Author Topic: Moral Justification of Avoiding NO Mass (Read 2897 times)

Santo Subito · « **on:** December 31, 2011, 09:33:30 PM »

I'd like to direct this question to those who avoid assisting at any NO Mass, no matter how it is said, even if it means assisting at no Mass on Sunday when only the NO is available.

I'd like to limit this question to ONLY non-sedes. It is obvious to me why sedes would avoid the NO as they believe the NO Mass is from an anti-pope and therefore not from the Church. Case closed.

However, I am curious as to how those Traditional Catholics who recognize all the post-conciliar popes as true popes justify staying home in this situation.

It seems to me, if you recognize these popes as valid, and you recognize that this Mass was approved by a valid Pope, and the Canon Law enacted under JPII says Sunday obligation is fulfilled in any Catholic Rite, and you believe the Catholic Church introduced this Mass as the ordinary form of the Roman Rite (which it had to have done if a valid Pope approved it), how can you justify staying home?

I'm sincerely asking this because I have yet to see a logical justification for it.

Thanks.

s2srea · « **Reply #1 on:** January 01, 2012, 09:34:03 AM »

There's no logical justification for it, because you do not understand some very important points that deem your line of questions null and void. I will also add that there are a variety of ways to answer this from a non-sede position.

First, some clarification of your words: (SantoSubito=Black, S2S=Red)

"if you recognize these popes as valid, and you recognize that this Mass was approved by a valid Pope,"
Not necessarily, but lets assume so

"and the Canon Law enacted under JPII says Sunday obligation is fulfilled in any Catholic Rite,"
There is only one Catholic Rite, the Mass of St. Pius V.
It doesn't matter if a valid pope says takes a Lutheran mass, sprinkles a little bit of Romanism in it, and calls it Catholic (which is the NO); if he does, he's wrong; as Catholics, we are to remain Catholic, even if the Holy Father tells us to do something that is not; to follow him in all things, without being able to recognize their Catholicity, or lack there of, would be false obedience. (Do you agree with this generalization?)

"and you believe the Catholic Church introduced this Mass as the ordinary form of the Roman Rite (which it had to have done if a valid Pope approved it), how can you justify staying home?"
Because doing so (attending the NO mass) would be the equivalent of attending a Protestant service to fulfill my Sunday obligation. Would you go to a Evangelical Mass if the pastor had a sign outside his church that said 'Catholic'? Just because someone calls themselves Catholic, does not make them one. Just because a Pope calls the Novus Ordo, "Valid", doesn't make it so. It must be valid first for him to be 'right' in calling it valid.

If he, the pope, speaks and is within, or inside, the official teaching of the Roman Catholic Church, THEN he is protected by the Holy Ghost in from error. But, the moment he speaks as a person in volition, (AND HE CAN since he is human!) he can step out of the ambit of the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church. When he does, I am bound, as a Catholic, to only follow the pope in what is Catholic. If the pope attempts to bind me in what is not Catholic, I am bound to remain Catholic, and reject it.

Rome currently accepts a Lutheran-styled Mass, which rejected 1500 years of Tradition; traditionalists reject New-Rome, and support 2000 years of Tradition. Which would you like to be on when you meet your Creator?

s2srea · « **Reply #2 on:** January 01, 2012, 10:01:27 AM »

Quote from: s2srea

Just because a Pope calls the Novus Ordo, "Valid", doesn't make it so. It must be valid first for him to be 'right' in calling it valid.

Sorry- we're not strictly speaking of validity here, so please read:

Just because a Pope calls the Novus Ordo, ~~"Valid"~~ "Catholic, doesn't make it so. It must be ~~valid~~ Catholic first for him to be 'right' in calling it ~~valid~~ Catholic.

Pyrrhos · « **Reply #3 on:** January 01, 2012, 10:20:34 AM »

Sorry to interrupt as a Sede, but:

Quote from: s2srea

There is only one Catholic Rite, the Mass of St. Pius V.

This will greatly offend all the other Rites of the Catholic Church, from the Syro-Malabar to the Moazarabic Rite.

In regards to everything else I refrain from any comment. One just has to be careful not to fall into the schismatic, old catholic error of Fr. Döllinger, making tradition the sole judge of the Church.

Santo Subito · « **Reply #4 on:** January 01, 2012, 10:58:16 AM »

Actually, Sede opinions as to why Catholics who accept the current Pope should assist at the NO if it is all that is available might be helpful to the discussion.

S2S,

How do you get around indefectibility? How can a valid Pope give the Church an intrinsically evil, non-Catholic, Rite of Mass and say it fulfills the Sunday obligation? Not only that, that it is the norm of Mass in the Latin Rite?

In that case would the Church/ Pope not be feeding itself poison?

I fully agree that the NO can be criticized severely, however, in order to protect indefectibility, there must be a certain point where the criticisms cannot go. In my view, the claim that they are intrinsically evil crosses that line. This is impossible or else the Church has defected as it wouldn't even be capable of guaranteeing its approved rites were worthy of assisting at.

Included in the Missal of Paul VI is the Roman Canon. The definition of the Mass in the Missal was changed from the original that was problematic, and now clearly states a true definition. The NO can be said using the Roman Canon, in Latin, facing east, using altar rails, incense, Gregorian Chant, no EM's, no girl altar boys. But yet, you would refuse to attend this Mass if it were your only choice on a given Sunday?

JPaul · « **Reply #5 on:** January 01, 2012, 11:50:52 AM »

Quote

How do you get around indefectibility? How can a valid Pope give the Church an intrinsically evil, non-Catholic, Rite of Mass and say it fulfills the Sunday obligation? Not only that, that it is the norm of Mass in the Latin Rite?

In that case would the Church/ Pope not be feeding itself poison?

How many times are you going to ask this question?

A wicked churchman(even a Pope) can impose, by his authority, an un-Catholic service upon the faithful. He can indeed, against the will and mind of the Church do such a thing. This was done by Paul VI.

The Novus Ordo is not Catholic. and was never intended to be. That is the moral and canonical objection to it.

Would one go assist at the local Lutheran or Episcopalian temple where you find the mirror image of the Novus Ordo meal? It would amount to the same thing.

Santo Subito · « **Reply #6 on:** January 01, 2012, 07:18:16 PM »

Quote from: J.Paul

A wicked churchman (even a Pope) can impose, by his authority, an un-Catholic service upon the faithful. He can indeed, against the will and mind of the Church do such a thing.

What is your authority for this?

Quote

This was done by Paul VI.

In your opinion.

Quote

The Novus Ordo is not Catholic. and was never intended to be. That is the moral and canonical objection to it.

In your opinion.

Quote

Would one go assist at the local Lutheran or Episcopalian temple where you find the mirror image of the Novus Ordo meal? It would amount to the same thing.

The local Lutheran and Episcopalian churches would not have valid orders, Eucharist, or confession. If their services are similar to the NO, it doesn't matter. What matters is that Paul VI approved the NO as a valid Rite of the Church acting in his capacity as the successor of Peter, not in a private capacity. As such,it is a Catholic Mass and not a Protestant service.

Sigismund · « **Reply #7 on:** January 01, 2012, 07:42:09 PM »

Quote from: Pyrrhos

Sorry to interrupt as a Sede, but:

Quote from: s2srea
There is only one Catholic Rite, the Mass of St. Pius V.

This will greatly offend all the other Rites of the Catholic Church, from the Syro-Malabar to the Moazarabic Rite.

In regards to everything else I refrain from any comment. One just has to be careful not to fall into the schismatic, old catholic error of Fr. Döllinger, making tradition the sole judge of the Church.

Indeed.

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #8 on:** January 01, 2012, 08:40:17 PM »

Santo, I understand why you would want to ask this question to just the non-sedes. The truth, however, is that a Traditional Catholic should come to the same conclusion on the Novus Ordo Missae regardless of which position they hold on the crisis in the Church. And that conclusion should be that the NO is an apostasy and should be avoided completely.

You are sort of right about why sedes avoid the NO, Santo. But really the reason is about the same for non-sedes: the NO isn't Catholic. You keep saying that's just people's opinion, but it's not an opinion. It's a fact. For one thing, the creator of the NO (Cardinal Bugnini) was proven to have been a Freemason. It's also proven that Protestants played a key role in the creation of the New Mass. In fact, one of the six Protestant ministers in attendance at Vatican II said that he would have no problem celebrating the Novus Ordo at his church. And if you want practically every un-Catholic part of the New Mass, I suggest you read the book "The Mass of All Time" by Archbishop LeFebvre. He does a great job of explaining why the New Mass is not Catholic, going through the New Mass part by part.

So really, your conclusion on the New Mass should be the same regardless of whether or not you accept Benedict XVI as true Pope. A Mass created by Freemasons to please the Protestants cannot be Catholic. Period. As J.Paul and s2srea said, going to the NO is basically the same as going to a Protestant service.

In the NO, it's more about the community than it is about God, which is quite sad yet is true. If you read the Vatican II docuмents, you will see what they called for the faithful to become more active and participant in the Mass. And if you go to a Protestant service, it's all about the community. It's all about feeling good. It's really no different with the NO, just with a few Catholic elements thrown in.

The faithful did not need to become more active in the Mass anyway. Their participation in the TLM is fine the way it is. Take, for instance, Our Blessed Mother on Good Friday, when she stood at the foot of the Cross where Our Lord was crucified. What did She do that the human eye could see? Nothing. What did She say that the human ear could hear? Nothing. And yet, She participated more than anyone else there. You don't have to be doing or saying something that everyone can see and hear to be participating.

So, it's quite obvious why the Bogus Ordo should not be attended. It is nothing more than a Freemasonic, Protestantized, nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr service with a Catholic name-tag slapped on it. And we are not obliged to attend a service that is un-Catholic and is harmful to our Faith and soul.

Santo Subito · « **Reply #9 on:** January 02, 2012, 12:41:15 PM »

Quote from: SpiritusSanctus

Santo, I understand why you would want to ask this question to just the non-sedes. The truth, however, is that a Traditional Catholic should come to the same conclusion on the Novus Ordo Missae regardless of which position they hold on the crisis in the Church. And that conclusion should be that the NO is an apostasy and should be avoided completely.

If the NO Mass is an apostasy then the Church has apostatized.

Quote

You are sort of right about why sedes avoid the NO, Santo. But really the reason is about the same for non-sedes: the NO isn't Catholic. You keep saying that's just people's opinion, but it's not an opinion. It's a fact.

What do you mean "isn't Catholic"? What standard do you use to make this determination and by what authority?

Quote

For one thing, the creator of the NO (Cardinal Bugnini) was proven to have been a Freemason.

It was never "proven". All that was shown was that Paul VI received a dossier on Bugnini and he was then moved to Iran. Anything else is speculation.

Quote

It's also proven that Protestants played a key role in the creation of the New Mass.

The Protestants were observers and did not have a right to speak or vote in the debates and discussions.

Quote

In fact, one of the six Protestant ministers in attendance at Vatican II said that he would have no problem celebrating the Novus Ordo at his church.

His opinion.

Quote

And if you want practically every un-Catholic part of the New Mass, I suggest you read the book "The Mass of All Time" by Archbishop LeFebvre. He does a great job of explaining why the New Mass is not Catholic, going through the New Mass part by part.

It would simply criticize the New Mass, but would not explain how the Mass could be heretical or evil and the Church not have defected. That is the key issue.

Quote

So really, your conclusion on the New Mass should be the same regardless of whether or not you accept Benedict XVI as true Pope.

Not necessarily. If you accept him as Pope you must accept the Mass as legitimate. If the Mass is authorized by the Pope for the entire Roman Rite then, a priori, it cannot be evil.

Quote

A Mass created by Freemasons to please the Protestants cannot be Catholic. Period. As J.Paul and s2srea said, going to the NO is basically the same as going to a Protestant service.

You have zero proof the Mass was created by Freemasons. This is wild speculation.

Going to a Protestant service is not the same for reasons I already explained in my response to s2s.

Quote

In the NO, it's more about the community than it is about God, which is quite sad yet is true. If you read the Vatican II docuмents, you will see what they called for the faithful to become more active and participant in the Mass. And if you go to a Protestant service, it's all about the community. It's all about feeling good. It's really no different with the NO, just with a few Catholic elements thrown in.

The verb used by VCII did not mean external participation, tough this is what the lib hijackers interpreted it to mean after the fact. Some NO Masses are focused on the community. Some are not. And some focus on the faithful is not sinful as long as God is primary.

Quote

The faithful did not need to become more active in the Mass anyway. Their participation in the TLM is fine the way it is. Take, for instance, Our Blessed Mother on Good Friday, when she stood at the foot of the Cross where Our Lord was crucified. What did She do that the human eye could see? Nothing. What did She say that the human ear could hear? Nothing. And yet, She participated more than anyone else there. You don't have to be doing or saying something that everyone can see and hear to be participating.

I agree. VCII never called for external participation. It is a swindle by the libs. Nevertheless, even ABL admitted that the Pre-VCII Mass did need some renewing, though a far different renewing than Bugnini implemented.

Quote

So, it's quite obvious why the Bogus Ordo should not be attended. It is nothing more than a Freemasonic, Protestantized, nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr service with a Catholic name-tag slapped on it. And we are not obliged to attend a service that is un-Catholic and is harmful to our Faith and soul.

This is all your opinion without one definitive source to back it up.

JPaul · « **Reply #10 on:** January 02, 2012, 05:57:10 PM »

Quote from: Santo Subito

Quote from: J.Paul
A wicked churchman (even a Pope) can impose, by his authority, an un-Catholic service upon the faithful. He can indeed, against the will and mind of the Church do such a thing.

What is your authority for this?

Quote
This was done by Paul VI.

In your opinion.

Quote

The Novus Ordo is not Catholic. and was never intended to be. That is the moral and canonical objection to it.

In your opinion.

Quote
Would one go assist at the local Lutheran or Episcopalian temple where you find the mirror image of the Novus Ordo meal? It would amount to the same thing.

The local Lutheran and Episcopalian churches would not have valid orders, Eucharist, or confession. If their services are similar to the NO, it doesn't matter. What matters is that Paul VI approved the NO as a valid Rite of the Church acting in his capacity as the successor of Peter, not in a private capacity. As such,it is a Catholic Mass and not a Protestant service.

1) It is a fact based upon the structure of the Church, the Pope's authority, and its limits, and the history within the Church of such occurences.
The prior solemn condemnations of elements of the Council, Pope Pius VI, The council of Trent.

2) Paul VI did it. It is history now, an indisputable fact

3)No, not my opinion. Paul VI, Bugnini, and other creators of this service are on record of admitting that it was constructed so as to be acceptable to Protestant heretics. That it can be so, is proof that it cannot be Catholic. Objective act, not opinion.

4) That is an erroneous opinion. Paul VI did not stucture his publication of this service ( promulgation) as a binding of infallible act of his authority.
He could not do so without opposing his predecessors, Tradition or the Magisterium. John Paul is well docuмented for publishing encyclicals and public speeches which contained numerous material heresies and un-Catholic ideas.
He also had the canonical authority, as Pontiff, to do so, but lacked the moral right
to endanger the faith of his flock.

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #11 on:** January 02, 2012, 08:36:17 PM »

Quote from: Santo Subito

If the NO Mass is an apostasy then the Church has apostatized.

But Christ promised the gates of hell would not prevail. Thus, one could easily say the NO is the work of people who do not even hold a true position in the Church because they have excommunicated themselves as a result of their own actions.

Quote

What do you mean "isn't Catholic"? What standard do you use to make this determination and by what authority?

It's quite simple, Santo: a Mass created by Freemasons to please the Protestants can't be Catholic, nor does a Pope have the authority to fabricate an entirely new liturgy. The Council of Trent says that any priest of any rank who should ever dramatically change the liturgy is anathema.

Quote

It was never "proven". All that was shown was that Paul VI received a dossier on Bugnini and he was then moved to Iran. Anything else is speculation. [/qutoe]

Have you ever read "The Briefcase"? The proof was inside a briefcase owned by Bugnini. And really, I find it interesting that when confronted by Paul VI, Bugnini said he didn't even know what Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ was. How can you be a Cardinal of the Catholic Church and not even know what Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ is?

Quote
His opinion.

Do you use the word "opinion" to brush off everything negative regarding Vatican II and the NO?

Quote
Not necessarily. If you accept him as Pope you must accept the Mass as legitimate. If the Mass is authorized by the Pope for the entire Roman Rite then, a priori, it cannot be evil.

Well, you actually have a point there.

Quote
The Protestants were observers and did not have a right to speak or vote in the debates and discussions.

Not true. Research it.

Quote
The verb used by VCII did not mean external participation, tough this is what the lib hijackers interpreted it to mean after the fact. Some NO Masses are focused on the community. Some are not. And some focus on the faithful is not sinful as long as God is primary.

That, Santo, is what crushes your position. You admit that liberals ran the show during Vatican II yet you say Catholics are bound to accept it. How can you accept a council that was run by people who's position was condemned by Pope Pius IX?

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #12 on:** January 02, 2012, 08:38:55 PM »

And since, Santo, you think I can't provide anything to back up my position, perhaps you should read this from Catholic Apologetics.

http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/newmass/newmess.htm

s2srea · « **Reply #13 on:** January 03, 2012, 08:41:17 AM »

Quote from: Pyrrhos

Sorry to interrupt as a Sede, but:

Quote from: s2srea
There is only one Catholic Rite, the Mass of St. Pius V.

This will greatly offend all the other Rites of the Catholic Church, from the Syro-Malabar to the Moazarabic Rite.

In regards to everything else I refrain from any comment. One just has to be careful not to fall into the schismatic, old catholic error of Fr. Döllinger, making tradition the sole judge of the Church.

Sorry, you're right Pyrrhos; I'm a little ignorant and show it when trying to get my point across sometimes :)

s2srea · « **Reply #14 on:** January 03, 2012, 08:55:55 AM »

Quote from: Santo Subito

If the NO Mass is an apostasy then the Church has apostatized.

How did you come to that conclusion?

Quote

The Protestants were observers and did not have a right to speak or vote in the debates and discussions.

Why were they needed? What was their purpose?

Quote

Quote from: SS
In fact, one of the six Protestant ministers in attendance at Vatican II said that he would have no problem celebrating the Novus Ordo at his church.

His opinion.

Does it tell you nothing?

Quote

It would simply criticize the New Mass, but would not explain how the Mass could be heretical or evil and the Church not have defected. That is the key issue.

If this is the key issue, you must show how the the Church has defected if this is true; the burden of proof is on you my friend.