CathInfo.com

Earlier I found myself standing next to an elderly Sister of Mercy at a community event. When she was a young girl and no doubt when she entered the convent even the convent chapel had the Mass. The Sisters of Mercy are gone out of most towns and cities here. The work of these orders and the missionary orders are forgotten.

Bishop Williamson

An answer may be that the Sacred Heart, knowing that the shepherds were mainly responsible for the ambiguous NOM, refused to abandon his sheep, a nd continues to feed them with what is still Catholic amidst the ambiguity. And amidst all the Newchurch’s relative carelessness in dealing with the Holy Eucharist, the Sokulka event is also a daunting reminder to shepherds and sheep alike – “Remember whom you are handling – it is I, your God!”

Kyrie eleison.

I don't really 'get' how our fellow Catholics can attend the NOM. I meet many sincere Catholics who support Medjugorje. A very popular destination among Catholics in Ireland. Devotion to the Sacred Heart was very strong in Ireland but these days the annual Divine Mercy conference attracts hundreds of people. It's just assumed it is part of your devotions. People think you are nutty if you oppose JPII. In Ireland people are focused on spirituality and weak on doctrine.

Paxvobis:  The novus ordo's morality is not dependent on circuмstances.  It's always wrong.

Hollingsworth:  I assume by "morality" you mean 'legitimacy.'  If so, upon whose undisputed, (and indisputable) authority do you make that blanket statement?
Obviously, if the NO is "always wrong," then Bp. Williamson, not to mention the Archbishop, does not have a leg to stand on.

There are 3 tests that the novus ordo fails in regards to being a true, catholic mass.  Because it fails these 3 (even if it failed only 1 or 2 of them), then it is a morally 'bad' act, and therefore always wrong.  If it were a morally 'neutral' act, then circuмstances and intention would determine it's goodness or badness.  But this 'mass' is not neutral; it is uncatholic, it is not a mass, it is contrary to the Faith, therefore it is always wrong - no matter how good the intention or circuмstances.  This is not my view but that of Ottaviani's theologians, and others who have studied the matter.

1.  Morality - The novus ordo is immoral for a variety of reasons, many of which are due to its purpose and nature, which are human-centered and not God-centered.  Its ceremony is purposed for the faithful to receive communion, instead of the true purpose of mass, which is offering adoration to God.  Everything done in this 'mass' is for the people; the True Mass is directed to God.  Its purpose is to teach this new theology, which will be part of the coming one-world religion.  And the new theology is based on man, and on the idea of man being God-like.  Gone are the liturgical norms, the strict rubrics, the prayerful atmosphere.  Now we have liturgical chaos, experimentation, and novelty, with dancing, clapping, laughing, singing, drums, guitars, women giving out communion, woman altar girls, and the sacrilege of communion in the hand.  These things alone make the new mass an abomination.  There's no exception strong enough to warrant attendance at such a blasphemy.

2.  Legality - The novus ordo is illegal and therefore sinful.  As Pope Benedict stated in his "motu" - Quo Primum was not abrogated (i.e. repealed) and is still in force.  Hence, it's commands and punishments are still in effect.  Quo Primum allowed all priests the right to use the tridentine rite forever.  Most are familiar with this.  But what everyone forgets is...Quo Primum COMMANDS that EVERY priest use this rite under pain of disobedience to the papacy.  No pope has ever changed this law, therefore, it is still in effect and anyone who says a mass (or attends one) other than the tridentine rite commits a grave sin of disobedience.  Ergo, there are no exceptions to warrant attendance.

3.  Validity - This is one of the most misunderstood and over-simplified aspects of the mass.  Due to the changes of V2, when we speak of validity, we must distinguish between the validity of the mass AND the validity of the consecration.  These are 2 separate issues.  

The validity of the consecration in the novus ordo is doubtful.  Ottaviani and his theologians made this quite clear and their analysis is still accurate and timely because the novus ordo hasn't changed all that much from the 60s.  Yes, Pope Benedict fixed the words back to "for many".  But this is only part of the problem.  There were additions to the rubrics and the consecration formula which are still there and still problematic.  It's possible for the novus ordo's consecration to be valid...but this doesn't mean that the mass is valid.

The validity of the Mass concerns much more than just the consecration.  The Mass is the highest prayer given to God, therefore, it must have all 4 types of prayers (known as A.C.T.S.) - Adoration, Contrition, Thanksgiving and Supplication. The novus ordo does not contain any propitiation for sins (which would be contrition).  It also does not contain any adoration, which must be met by the act of sacrifice, when the priest offers Christ to God, in the reenactment of Calvary.

The reason that it lacks propitiation of sin and a formal sacrificial nature is because the 3 principal parts of the mass have been changed - Offertory, Canon, Communion.  The Offertory/Canon are only 25-30% of the True Mass and those prayers which still exist have been altered, so that the ideals of 'offering', 'sacrifice', and 'forgiveness of sin' have been deleted - to make the ceremony more agreeable to protestants...and also, to destroy the mass.

When the novus ordo speaks of 'sacrifice' it is speaking of Christ's sacrifice on Holy Thursday, of giving Himself to us in communion.  Anytime that it refers to Calvary or Good Friday, the prayers have been changed so that it refers to a 'memorial', a 'remembrance', a 'celebration' of the Cross.  Gone is the ACTUAL sacrificial rite of the priest, as Christ, actually offering a sacrifice to God IN THE PRESENT MOMENT.  This is gone.  Therefore, it is not a mass.  

Now, if the priest is a true priest, and if he has the proper intention for the consecration (which he must supply himself, for Ottaviani said that the new liturgy no longer supplies the intention through the rubrics), then Christ can be available for Holy Communion.  BUT...this would not be a mass, for 2 of the 4 intentions are missing/deficient.  In this case, the priest would only be providing Holy Communion to the faithful.  He would not, and could not, be satisfying God's justice by offering Him the adoration He deserves.  Nor would he be offering God atonement or asking forgiveness of sin.  These 2 ideals are ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY for a sacrifice to take place and they do not exist in the new mass.  Thus, it is not a mass, and is offensive to God, and it would be wrong to attend.  And no exceptions can change this.