Crisis in the Church -- an analogy

It's often useful to use a parable or analogy, to help us break outside the "boxes" we've created in our minds for the various groups.

Here is some food for thought:

For our hypothetical example, let's take the Society of St. Pius X. For purposes of this discussion, let's presume the priests are valid, their Masses are valid/pleasing to God, etc and that much good is currently being done.

Now let's say something happens. Say a premature "deal" was worked out with Rome, and a few years later many (but not all) of the SSPX priests started getting worldly, as wealth, human respect, etc. started going to their heads.

Many priests start using a more "up to date" Bible translation for readings. Do they still have a valid Mass?
Many priests start downplaying the need for architecture, ornamental decor, beautiful art, etc. in favor of bigger buildings which hold more people. Do they still have a valid Mass?
Some priests ditch the cassock. Do they still have a valid Mass?
Some priests even start wearing shorts and a T-shirt. Do they still have a valid Mass?
Some priests scale back their spiritual duties: breviary, daily meditation, daily Rosary, daily Scripture reading and/or daily study. Do they still have a valid Mass?
Some priests start watching TV. Do they still have a valid Mass?
Some priests start disliking their vocation; even saying Mass. They begin rushing through the Mass. DTSHAVM?
Some priests start joking more during sermons. DTSHAVM?
Some priests start avoiding "hard topics" that might offend the parishioners. DTSHAVM?
Some priests start getting addicted to comfort, higher-end food, human respect, etc. DTSHAVM?
Some priests start allowing different kinds of hymns during Liturgical services. Solos, opera, different instruments, protestant hymns, etc. to better please people. DTSHAVM?
A few priests even commit various scandals against the Sixth and/or Seventh commandments. DTSHAVM?
A few priests believe and/or promote things that are offensive to pious ears (e.g., "Fatima is not a true apparition"). DTSHAVM?
A few priests begin to espouse doubtful or even heretical positions. A) Do THESE priests still have a valid Mass, and B) Do SSPX priests in general still have a valid Mass?

...

And on down the line. At each stage, it becomes less "pleasant", but WHEN exactly does the Mass start becoming INVALID just because they've become ICKY (for lack of a better term)?

And if someone walked in FIFTEEN YEARS FROM NOW on the whole subtotal of these changes, they'd say "yuck!" and could easily say, "That's no Mass. Jesus isn't present there!" and their opinion would seem to be quite believable.
But when you broke it down, you'd see there wasn't any substance to the argument. The priests were validly ordained before; they still are. They said the proper words of consecration before, and still do. They used pure wheat flour with no additives for the hosts before, and still do. They used grape wine before, and still do.

Those who believe the Novus Ordo is invalid should be able to say exactly WHY -- and "Ick!" isn't a good enough reason.

What if that same order took up the Anglican ordination rite which was declared invalid by Pope Leo XIII, who had the question thoroughly investigated and gave the decision Sept. 13, 1896, in his Bull "Apostolicae Curae."

Would they then still have the Mass?

What if that same order took up the Anglican ordination rite which was declared invalid by Pope Leo XIII, who had the question thoroughly investigated and gave the decision Sept. 13, 1896, in his Bull "Apostolicae Curae."

Would they then still have the Mass?

Are you saying that the Novus Ordo rite of ordination is the same as the Anglican ordination rite, which was condemned by said Bull?

Matthew

You can judge for yourself after you look into this:

http://www.calefactory.org/misc-v2-v2ritesaretheyvalid.htm

Myrna, have you ever heard of the author of this article before?

Everytime anyone reads something they don't like they attack the author or messenger.  The information is what CMRI and all the Sede chapels say.  

But if I posted something from the CMRI web site it would have been attacked also.  

I suggest you come to the conference in Oct. at the Mount, and I will pay your way, so don't say you can't afford it.  You will learn a lot.  

Do I have a bulls eye on me today?

Will you please tell me where you got

Everytime anyone reads something they don't like they attack the author or messenger.  

from this

Myrna, have you ever heard of the author of this article before?

I ask you a civil question and all I got was a nasty response.

Forgive me if I don't trust everyone that I read.  I never heard of this man before -- ever.  If he is such a trustworthy source, why isn't he ever in the Reign of Mary or, for that matter, The Four Marks?

Quote from: MaterDominici

Quote from: Recusant

Quote from: Matthew

Those who believe the Novus Ordo is invalid should be able to say exactly WHY -- and "Ick!" isn't a good enough reason.

Why? Because it is based on a lie. Our Lord did not say "for all" He said "for many" and popes, doctors and catechisms have explained why "for many" MUST be used.

And so you would agree that a Latin NO is valid? ...and that ALL NO Masses will be valid when the new translations are implemented next year??

Validity could be possible in the cases you mention but for various reasons you would compromise your faith by assisting at such a Mass.

Yes, but as this conversation was a spin-off (in case you didn't know) of the question of whether or not we should go to Adoration at a NO church, the primary issue is validity of the consecration.

Quote

... the primary issue is validity of the consecration.

There are more "primary issues" than just validity.

What would be another issue affecting whether or not one should attend Eucharistic Adoration at a NO church other than validity of the consecration?

It should be obvious that validity alone cannot be the sole reason for attendance at a Eucharistic Adoration, as there are valid but illicit sacraments available in various places. While it is true that the Church has pronounced on these illicit sacraments, yet it is also true that the Church has pronounced on the validity of these illicit sacraments as She allows those in danger of death to be associated with them in a very specific situation.

Considering the audience on this site, I don't think many are concerned with whether or not the sacrament was licit. Unless you're trying to say that the NO is illicit in which case please feel free to explain.

The Novus Ordo is to be avoided because it is doubtful. This is the entire basis for the traditionalist resistance of the new sacraments.

I avoid the NO not because I doubt it's validity or licitness, but rather because it is inferior to the TLM and usually harmful to souls. This coupled with abuses of the rite is plenty of reason to stay away. It's primarily the SV viewpoint that believes the NO to be doubtfully valid and certainly is NOT the "entire basis for traditionalist resistance".

I ask you, though, why you think the NO to be doubtful. So far we have (1) invalid ordinations, which does not apply to all NO Masses and (2) improper wording, which in the example cited does not apply to Latin Masses and will be rectified in all English Masses late next year.