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

« previous next »
Pages: [1]

Author Topic: Two Views on the New Mass: Indult/Fr. Ripperger's and R&R/Fr. Wathen's.  (Read 5181 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline RobertS

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 75
  • Reputation: +44/-103
  • Gender: Male
Two Views on the New Mass: Indult/Fr. Ripperger's and R&R/Fr. Wathen's.
« on: August 22, 2024, 10:33:26 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
    • There are two views of the New Mass
    Logged

    Online 2Vermont

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 11382
    • Reputation: +6351/-1115
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Two Views on the New Mass: Indult/Fr. Ripperger's and R&R/Fr. Wathen's.
    « Reply #1 on: August 22, 2024, 10:58:51 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: RobertS on August 22, 2024, 10:33:26 AM
    There are two views of the New Mass
    Did you mean to say you hold to "2"?  Because it sounds like you hold to "1". :confused:
    Logged

    Online Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 12056
    • Reputation: +7590/-2287
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Two Views on the New Mass: Indult/Fr. Ripperger's and R&R/Fr. Wathen's.
    « Reply #2 on: August 22, 2024, 11:09:12 AM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote
    the extreme view of Fr. Wathen, namely that the New Mass is supposedly "idolatry", "heresy", "blasphemy", always a "sacrilege", and a "mortal sin" etc.
    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.
    Logged

    Offline Stubborn

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 14700
    • Reputation: +6058/-904
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Two Views on the New Mass: Indult/Fr. Ripperger's and R&R/Fr. Wathen's.
    « Reply #3 on: August 22, 2024, 11:41:23 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Fr. Wathen:
    "People should know that attending the Indult Mass represents a very serious compromise of their faith. Before a bishop allows the Traditional Latin Mass in one of his Novus Ordo churches, according to papal direction, he exacts this commitment: Those to whom the Mass is made available must give a verbal acceptance to the Second Vatican Council and to the new mass. Whether they know it or not, everyone who attends the Indult Mass makes the same implicit commitment. In the days of the Rome persecutions, a Catholic could escape martyrdom if he would burn the tiniest pinch of incense before one of the countless Roman gods. The commitment which the pope and bishops require is that pinch of incense."

    I am always amazed that trad priests and bishops, who would not be caught dead saying the NOM do not fully condemn it for the great sacrilege that it is.
    Logged
    "But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men." - Acts 5:29

    The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man" - Fr. Hesse

    Offline Stubborn

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 14700
    • Reputation: +6058/-904
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Two Views on the New Mass: Indult/Fr. Ripperger's and R&R/Fr. Wathen's.
    « Reply #4 on: August 22, 2024, 11:50:55 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: RobertS on August 22, 2024, 10:33:26 AM
    https://unamsanctamcatholicam.blogspot.com/2023/08/on-superior-merit-of-traditional-mass.html
    Before anyone panics, let me add that Fr. Ripperger basis his conclusion upon a clear distinction between the intrinsic and extrinsic value of a Mass. The intrinsic value a Mass refers to the value in the Mass as a work of God, particularly in the ex opere operato graces present in the Eucharistic sacrifice. The intrinsic value of any valid Mass is therefore infinite, since it is Christ's own infinitely valuable sacrifice to the Father. Intrinsically, then, the New Rite of Mass is just as efficacious as the traditional rite or as any other valid rite, inasmuch as the infinite value of the Eucharistic sacrifice is present in both forms.
    I listened to many sermons and talks by the good Father, but the bolded is what prompted me to abandon Fr. Ripperger for good.

    All anyone has to do is look at what the NOM has done to the faith of those who [still] go there. 90% of them (priests and bishops included) do not believe in the Real Presence for crying out loud. At consecration(?) the priest remains facing the people to show them what they are about to eat and drink, he's not reenacting the holy sacrifice of Calvary. I could go on, but the tolerance of the NOM and lack of being anti-NO is prevalent in Fr. Ripperger's sermons.
    Logged
    "But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men." - Acts 5:29

    The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man" - Fr. Hesse

    Offline Giovanni Berto

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1313
    • Reputation: +1057/-80
    • Gender: Male
    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 »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • 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

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1313
    • Reputation: +1057/-80
    • Gender: Male
    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 »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • 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

    Online Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 12056
    • Reputation: +7590/-2287
    • Gender: Male
    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 »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • 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

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1313
    • Reputation: +1057/-80
    • Gender: Male
    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 »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • 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

    Online Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 12056
    • Reputation: +7590/-2287
    • Gender: Male
    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 »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • 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

    Offline Giovanni Berto

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1313
    • Reputation: +1057/-80
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Two Views on the New Mass: Indult/Fr. Ripperger's and R&R/Fr. Wathen's.
    « Reply #10 on: August 22, 2024, 01:40:05 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Pax Vobis 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.

    Sure, but with the SSPX you never know who the celebrant is until he walks in dressed for mass. Such a messy group.:facepalm:
    Logged

    Online 2Vermont

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 11382
    • Reputation: +6351/-1115
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Two Views on the New Mass: Indult/Fr. Ripperger's and R&R/Fr. Wathen's.
    « Reply #11 on: August 22, 2024, 01:51:30 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: RobertS on August 22, 2024, 10:33:26 AM
    There are two views of the New Mass (among non-sedes/excluding that for now) among non-sede Traditional Catholics: (1) one, that of Fr. Ripperger, that the TLM is objectively superior to the NOM, and merits more graces from God. In a similar way, 15 decades of the Rosary is more meritorious than 5 decades and thus objectively superior to it, though both merit grace. (2) two, the extreme view of Fr. Wathen, namely that the New Mass is supposedly "idolatry", "heresy", "blasphemy", always a "sacrilege", and a "mortal sin" etc. Even Bp. Williamson recently rejected the Wathenite for the Rippergerite view, though Bp. Williamson is not exactly Indult. And most importantly, (1) holds the NOM is only deficient, which is compatible with the Church Hierarchy's Indefectibility, whereas (2) holds the NOM to be positively DEFECTIVE, which word-for-word contradicts the Church's Indefectibility.

    Which view do you hold and why? I hold 2, and some of the reasons why are explained by Fr. Ripperger in his original "Merit of a Mass" article and in the below article on Unam Sanctam Catholicam that reviews it:
    The Rosary is a sacramental, not a sacrament.    Apples and Oranges.  
    Logged

    Offline Hewkonian

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 96
    • Reputation: +51/-50
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Two Views on the New Mass: Indult/Fr. Ripperger's and R&R/Fr. Wathen's.
    « Reply #12 on: August 22, 2024, 02:56:45 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • The Novus Ordo is poisoned, it is dubious and doubtful as are there priests and Catholics must reject it. I hold the same position as Archbishop Lefebvre:
      -“This Mass is poisoned, it is bad and it leads to the loss of faith little by little. We are clearly obliged to reject it.” (The Mass of All Times, p. 353)


      -“And we have the precise conviction that this new rite of Mass expresses a new faith, a faith which is not ours, a faith which is not the Catholic Faith. This New Mass is a symbol, is an expression, is an image of a new faith, of a Modernist faith… Now it is evident that the new rite, if I may say so, supposes another conception of the Catholic religion - another religion.” (Sermon, June 29, 1976)


      -“…if they are going to the New Mass—slowly, slowly they change their mind and become, slowly, slowly Protestant. It is very dangerous to go to the New Mass regularly, each week, because the New Mass is not some accidental change, but it is a whole orientation, a new definition of the Mass. It has not the same definition as the True Mass.” (Interview, St. Michael’s Mission, Atlanta, April 27, 1986)

    Logged

    Offline songbird

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4980
    • Reputation: +1944/-398
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Two Views on the New Mass: Indult/Fr. Ripperger's and R&R/Fr. Wathen's.
    « Reply #13 on: August 22, 2024, 02:59:40 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Fr. Faber I believe stated that the rosary is a sacramental therefore in mystery it does have Precious Blood.
    Logged

    Online Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 12056
    • Reputation: +7590/-2287
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Two Views on the New Mass: Indult/Fr. Ripperger's and R&R/Fr. Wathen's.
    « Reply #14 on: August 22, 2024, 03:09:17 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote
    Fr. Ripperger concludes that the Traditional Rite of Mass is objectively more meritorious.  
    This is obviously true, because an illicit/sinful mass is not meritorious at all.  And the novus ordo is illicit/sinful due to Quo Primum.

    Quote
    Before anyone panics, let me add that Fr. Ripperger basis his conclusion upon a clear distinction between the intrinsic and extrinsic value of a Mass. The intrinsic value a Mass refers to the value in the Mass as a work of God, particularly in the ex opere operato graces present in the Eucharistic sacrifice. 
    Only the TLM, said by a 100% non-doubtful priest, said in accordance with Quo Primum (i.e. not in accordance with V2/new-rome) has any intrinsic value.

    All novus ordo "masses" said by "V2 priests" are suspect and doubtful.  And all indult "masses" said by "V2 priests" are also doubtful.  These have no intrinsic value because a doubtful mass/sacrament must be avoided under pain of sin, per canon law. 

    God can provide graces to those who attend such doubtful services, but such cannot be condoned in a general way.


    Quote
    The intrinsic value of any valid Mass is therefore infinite, since it is Christ's own infinitely valuable sacrifice to the Father. 
    This applies to the True Mass only.

    Quote
    Intrinsically, then, the New Rite of Mass is just as efficacious as the traditional rite or as any other valid rite, inasmuch as the infinite value of the Eucharistic sacrifice is present in both forms.
    This is just horrible, misguided theology.  Validity is not the only "litmus test" of grace.  One must also consider the licitness and morality of an act.  The new mass, even if valid, and even if said in the most "reverent way possible" is 100% illicit (and therefore sinful) and this makes it immoral.  The only graces which flow from the new mass, are by way of God's mercy, to those who still haven't grasped/accepted that the V2/new mass machine is heretical and anti-catholic.


    Quote
    Taken together, Fr. Ripperger concludes that the rite of the Traditional Mass is structured in such a way as to enable a greater disposition of prayerfulness and piety, 
    Uhh...because it is of Divine origin, directly from Christ.  God created the True Mass and that's why its "structure" is perfect.


    Quote
    which in turn means the graces we reap from the traditional Mass can be objectively greater than those available in the Novus Ordo—without denying the validity of the New Mass, nor calling into question that "Christ is there" in the Eucharist of the Novus Ordo. One need not question the validity of the Novus Ordo to understand that, objectively, the framework of the traditional Mass opens up the possibility of a greater merit when considered extrinsically.
    Christ can also be present at a Black Satanic Mass, but that doesn't mean that His Presence is pleasing to God the Father, nor that it provides grace, nor that we deny the validity of (certain) Satanic Masses.

    Just because a mass is valid, doesn't mean it's pleasing to God.  Validity is only 1 requirement.  Fr Ripperberger's analysis of the new mass is short-sighted, myopic, and flawed.
    Logged
    Pages: [1]
    « previous next »