Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3

Author Topic: Two Views on the New Mass: Indult/Fr. Ripperger's and R&R/Fr. Wathen's.  (Read 5798 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Giovanni Berto

Re: Two Views on the New Mass: Indult/Fr. Ripperger's and R&R/Fr. Wathen's.
« Reply #5 on: August 22, 2024, 12:00:51 PM »
Quote from: Pax Vobis on August 22, 2024, 11:09:12 AM
If you go read the "Ottaviani Intervention", which was written by Cardinal Ottaviani (the top theologian in rome at the time), along with Cardinal Bacci and other theologians, you will see his (paraphrased) conclusions:

1.  The new mass is a "striking departure from the Faith at Trent" (i.e. heresy).
2.  The new mass' theology is anti-Trent (i.e. new religion/idolatry).
3.  The new mass' consecration is "positively doubtful" (i.e. canon law states it is a mortal sin to attend doubtful sacraments, except in danger of death).

So, these Cardinals agreed with Fr Wathen's main points.  And they were critiquing the "most pure form" of the new mass, before it had been released, post V2.  These Cardinals were asked by Paul VI to analyze the new mass and give their opinions.  They condemned it 100%.

The rest of Fr Wathen's condemnations (i.e. blasphemy and sacrilege) were confirmed AFTER the new mass was officially released, when the ACTUAL "mass" was much worse than the "pure form".  The blasphemy/sacrilege came from 'communion-in-the-hand', the 'new age/community' antics of the "priests" and the gross irreverence/sacrilege of the "smells and bells" of this abomination.

So, yes, Fr Wathen was right.  And many other of the "pioneer Trads" of the 70s/80s agreed with him.

The sspx was always wishy-washy on the new mass and still are.

What exactly is to "attend" a sacrament?

To receive? Or merely watching it being conferred?

Wouldn't "it is a mortal sin to attend receive doubtful sacraments" be a better wording?
Logged

Offline Giovanni Berto

Re: Two Views on the New Mass: Indult/Fr. Ripperger's and R&R/Fr. Wathen's.
« Reply #6 on: August 22, 2024, 12:04:43 PM »
If the Novus Ordo does not offend God and give grace, why bother with the Tradional Mass?

If it gives less graces, let's go twice on Sunday. Most of us have a Novus Ordo church near home.:fryingpan:

I hope that people are travelling for hours and making other great efforts because they don't believe this rubbish. 

I would never travel just to see the incense and the pretty vestments.
Logged

Offline Pax Vobis

  • Supporter
Re: Two Views on the New Mass: Indult/Fr. Ripperger's and R&R/Fr. Wathen's.
« Reply #7 on: August 22, 2024, 12:52:28 PM »
Quote
Wouldn't "it is a mortal sin to attend receive doubtful sacraments" be a better wording?
The canon law prohibition applies to both 1) attendance at doubtful masses and 2) reception of doubtful sacraments.  Since we're talking about the new mass, I used the term "attendance".  It would still be a grave sin to attend a doubtful mass, even if you do not receive Holy Communion.  Just like it would be a grave sin to go to confession to a doubtful priest (except in danger of death), even if you are only confessing venial sins.  Canon Law's prohibition is to prevent the growth of dubious priests and any attendance/cooperation with such is a grave sin.  Such is the danger of doubtful sacraments, that the Church prohibits such in a stern manner.

Putting aside the issue of 'doubtful masses/sacraments' (which is no small matter), Quo Primum would also make the new mass a grave sin (even "passive" attendance).  Because the new mass is DEFINITELY, positively contrary to Quo Primum and therefore a grave sin (even if the priest is a real priest). 

Canon Law forbids doubtful masses and also scandalous/blasphemous masses.  And also heretical/schismatic masses.  Quo Primum forbids ALL non-TLM rites, which makes the new mass schismatic and a grave offense.

The indult would also be forbidden by canon law, the same way the valid, Anglican masses were forbidden right after Henry VIII.  The indult/Anglican (and also the Arian masses of St Athanasius' day) may have been/be valid, but they are tainted with schism/heresy because they are explicitly and openly part of/supportive to the Arian, Anglican, V2 heresies.  So by going to the indult, you are saying you are accepting of the new mass, because you are attending a priest/society which is "under new rome".  This is quasi-schismatic and a condoning of V2 heresy.
Logged

Offline Giovanni Berto

Re: Two Views on the New Mass: Indult/Fr. Ripperger's and R&R/Fr. Wathen's.
« Reply #8 on: August 22, 2024, 12:59:09 PM »
Quote from: Pax Vobis on August 22, 2024, 12:52:28 PM
The canon law prohibition applies to both 1) attendance at doubtful masses and 2) reception of doubtful sacraments.  Since we're talking about the new mass, I used the term "attendance".  It would still be a grave sin to attend a doubtful mass, even if you do not receive Holy Communion.  Just like it would be a grave sin to go to confession to a doubtful priest (except in danger of death), even if you are only confessing venial sins.  Canon Law's prohibition is to prevent the growth of dubious priests and any attendance/cooperation with such is a grave sin.  Such is the danger of doubtful sacraments, that the Church prohibits such in a stern manner.

Putting aside the issue of 'doubtful masses/sacraments' (which is no small matter), Quo Primum would also make the new mass a grave sin (even "passive" attendance).  Because the new mass is DEFINITELY, positively contrary to Quo Primum and therefore a grave sin (even if the priest is a real priest). 

Canon Law forbids doubtful masses and also scandalous/blasphemous masses.  And also heretical/schismatic masses.  Quo Primum forbids ALL non-TLM rites, which makes the new mass schismatic and a grave offense.

The indult would also be forbidden by canon law, the same way the valid, Anglican masses were forbidden right after Henry VIII.  The indult/Anglican (and also the Arian masses of St Athanasius' day) may have been/be valid, but they are tainted with schism/heresy because they are explicitly and openly part of/supportive to the Arian, Anglican, V2 heresies.  So by going to the indult, you are saying you are accepting of the new mass, because you are attending a priest/society which is "under new rome".  This is quasi-schismatic and a condoning of V2 heresy.

What about the SSPX then?

You sometimes get there and there is a converted Novus Ordo priest who has not been condionally re-ordained. Getting up and leaving as soon as you see the celebrant does not sound like a viable option. I usually stay and don't receive communion.


Logged

Offline Pax Vobis

  • Supporter
Re: Two Views on the New Mass: Indult/Fr. Ripperger's and R&R/Fr. Wathen's.
« Reply #9 on: August 22, 2024, 01:32:28 PM »
In your description, any sin is on the new-sspx leadership.  But, it would become sinful for you, if you continued to go to this doubtful priest, knowing he was not conditionally re-ordained.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3
« previous next »