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

Author Topic: Calling the Novus Ordo a sacrilege - or not  (Read 2317 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Calling the Novus Ordo a sacrilege - or not
« Reply #10 on: May 08, 2019, 12:16:35 PM »
Upon receiving this person's message, my first impulse was to rip off an email in response.  But I waited, wanting things to settle.  My thoughts were:

Like many who "don't get" the True Mass issue, that they -

1: Don't really understand what the Mass is!   2: They often have no or little respect for Quo Primum.


And then they proceed to mince away the Mass issue in pieces, via words, equivocations, sophistries and superciliousness.

Truly, I did want to hand this person a Great Sacrilege, and say, "Read it, if you never have.  And if you have, read it again."

But this may be taken as an insult and/or just be a waste of time.  For this person feels they are a "teacher of Israel."  They themselves write Church things to instruct others, you see.  

But brains, nor eyes, nor grace seem to have affected this person - yet.  And one would think that with older Catholics especially, who have spent many pre-Vatican II adult years living the parish life, and experiencing the Church with NO OTHER MASS but the Latin Mass holding court, with no thought of any other Mass being referred to or even imagined when the word "Mass" was used in any context - with everyone thinking the same thing when Mass was mentioned or thought of - you would think that such a person as this one claims to be, and with this experience and background, would react electrified and with an absolute shout of "Sacrilege!" when the New Mass crept in.  But no.  

Now in old age, well, the day is drawing late.  

Offline Pax Vobis

  • Supporter
Re: Calling the Novus Ordo a sacrilege - or not
« Reply #11 on: May 08, 2019, 12:44:44 PM »
Most people think that if the new mass has a valid consecration, then it is a valid mass (this isn't so).  Then they proceed to the next error, which is that if the new mass is valid, then Our Lord is present, therefore God provides graces to the communicants.  Their final error being that if the new mass is valid, then communions are spiritually beneficial, therefore the mass is pleasing to God.  This is why they can't call it a sacrilege - because they don't understand basic theology, or basic church law (since the new mass is obviously illegal and therefore sinful).
.
The proper way to understand it is that the new mass' morality is separate from its validity.  Fr Wathen's whole book ignored the validity question (and rightly so) because he said it didn't matter.  The holiness due to the mass and sacraments is absolutely independent of their validity.  Most don't (or don't want to) grasp this distinction.


Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: Calling the Novus Ordo a sacrilege - or not
« Reply #12 on: May 08, 2019, 02:44:56 PM »
I like the the brevity and correspondent bluntness of Fr. Wathen in this sermon, only 8 minutes long, starts at about the 1:35 minute mark. He pretty much forgets about all the pussy footing around this subject matter, just says what needs to be said, hits you with both barrels right between the eyes.

Yes, he concludes that a valid Pope could promulgate a sacrilegeous Mass.

Re: Calling the Novus Ordo a sacrilege - or not
« Reply #13 on: May 08, 2019, 04:01:41 PM »
Yes, he concludes that a valid Pope could promulgate a sacrilegeous Mass.
hmmmmmm, so you've said before that the pontificates of John XXIII through Francis are "in doubt", would you also say the sacriligous nature of the Novus ordo is "in doubt?" 

Offline Stubborn

  • Supporter
Re: Calling the Novus Ordo a sacrilege - or not
« Reply #14 on: May 08, 2019, 04:41:40 PM »
Yes, he concludes that a valid Pope could promulgate a sacrilegeous Mass.
Yes, he concludes it for the simplest of reasons - because that is what happened.

He explains the sede's "pope problem" with this, in the first part of The Great Sacrilege.