Author Topic: Archbishop Lefebvre and the New Mass (Read 2323 times)

Raphaela · « **on:** December 06, 2016, 04:37:51 PM »

Quote from: Matthew

I received this via e-mail:

Quote
The widow of Hamish Fraser relayed a question to Archbishop Lefebvre, through Fr Michael Crowdy, asking whether she could attend the New Mass because she was unable to get to the traditional Mass. The Archbishop replied to her that she could do so. This would have been in the late 1980's.

http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=40394&f=19&min=513&num=3

I heard about this case. This was after Hamish Fraser's death and his wife was very isolated in the north of Scotland. She asked Fr Crowdy, an elderly English priest who worked with the SSPX, about whether she could go to the New Mass. He asked the Archbishop at Econe, who said it would be better for her to go to it than stay 'home alone'. Hamish died in 1986, so it was some time after that.

marcel · « **Reply #1 on:** December 06, 2016, 09:21:12 PM »

The distinctions in this article are really important in this matter:

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

Summary of Reasons why we shouldn't attend the New Mass

We are never allowed to have any doubts with regard to the sacraments, so if a sacrament is doubtful, we must not take part in it. Because of the ambiguity of the prayers in the New Mass, and because these prayers have an effect on the intention of the priest saying the Mass, there is doubt of his intention, and hence a doubt about the validity of the Mass. Hence we shouldn't attend the New Mass.
The New Mass is displeasing to God. This is because:
The various circuмstances that usually surround the celebration of the New Mass make us slowly lose our Faith.
The New Mass lacks something good it should have as a sacrifice worthy of being offered to God.
The New Mass is bad in itself, containing ambiguities and an actual lie about the words Jesus said at the Last Supper.
The New Mass is bad because of the purpose expressed in it.
The way the New Mass is celebrated most of the time has been condemned by infallible declarations of the Council of Trent.

RogerThat · « **Reply #2 on:** December 06, 2016, 11:33:06 PM »

Quote from: marcel

The distinctions in this article are really important in this matter:

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

Summary of Reasons why we shouldn't attend the New Mass

We are never allowed to have any doubts with regard to the sacraments, so if a sacrament is doubtful, we must not take part in it. Because of the ambiguity of the prayers in the New Mass, and because these prayers have an effect on the intention of the priest saying the Mass, there is doubt of his intention, and hence a doubt about the validity of the Mass. Hence we shouldn't attend the New Mass.

This is very false statement that keeps rearing its ugly head on these forums.
The Church believe that the sacraments are done ex opere operato. An athiest priest who does not believe in Jesus of the sacraments but who follows the missal will still confer a valid (although illicit) sacrament. The church confers jurisdiction in this place. Christ is the principal actor of the sacraments, so they are efficacious even when performed by an unworthy minister and the faithful present, provided they have the correct disposition (i.e.: free from mortal sin), receive grace.

St. Thomas, in Summa, agrees to this. See here. http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4064.htm

Now, what must be present, is matter and form.
Matter: wheat bread and grape wine. However, again, neither the presence of water not the absence of leaven is needed for a valid celebration.
Form: the words "This is my body" and "This is my blood" must be stated. So if you hear these words or know they are being said, it's a valid mass. None of the other words "matter" for the validity of the mass.

Last Tradhican · « **Reply #3 on:** December 07, 2016, 02:12:51 AM »

Quote from: RogerThat

Quote from: marcel
The distinctions in this article are really important in this matter:

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

Summary of Reasons why we shouldn't attend the New Mass

We are never allowed to have any doubts with regard to the sacraments, so if a sacrament is doubtful, we must not take part in it. Because of the ambiguity of the prayers in the New Mass, and because these prayers have an effect on the intention of the priest saying the Mass, there is doubt of his intention, and hence a doubt about the validity of the Mass. Hence we shouldn't attend the New Mass.

This is very false statement that keeps rearing its ugly head on these forums.
The Church believe that the sacraments are done ex opere operato. An athiest priest who does not believe in Jesus of the sacraments but who follows the missal will still confer a valid (although illicit) sacrament. The church confers jurisdiction in this place. Christ is the principal actor of the sacraments, so they are efficacious even when performed by an unworthy minister and the faithful present, provided they have the correct disposition (i.e.: free from mortal sin), receive grace.

St. Thomas, in Summa, agrees to this. See here. http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4064.htm

Now, what must be present, is matter and form.
Matter: wheat bread and grape wine. However, again, neither the presence of water not the absence of leaven is needed for a valid celebration.
Form: the words "This is my body" and "This is my blood" must be stated. So if you hear these words or know they are being said, it's a valid mass. None of the other words "matter" for the validity of the mass.

Just saying This is my body" and "This is my blood" does not make a mass, for the Lutherans and Anglicans do the same and their masses are not masses.

Stubborn · « **Reply #4 on:** December 07, 2016, 05:32:09 AM »

Quote from: RogerThat

Now, what must be present, is matter and form.
Matter: wheat bread and grape wine. However, again, neither the presence of water not the absence of leaven is needed for a valid celebration.
Form: the words "This is my body" and "This is my blood" must be stated. So if you hear these words or know they are being said, it's a valid mass. None of the other words "matter" for the validity of the mass.

When you speak of the validity of "the mass", you are actually speaking about the validity of the consecration in the new "mass", not "the mass" itself.

Whether the consecration is valid or not at *all* of the NO services, we simply do not know because that is something impossible to know while we live.

Per De Defectibus

Quote from: De Defectibus

If the priest were to shorten or change the form of the consecration of the Body and the Blood, so that in the change of wording the words did not mean the same thing, he would not be achieving a valid Sacrament. If, on the other hand, he were to add or take away anything which did not change the meaning, the Sacrament would be valid, but he would be committing a grave sin.

Last Tradhican · « **Reply #5 on:** December 07, 2016, 08:52:07 AM »

Last Tradhican · « **Reply #6 on:** December 07, 2016, 08:55:33 AM »

Quote from: RogerThat

St. Thomas, in Summa, agrees to this. See here. http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4064.htm

St. Thomas was not talking about the Novus Ordo, which is a doubtful mass. The strikes against it are too many to ignore, unless one chooses to stick his head in the ground.

Doubtful Pope promulgated it
Doubtful promulgation
Mass is not said in Latin original language and translations are different according to country.
Doubtful new formula for consecrating bishops (no bishop, no priests ordained)
Doubtful new ordination rite (no valid priests)
Doubt about validity of the NOM, it is the same as the Lutheran and Anglican services.

others can add more

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #7 on:** December 07, 2016, 10:23:22 AM »

Quote

Form: the words "This is my body" and "This is my blood" must be stated. So if you hear these words or know they are being said, it's a valid mass. None of the other words "matter" for the validity of the mass.

Cardinal Ottaviani and the other theologians who studied the novus ordo in the 60s disagree with you.

songbird · « **Reply #8 on:** December 07, 2016, 10:43:52 AM »

No ordination, no priest, no Precious Blood/body. Ordinations were no longer when words were changed to imply no ordination, but a presider. This is of Lutherism. Luther made sure there was no need of consecrated priest.

No Sacrifice in the New Order.

Traditional, Priest enter from side of altar with victim. In New Order, they walk up an aisle with a book. No victim, no sacrifice.

Chapter 12 of Prophet Daniel: The Continual Sacrifice will come to an end. We are nearly there.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #9 on:** December 07, 2016, 10:57:18 AM »

Here's the issue:

Either the new mass is a mass, or it is not.
If it is not, then it doesn't fulfill our sunday obligation and we can NEVER go.
If it is doubtful, then we also cannot go.

Either the new mass is 100% catholic or it is not.
And it must be 100% catholic in Theology and Liturgy.
Cardinal Ottaviani said is wasn't, Fr Wathen said it wasn't, +ABL said it has issues, +W says it is ambiguous and lends one to "slide into apostasy".
So, some say it's not 100% catholic; others are unsure.

Unless the answer is a clear, 'yes, the new mass is 100% catholic' then one cannot attend. How is this so difficult? Going on 50 years, and some still cannot take a stand?

Do we make apologies for protestants and tell them to stay in their false religion? Do we make apologies for Anglicans and tell them to stay in their false religion? Did the Church make apologies for any of the Arians, or Gnostics, or any of the other heretics in the past? No. Even if one only partially denies 1 article of Faith and is 99% catholic (if one could put a number on such a thing), it means they are not catholic and they cannot be saved.

The point is not to condemn, but to save their souls. Can a protestant, anglican, or arian save their souls, if they hold to their errors at death? Church teaching says no. So, a novus ordo catholic cannot be saved, if they hold to their errors at death.

So, while we have the chance, we must do all in our power to tell them they are in danger and to leave the new church and to come to tradition. We can't spend our energy trying to explain why "it's not their fault". We can't make apologies for their situation - they are in spiritual danger! We must warn them! We must teach them!

If clerics can't/won't do this, (and many, including +W have yet to take such a stance), then they are practicing a kind of 'catholic ecuмenism' towards our 'fellow novus ordo catholics'. This doesn't solve anything, it doesn't save souls, and it doesn't please God.

hollingsworth · « **Reply #10 on:** December 07, 2016, 05:12:31 PM »

Quote

Doubtful Pope promulgated it
Doubtful promulgation
Mass is not said in Latin original language and translations are different according to country.
Doubtful new formula for consecrating bishops (no bishop, no priests ordained)
Doubtful new ordination rite (no valid priests)
Doubt about validity of the NOM, it is the same as the Lutheran and Anglican services.

Doubtful, perhaps, but they still manage to squeeze a Eucharistic miracle out of it from time to time.

Last Tradhican · « **Reply #11 on:** December 08, 2016, 03:30:44 AM »

Quote from: hollingsworth

Quote
Doubtful Pope promulgated it
Doubtful promulgation
Mass is not said in Latin original language and translations are different according to country.
Doubtful new formula for consecrating bishops (no bishop, no priests ordained)
Doubtful new ordination rite (no valid priests)
Doubt about validity of the NOM, it is the same as the Lutheran and Anglican services.

Doubtful, perhaps, but they still manage to squeeze a Eucharistic miracle out of it from time to time.

They "manage" to "squeeze", again, doubtful.

Not a thing about the conciliar church is of certainty. We live by certainty of faith, not doubts, an invisible long chain built of doubtful links.

hollingsworth · « **Reply #12 on:** December 08, 2016, 01:45:12 PM »

LT:

Quote

Not a thing about the conciliar church is of certainty. We live by certainty of faith, not doubts, an invisible long chain built of doubtful links.

So bottom line: the alleged NO Eucharistic miracles are, at best, doubtful, and, at worst, simply hoaxes or, perhaps, lying wonders proceeding from the devil. Is that what you're saying?

Stubborn · « **Reply #13 on:** December 08, 2016, 02:13:18 PM »

Quote from: hollingsworth

LT:
Quote
Not a thing about the conciliar church is of certainty. We live by certainty of faith, not doubts, an invisible long chain built of doubtful links.

So bottom line: the alleged NO Eucharistic miracles are, at best, doubtful, and, at worst, simply hoaxes or, perhaps, lying wonders proceeding from the devil. Is that what you're saying?

NO Eucharistic Miracles could well be true miracles, but lest we be deceived, we are correct to be suspicious of them because of where they are, that is, in the NO, which has already deceived two or three generations.

We are justified being suspicious because of what the NO is, i.e. diabolical.

Can someone point to any time in the history of the Church when miracles were associated with sacrilegious protestant or pagan services, yet were approved as true miracles from heaven? I don't know but I don't think so.

Were we not warned by God Himself: "For there shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive (if possible) even the elect."?

If the miracles of the NO are indeed authentic, it can only be to show the NO offends Our dear Lord so very much, enough for God to make Himself in the host bleed again for all to witness. The other alternative is God made the miracles to draw people into the NO - I will never accept that and I am sure most here are with me on that.

John Steven · « **Reply #14 on:** December 09, 2016, 08:16:18 AM »

Quote from: Raphaela

Quote from: Matthew
I received this via e-mail:

Quote
The widow of Hamish Fraser relayed a question to Archbishop Lefebvre, through Fr Michael Crowdy, asking whether she could attend the New Mass because she was unable to get to the traditional Mass. The Archbishop replied to her that she could do so. This would have been in the late 1980's.

http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=40394&f=19&min=513&num=3

I heard about this case. This was after Hamish Fraser's death and his wife was very isolated in the north of Scotland. She asked Fr Crowdy, an elderly English priest who worked with the SSPX, about whether she could go to the New Mass. He asked the Archbishop at Econe, who said it would be better for her to go to it than stay 'home alone'. Hamish died in 1986, so it was some time after that.

This reminds me of a conversation I had with a priest who had given advice to a friend on a particular issue that made me uneasy. I'm paraphrasing here, but he told me it should be considered in the same light as advice given by a doctor: it was specific advice given to one person and not to be applied to everyone.

I think these type of anecdotes people bring up have to be looked at in the same light.