 
Let me ask you this: what part of a crucifixion is reasonable, good, decent, or perfect, unless Christ is the willing victim?   I think about the pieces of Christ's Flesh and Blood staining the better part of the area where He was scourged.  People after Jesus' scourging literally walked on their Creator.  It's almost as though the NO fulfills Scripture's account of the Passion of Christ throughout time because particles of His Body and Blood would not stain the carpets of TLM as they do the NO.  I truly do not want to dignify or condone a single iota of anything evil that the enemy has accomplished in order to destroy the Church, rather, I only want to accept what God is trying to teach us and to thank Him for His unfathomable Mercy to man.