But once you're in Traddy land, it's "anything goes". Nothing touching on the Novus Ordo can be asserted with ANYTHING resembling authority, much less can it be raised to the level of dogma or objective truth.

On this issue of the New Mass, the fact that it, its elements, its nature, its origin, its usage, its existence, its theology, etc., is in direct contravention of the Council of Trent (Session XXII), Quo Primum (where other missals are forbidden), the many papal encyclicals, bulls, condemnations, censures (see above), etc., for the past 200 years is clearly established, by +Lefebvre, +Williamson, Fr. Wathen, and many, many others.

Unless you hold there is some form of "hermeneutic of continuity" between the New Mass and those (clearly authoritative) docuмents, of course.

When you're talking about the Crisis in the Church, or the Novus Ordo Mass, it's all a mystery wrapped in a riddle wrapped in an enigma.

Well, I'm not discussing the Crisis in the Church.  On the New Mass, however, it may be a mystery to some.  To others, it's quite clear.  Of course, our perception or understanding doesn't alter the nature of the New Mass, does it?  It is what it is, and must be judged based on that.

Quote from: Matthew

But once you're in Traddy land, it's "anything goes". Nothing touching on the Novus Ordo can be asserted with ANYTHING resembling authority, much less can it be raised to the level of dogma or objective truth.

On this issue of the New Mass, the fact that it, its elements, its nature, its origin, its usage, its existence, its theology, etc., is in direct contravention of the Council of Trent (Session XXII), Quo Primum (where other missals are forbidden), the many papal encyclicals, bulls, condemnations, censures (see above), etc., for the past 200 years is clearly established, by +Lefebvre, +Williamson, Fr. Wathen, and many, many others.

Unless you hold there is some form of "hermeneutic of continuity" between the New Mass and those (clearly authoritative) docuмents, of course.

Quote from: Matthew

When you're talking about the Crisis in the Church, or the Novus Ordo Mass, it's all a mystery wrapped in a riddle wrapped in an enigma.

Well, I'm not discussing the Crisis in the Church.  On the New Mass, however, it may be a mystery to some.  To others, it's quite clear.  Of course, our perception or understanding doesn't alter the nature of the New Mass, does it?  It is what it is, and must be judged based on that.

Here is one point of confusion:

The necessity -- a general call to all men -- to join the Traditional Catholic movement is one thing.

The necessity to declare the Novus Ordo invalid in all cases, or intrinsically evil (that is to say, evil quoad "anybody", like a black mass or a procured abortion) is another issue altogether.

It's about WHY we reject the Novus Ordo, and IN WHAT SPECIFIC WAYS is it bad. That is the only matter for debate.

All you've pointed out is why we can criticize and even abstain from the Novus Ordo. I'm 100% with you on that. I wouldn't attend the Novus Ordo if it were the only service available for 500 miles. I'd stay home first.

But that doesn't change the facts about what the Novus Ordo is. Nor does it elevate a question of prudence into a matter of dogma.

When did the Catholic Church, a Pope, a Council, or Jesus Christ Himself  ever declare the Novus Ordo to be invalid? They have to mention the Novus Ordo by name. Centuries old docuмents might give us a hint that something is rotten in denmark, but they DO NOT end all debate on the matter.

Or we wouldn't be having this debate, would we?

"A criticism of the "New Rite" cannot be a criticism of the Mass in itself, for this is the very sacrifice of Our Lord bequeathed to His Church, but it is an examination, whether it is a fit rite for embodying and enacting this august Sacrifice." (Holy Cross Seminary, "Most Asked Questions About the Society of Saint Pius X", 1998).

A new mass can be valid?

Yes.

A valid mass can give the grace?

Yes. To deny this is heretical.

Then we can attend to Novus Ordo mass?

"If the Novus Ordo Missae is not truly Catholic, then it cannot oblige for one's Sunday obligation. Many Catholics who do assist at it are unaware of its all pervasive degree of serious innovation and are exempt from guilt. However, any Catholic who is aware of its harm, does not have the right to participate. He could only then assist at it by a mere physical presence without positively taking part in it, and then and for major family reasons (weddings, funerals, etc)." ((Holy Cross Seminary, "Most Asked Questions About the Society of Saint Pius X", 1998).

Here is one point of confusion:

The necessity -- a general call to all men -- to join the Traditional Catholic movement is one thing.

It's not a general call to join a movement.  Its a requirement of all men to embrace and hold the faith as delivered to us, and that means rejecting novelties in doctrine and worship.

The necessity to declare the Novus Ordo invalid in all cases, or intrinsically evil (that is to say, evil quoad "anybody", like a black mass or a procured abortion) is another issue altogether.

I have never mentioned the concept of invalidity.  I have no idea whether its valid or not.

Matthew, let's cut to the chase.  Is the Novus Ordo Mass, considered in its theology, its words, its source (origin), its end (purpose), or in every other way, Catholic?

As you are so fond of pointing out:  

Bonum ex integra causa
Malum ex quocuмque defectu

A thing is good if ALL of its parts are good.
A thing is evil if it has ANY defect.

IF it is Catholic in all of those respects, THEN we have no business rejecting it.  IF it is not Catholic in any of those respects, then it is intrinsically (by its nature) defective, and thus evil.  It would be sinful to attend, even if such a sin is venial, it is positively forbidden to engage in the act.  That being the case, the advice supposedly (I don't believe that story) given to someone's wife, or an old lady at a conference, that it may be permissible to attend the Novus Ordo rather than educating them about the truth of the matter is unconscionable.  And your continued defense of such actions is equally so.

It's about WHY we reject the Novus Ordo, and IN WHAT SPECIFIC WAYS is it bad. That is the only matter for debate.

Is the New Mass bad?  Please define your terms.  When you say "bad", are you referring to a violation of divine, natural, or Church Law?  Or are you referring to something else?  Externals?  Rubrics?  Theology?

All you've pointed out is why we can criticize and even abstain from the Novus Ordo. I'm 100% with you on that. I wouldn't attend the Novus Ordo if it were the only service available for 500 miles. I'd stay home first.

Do you choose to abstain from the New Mass because it is offensive to you personally, defective in its theology, a violation of the Church law, the product of the enemies of the Church?  Ecuмenical?  None of these?  All of these?  Other reasons?  

But that doesn't change the facts about what the Novus Ordo is. Nor does it elevate a question of prudence into a matter of dogma.

There is a difference between dogma and the moral law.  Morally speaking, one can not participate in a service that is a) non-Catholic, b) where sacrilege takes place, c) is a danger to one's faith.  That is such a firmly established principal of moral theology I feel no need to give sources.  The only way that principal doesn't apply in the case of the New Mass is if you contend that the Novus Ordo is Catholic, that it is not sacrilegious, and that it isn't a danger to one's faith.

When did the Catholic Church, a Pope, a Council, or Jesus Christ Himself  ever declare the Novus Ordo to be invalid? They have to mention the Novus Ordo by name. Centuries old docuмents might give us a hint that something is rotten in denmark, but they DO NOT end all debate on the matter.

Again, I've not mentioned validity.  

Just to name two examples, the Catholic Church has condemned modernism by name and false ecuмenism by name.  Archbishop Lefebvre, Bishop Williamson, and untold numbers of other writers have exhaustively shown that the New Mass is infected, in its origins, its substance, and in its effects, by both.  

So are you jumping on the "centuries old docuмents" aren't relevant to modern times bandwagon?  Or that they do not give principals which apply today?

Or we wouldn't be having this debate, would we?

My problem is the notion that it's permissible at all to attend.  You and +Williamson continue to argue that it is in some cases.  

You (and the Bishop) and I are simply going to have to agree to disagree.

Those who are in the Novus Ordo religion absolutely need to be taught and educated as to why they must cease their membership in it because diluted Catholicism is no Catholicism.
Departure from the Church's doctrine in one point renders that person as objectively outside of the Church and removed from the way of salvation.

This is not a matter of one man's opinions as opposed to another man's opinions. It is a matter of one or many souls' eternal end.
There is but one path to spend eternity with God. One exclusive way only. That is the voice of Christ's Church which teaches us this. That with fear and trepidation do we seek to please Him.

What reasonable man could conclude that the deformed doctrine and ritual of the second Vatican "council" could bring one to that happy conclusion as opposed to a life lived in submission to the orthodoxy of the Christian doctrine and practice of the Catholic Church?

This is not a debate, it is about everlasting life or everlasting torments, and that is the most important thing to any living soul. There are no two options and as such, only one opinion and course is open that a soul with the Faith of Jesus Christ must follow.

Folks can continue to debate and opinionate and consider that the two positions are equally valid and arguable, but in the end when one chooses one such position, and another chooses its opposite. They will each learn the Truth for one will be saved, and the other damned.

The Novus Ordo religion is a crapshoot at best, who would take such a risk or who would let another brother in the Faith take that risk?

Put away earthly things and return to ways of the Heavenly gift which the Catholic Church offers us all for our eternal recompense. We need to listen to the Church and shut our ears to the imaginings and arguments of men.

Eschew the new religion and remain steadfast and unmoved in the old where Christ's promise abides.

Psalms 79:4
 Convert us, O God: and shew us thy face, and we shall be saved.

At this point, we're just rehashing the "Is the Novus Ordo evil like a Black Mass" thread.  

Yes, all sense has been lost in the fog of subjectivity.

So just using Benzel's argument, it was okay for the jew-Pope to change the "Sacrament".  :thinking:

Benzel, obviously the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass does not equal the Eucharist. When Trent lists the Eucharist as one of the seven Sacraments, it does not list the Sacrifice of the Mass.

You see the Blessed Eucharist can and does exist outside of Holy Mass. Some examples would be:
the priest brings the Sacred Species to the housebound person,
or as Viaticuм to the Dying,
or in the Tabernacle in our churches
or in the exposition of the Blessed Sacrament for adoration.

There is nothing incredible and shameful here, no heresy here.

There has been a lot of confusion caused by incorrect terminology used in the Novus Ordo, which is another reason to stay away from it.