Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: 2Vermont

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: 2Vermont

I can't believe the excuses and handwringing from the R&R crowd on this.  You all sound just like the Novus Ordites who get all up in arms when a trad dares to criticize their beloved "pope".   What a joke.

Glad you're posting again 2V.

How long were you a NOer and a willing participant in the new mass?

Thanks for the welcome, but I don't plan on posting much.  The issues I have with this forum still exists.

As to your question, too long. I thank my husband for telling me the hard truth despite my "emotional" female reactions.  

Well I hope you post more. I know we disagree on some important subjects, but we can't try to convert each other if you don't post.

Anyway, I asked the question as a means of demonstrating that former NOers, such as yourself, had their eyes and ears opened at some point because they accepted the graces offered. Whether it was your husband's telling you the truth or something else, unless you corresponded with the graces which He gave you, you would not have accepted that you needed to leave the NO. Nobody escapes the clutches of evil because of their own wit or ability. No one.  

After "X" years, you, like thousands (millions?) of others, *finally* began to see the new mass for what it is - a mockery of the True Mass, an abominable charade of the True Mass, the sacrifice of Cain. Or perhaps "something just isn't right". Whatever your thoughts were, you accepted the graces prompting you to get out - same as the other 'former NOers turned trad' accepted those same graces  - and who all got out, or, amongst the confusion, are working on it.

It seems to me that +W's “Do whatever you need to nourish your faith" just might include participation in the new mass, just so you *finally* find out through the grace of God, what not to do, where not to go, what not to be a part of, because that is the same path that all former NOers traveled.

   

Those of us who have been given the grace have an obligation to warn others, not tell them, "well if it nourishes you faith....."

First, +W did not say "Well, if it nourishes your faith....", not even close. And he did warn her and the others of it's evils, to say otherwise is to put words in his mouth making him say what he did not say and mean what he did not mean.  

What you suggest is no different than telling a Protestant to continue to go to the Protestant service because at some point God may give them grace to see that it is a false religion.

No. As I specified repeatedly, I am talking to you, to "former NOers now trads" just like you - not to Protestants. In case you cannot grasp that there is a huge difference between the two, then there is too much involved for me to explain the differences to you in one post.

I thought you, being a former NOer now trad yourself, would understand, but I was wrong.

Meg,

You say above that the NO is often sacrilegious and of doubtful validity. If you believe that it's doubtful, then it's also not set in stone that it's absolutely is invalid. And maybe there are times when it's not sacrilegious, but just a dumbed-down bare bones version of the Mass. If there's even a chance that it's valid and licit, then I'm not going to stay home on Sunday. It's fine of others do (stay at home), but I'm not comfortable with that. I don't know if graces flow from the NO. Part of the graces present also depend on the faith and devotion of those present at the Mass, which is also lacking of course at the NO. I don't go to receive graces from the NO. I only go because I can't bear to offend God, and I also go to show love and devotion towards Him (in Holy Eucharist), even if others there do not. I understand if others here strongly disagree.

Meg,

There are a few misunderstandings in your statement.
The Novus Ordo is sacrilegious in and of itself, and it is therefore always a sacrilege. There are no times when it is not.

You say, "if there is even a chance etc", well that is not our choice to make. The Church says that one is never allowed to approach a sacrament which is doubtful.

Not being able to attend a Catholic Mass on Sunday, or any other day, for that matter, is indeed a tragedy and a great suffering, but if you cannot fulfill your Sunday duty at a Catholic Mass, then you are dispensed, but must make your day Holy and dedicated to God.

It is the Church which requires you to attend Mass, in that command is contained the Church's responsibility to provide you with that Mass. In this Crisis of conciliar usurpation, the Church is being prevented from doing this, so we are left to attending when we can, and where we can, and how often we can.

Refusing non-Catholic worship and making the day Holy and sacred is indeed honoring and obeying God. He can never be offended by these acts, and he gives great grace to those who persevere in fidelity to Him.

It does not matter how we feel about it, it only matters that we do what is right in God's eyes, and we know what is right according to the laws and doctrine of the Church. One may not be as culpable when they do not understand the nature of the Novus Ordo ritual, but once you have knowledge, then you are responsible for the offenses which this sacrilege and non-Catholic worship carries with it.

The good and the Faithful are suffering in these times, in their deprivations, but, that is the mark of fidelity to Christ and His Church, never to accept that which is not of God, and not of His Church.

Oh I understand what you're trying to say.  But in the end you are just rationalizing Bishop Williamson's comments...comments that sound very different than Archbishop Lefebrve's.

Ladislaus is correct:  Bishop Williamson has yellow lighted the NOM.  

No, you do not understand because if you understood, you could not have said what you did in your previous reply to me and possibly you would have actually replied to what I wrote.

Returning to the main subject of controversy.

The only proper words from any cleric must be, "No, you cannot go, you must stop attending this service."

I take it many of the posters here have not read either Bp. Tissier's biography of the Archbishop's life or, for example, Michael Davies' Apologia pro Marcel Lefebvre. Just a brief overview of some of Archbishop Lefebvre's directives over the years. Bp. Williamson is not incorrect here, and Sanborn presents a typical false dichotomy in critiquing what was said. I will answer that later, but for now, the simple fact is, all Catholics should objectively make the principled and courageous decision to assist at the true Mass exclusively - and God will, in His good time, give those who seek to please Him perfectly the means to do so - without saying or needing to say the New Mass is invalid, heretical or intrinsically a mortal sin. For a priest who knows better, it will indeed be a mortal sin, because Quo Primum forbids any priest to knowingly alter even the slightest thing in the Mass, let alone the words of consecration and much of the Offertory (see below), as we all know the New Mass does. Yet, it would not be a mortal sin intrinsically, but only extrinsically, as the example of Cardinal Mindszenty cited by the Archbishop (further below) shows, (what is intrinsically evil is evil in each and every circuмstance, situations of the gravest necessity notwithstanding), but only extrinsically so, not sinning positively by formulating heresy, but evil by omission for permitting ambiguity.

http://sspx.org/en/what-archbishop-lefebvre-said-about-new-mass
http://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Apologia/Vol_two/Chapter_40.htm
and http://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Case_for_Defence.htm

The problem of assisting at the New Mass

Some priests were torn between the need to keep the Faith as expressed by the traditional Mass and a desire to be obedient as they saw it. In the early days of the reforms, Archbishop Lefebvre advised them to keep at least the traditional Offertory and Canon and to say them in Latin. His advice to the seminarians as to the faithful was remarkably moderate in tone for one who was first to step up to the breach to repel the New Mass.

He exhorted them:

    Make every effort to have the Mass of St. Pius V, but if it is impossible to find one within forty kilometers and if there is a pious priest who says the New Mass in as traditional a way as possible, it is good for you to assist at it to fulfill your Sunday obligation."

One can counter the dangers for the Faith through solid catechism:

    Should all the world’s churches be emptied? I do not feel brave enough to say such a thing. I don’t want to encourage atheism."[10]

(...)

Little by little the archbishop’s position hardened: this Mass with its ecuмenical rite was seriously ambiguous and harmful to the Catholic Faith.

    This is why one cannot be made to assist at it to fulfill one’s Sunday obligation.”[15]

In 1975 he still admitted that one could “assist occasionally” at the New Mass when one feared going without Communion for a longtime. However in 1977, he was more or less absolute:

    To avoid conforming to the evolution slowly taking place in the minds of priests, we must avoid—I could almost say completely—assisting at the New Mass."[16]

Must one conclude further that all these Masses are invalid? As long as the essential conditions for validity are present (matter, form, intention, and a validly ordained priest), I do not see how one can affirm this.

The prayers at the Offertory, the Canon, and the Priest’s Communion which surround the words of Consecration are necessary, not to the validity of the Sacrifice and the Sacrament, but rather to their integrity. When the imprisoned Cardinal Mindszenty, desiring to nourish himself with the Body and Blood of Our Lord, and to escape the gaze of his captors, pronounced solely the words of Consecration over a little bread and wine, he most certainly accomplished the Sacrifice and the Sacrament.

3. As for the Novus Ordo Mass, despite the reservations, which must be shown in its respect, I have never affirmed that it is in itself invalid or heretical.

I would be grateful to God and to Your Holiness if these clear declarations could hasten the free use of the traditional liturgy, and the recognition of the Society of St. Pius X by the Church, and likewise of all those who, subscribing to these declarations, have striven to save the Church by perpetuating its Tradition.

I beg Your Holiness to accept my profound and filial respect in Christo et Maria.

+ Marcel Lefebvre

...

Quote

....When the imprisoned Cardinal Mindszenty, desiring to nourish himself with the Body and Blood of Our Lord, and to escape the gaze of his captors, pronounced solely the words of Consecration over a little bread and wine, he most certainly accomplished the Sacrifice and the Sacrament.

...

I've wondered about this. I'd been told that it is sacrilege to confect the sacrament outside of Mass, no matter the circuмstances.

Quote from: PapalSupremacy

Stubborn:
His 'Golden Rule; “Do whatever you need to nourish your faith", was his answer, not; "it is permissible to actively participate in the New Mass". And it came with so many cautions and warnings, that I fail to see how it could be possible to turn *that*, into "it is permissible to actively participate in the New Mass".

Here are just two of his remarks which prove the point:
"I would not say every single person must stay away from every single NO Mass."
"Therefore there are cases when even the Novus Ordo Mass can be attended with an effect of building one’s faith instead of losing it."

Stubborn:
I'm of the opinion that most trads today are trads, thanks to their participation with the NO.

No, most trads today are trads because Our Lord sent them the grace to see that what they were participating in was not a Catholic Mass.

You said it. That is what I was trying to say.

I don't think you understood my reply. I gave you two examples which prove that Bp. Williamson did say that it is permissible to go to the New Mass.