If one is allowed to attend the novus ordo, for certain reasons, then one should be searching all over the country/world for such a priest/mass so that they would be "under rome". The Trads of the 70s, who left their dioceses in order to stay orthodox, COMPLETELY rejected the novus ordo, as both a theological and a moral evil. Now you're saying they were wrong? It's quite contradictory to say that one can attend a novus ordo mass but then attend a resistance mass, which philosophically speaking, blames the novus ordo's evils as the reason why the resistance mass exists in the first place.I'm sure Sean can explain better, but just for starters, it's not about condemning the New Mass 100% or not. It's also not about "Is it OK to leave the Novus Ordo even if you don't have a replacement?"
.
I'm with Fr Pfeiffer and Fr Hewko on this point. If Trads shouldn't condemn the new mass 100%, then we should be "under rome" with the FSSP (and soon with the new-sspx). The FSSP, the new-sspx and all other similar mindsets are hypocrisy. The new mass is why the Church is in the mess it's in.
If one is allowed to attend the novus ordo, for certain reasons, then one should be searching all over the country/world for such a priest/mass so that they would be "under rome".
The 70s Trads rejected the novus ordo 100% in practice. Sure, many debated the theological issues surrounding it, but +Ottaviani, +Bacci and +ABL (as well as many priests who were trained in diocesan seminaries) all rejected the new mass and said it was dangerous to one's Faith. And all Trad priests at the time rejected it in order to say the True Mass. In the 70s, the dividing lines were quite clear. There was no indult, there was no middle ground. You were either a latin mass, pre-V2 catholic or you attended the novus ordo. Nowadays, the indult and the idea of a "conservative" new mass have muddied the waters. Your approach to the new mass is also muddied.
.
The new mass is wrong, morally speaking, whether it is intrinsically evil or not. The idea of apologizing or minimizing the new mass' evil is the logical fallacy that is leading the new-sspx to a deal with new-rome. If they accept the false notion that V2 and the new mass can be orthodox under "certain circuмstances" or a "certain point of view" (i.e. +Benedict's "Hermeneutic of Continuity"), then they should logically go with rome.
.
The new mass is the cause of the Church crisis in PRACTICAL terms, while V2 is the cause in THEORETICAL terms. If you disagree, then what is the cause?
1) Even the LaRosans/Hewkonians/Pfeifferians acknowledge that Archbishop Lefebvre -generally, but not completely- did not "ban" novus ordo Mass attendance until 1977 (per +Tissier's Biography). But even then, he only "almost" completely banned it, not completely banned it. You are spreading disinformation in pretending otherwise.Who cares? +ABL went back and forth on many topics, including the new mass. In the 70s, when Traditionalism began, there were plenty of independent priests who disagreed with +ABL on this.
2) Your 2nd sentence seems to reveal the cause of your confusion, in which you equate "rejecting the new Mass" with "100% rejection." I reject the new Mass, but like Lefebvre and every other traditionalist, I acknowledge in certain circuмstances it can be permissible because -and you have lost sight of this- it is not intrinsically evil in the moral sense. And if not, then what can be the cause of a no-exceptions ban?? Answer: Nothing.Only the Church can decide definitively whether the new mass is intrinsically evil. Anyone arguing this point is wasting their time. Not every Trad in the 70s made exceptions for attending the new mass. There are plenty of other reasons which can make the new mass immoral besides the intrinsic nature of it.
3) The only people who ban novus ordo attendance 100% of the time are sedevacantists because, logically, they (erroneously) believe it to be 100% invalid. But if Archbishop Lefebvre acknowledges certain exceptions can make attendance permissible, why is a twit like you disagreeing?Fr Wathen was not a sedevacantist and he said that the new mass is immoral 100% of the time. There were plenty of Trad priests who agreed with him.
4) Your whole 2nd paragraph is slop: What does it mean for the new Mass to be wrong? What did the new mass say about something that it was wrong? Then you move on to discussing minimizing the evil of the new mass, because in your blunt mind, acknowledging necessity as a cause justifying attendance makes the new Mass good. Are you an idiot? You must be, because then you go on to discuss the new mass "being orthodox under certain circuмstances." What the hell does that gibberish mean? I certainly never said or implied that. That is a hallucination of your B&W, either/or Feeneyite mind, not a healthy mind which understands the various doctrines in play here. Then you hop from that invention to the hermeneutic of continuity. LMAO. Are you even reading the incoherent gibberish you are writing??The end does not justify the means. If the new mass is wrong, one cannot attend it to "receive graces". If the new mass is ok, then we must accept it and be under rome. If the new mass is questionable, we must avoid it because canon law disallows attendance at dubious masses/sacraments.
5) The cause is modernism, of which the new Mass is a symptom.The practical cause of the loss of faith today is the new mass, which puts into practice modernist ideals. The mental cause of the Church crisis is V2, which is a manifesto of modernism.
there is still the danger on one hand of losing the faith in the case of people who don’t go to mass for one month, two months, three months, four months, a year, they will lose the faith, it’s over, that’s obvious, we cannot make ourselves any illusions, if one were to say such to a whole city, imagine !I understand +ABL's concerns here, being he was a good shepherd of souls and he wanted the best for all of his priests and flocks. But, the japanese kept the Faith for centuries without the mass, so the idea that avoidance of the new mass and having no sacraments would endanger souls is not a full-proof principle.
The second sophistry is derived from his confusion surrounding the term "intrinsic evil," which is actually an ambiguous phrase: Something may be intrinsically evil in the realm of human acts, or it may be intrinsically evil in the realm of scholastic philosophy.
Intrinsic evil as this term has been used in reference to the New Mass has pertained to its nature, not to the quality of the moral act of attendance.
Evil as a term in scholastic philosophy means "The privation or lack of a good which naturally belongs to a nature; the absence of a good which is naturally due to a being." (Fr. Wuellner. Dictionary of Scholastic Philosophy. See "evil.").
It is also clearly going too far to say no one can receives grace from a Novus Ordo. The grace is diminished, but as long as the Mass is valid it still flow, to a greater or lesser degree, depending on how it's celebrated. And what about those who receive communion at the Novus Ordo? That is a separate source of grace, and there's no doubt that anyone who receives communion well disposed, receives grace from It.
Who cares? +ABL went back and forth on many topics, including the new mass. In the 70s, when Traditionalism began, there were plenty of independent priests who disagreed with +ABL on this.
.
Only the Church can decide definitively whether the new mass is intrinsically evil. Anyone arguing this point is wasting their time. Not every Trad in the 70s made exceptions for attending the new mass. There are plenty of other reasons which can make the new mass immoral besides the intrinsic nature of it.
.
Fr Wathen was not a sedevacantist and he said that the new mass is immoral 100% of the time. There were plenty of Trad priests who agreed with him.
.
The end does not justify the means. If the new mass is wrong, one cannot attend it to "receive graces". If the new mass is ok, then we must accept it and be under rome. If the new mass is questionable, we must avoid it because canon law disallows attendance at dubious masses/sacraments.
.
The practical cause of the loss of faith today is the new mass, which puts into practice modernist ideals. The mental cause of the Church crisis is V2, which is a manifesto of modernism.
The intrinsic value of any Mass - that is, the efficacious power of itself (in actu primo) is infinite - since Christ himself is the priest and victim being offered.This intrinsic value being perfect and good only applies to the True liturgy because only this liturgy is of 100% Divine origin (essentially). The new mass is a defective liturgy, in its essence, because it's partially man made. I'm not arguing it's intrinsically evil, but it is intrinsically defective. Assuming the novus ordo priest is valid (which is a big assumption), then Christ would be the priest and the victim but, the PRAYER/OFFERING of the mass (i.e. the intention) is what is defective. The True Mass is offered for the 4 purposes of prayer - ACTS - Adoration, Contrition, Thanksgiving, and Satisfaction for sin. The new mass' intentions do not include all of these, therefore this prayer is imperfect, just as Cain's offering was not pleasing to God.
The extrinsic value of the Mass, in relation to man - that is, the fruits that we derive from the Mass - is finite, and it is limited by many things. Not just our disposition, but many other factors as well. One thing that limits the extrinsic value of a Mass is the liturgy and the externals (the smells and bells). The more glory the liturgy gives to God, the greater will be the extrinsic value of the Mass; the less glory it gives to God, the less extrinsic value, and hence the fewer fruits that are derived from it. This is where the problem with the Novus Ordo comes in.The novus ordo is defective intrinsically and extrinsically. Its liturgy is a break with Tradition and violates Quo Primum, so it's sinful. The lack of reverence, lack of silence, immodesty, and other liturgical abominations (i.e. communion in the hand) not only offend God but are a sacrilege because they treat the Mass, the most Holy prayer of the Church, with the utmost casualness.
The extrinsic value of a Novus Ordo Mass is greatly diminished by the watered down liturgy, ambiguous prayers, bad translations, etc., so, it can be said to be evil (lacking in a due good) for those reasons - which relate to its extrinsic value. But it will never be evil (lacking in a due good) intrinsically, or with respect to its intrinsic value.Some new masses are lacking in good and some are outright evil, both intrinsically and extrinsically. Not all novus ordo liturgies are the same. Not all new masses have intrinsic value.
It is also clearly going too far to say no one can receives grace from a Novus Ordo.
The grace is diminished, but as long as the Mass is valid it still flow, to a greater or lesser degree, depending on how it's celebrated.
And what about those who receive communion at the Novus Ordo? That is a separate source of grace, and there's no doubt that anyone who receives communion well disposed, receives grace from It.This assumes the consecration was valid and the priest is a priest. Does a "well disposed" catholic receive grace when they receive Our Lord in their hands? How is this possible? Can a "well disposed" catholic receive grace when he receives Our Lord at an abominable liturgy? Does this mean I can receive Holy Communion at a black mass, if I know the priest is valid (they say the correct words of consecration, unlike the novus ordo)?
I understand +ABL's concerns here, being he was a good shepherd of souls and he wanted the best for all of his priests and flocks. But, the japanese kept the Faith for centuries without the mass, so the idea that avoidance of the new mass and having no sacraments would endanger souls is not a full-proof principle.
You made some really good points. I would add a further distinction which may provide additional clarity - namely, the distinction between the intrinsic and extrinsic value of the Novus Ordo Mass. The intrinsic value of any Mass - that is, the efficacious power of itself (in actu primo) is infinite - since Christ himself is the priest and victim being offered.
The extrinsic value of the Mass, in relation to man - that is, the fruits that we derive from the Mass - is finite, and it is limited by many things. Not just our disposition, but many other factors as well. One thing that limits the extrinsic value of a Mass is the liturgy and the externals (the smells and bells). The more glory the liturgy gives to God, the greater will be the extrinsic value of the Mass; the less glory it gives to God, the less extrinsic value, and hence the fewer fruits that are derived from it. This is where the problem with the Novus Ordo comes in.
The extrinsic value of a Novus Ordo Mass is greatly diminished by the watered down liturgy, ambiguous prayers, bad translations, etc., so, it can be said to be evil (lacking in a due good) for those reasons - which relate to its extrinsic value. But it will never be evil (lacking in a due good) intrinsically, or with respect to its intrinsic value.
It is also clearly going too far to say no one can receives grace from a Novus Ordo. The grace is diminished, but as long as the Mass is valid it still flow, to a greater or lesser degree, depending on how it's celebrated. And what about those who receive communion at the Novus Ordo? That is a separate source of grace, and there's no doubt that anyone who receives communion well disposed, receives grace from It.
I think you've hit the nail on the head... I've been trying to articulate this point to both Fr Pfeiffer and Fr Hewko for years now. Well said.Agreed as well:
To be consistent, you must maintain that he was a terrible modernist, who induced people to commit intrinsically evil acts in attending the new Mass (e.g., In the quote from his spiritual conference I provided, but also in his 1980 acknowledgement that those attending the NOM fulfill their Sunday obligation (which could not be the case if they were committing intrinsically evil moral acts).He obviously had good intentions, or at least I presume so, in charity. But good intentions do not always equal good theology or good decisions.
If the Japanese kept the faith, did they also keep the state of grace? All Catholic theologians would consider that morally impossible without the sacraments (and any belief to the contrary is pious wishful thinking).
A one-legged man, or a two-legged chair is intrinsically evil in the philosophical sense, but not in any kind of moral sense.I assume I can substitute the above like this? (The novus ordo) is intrinsically evil in the philosophical sense, but not in any kind of moral sense.
Trent defined a valid sacrament produces grace ex opere operato.The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is not a sacrament but a prayer. It is composed of 3 ESSENTIAL parts - Offertory, Canon, Communion. No one can say, with a certainty of faith, that all novus ordo mases are valid. There are so many issues to judge that it's a highly complex question. Even if we assume they are all valid, this does not mean that the mass is pleasing to God, or the mass provides grace, because the mass is more than just a communion ceremony. All parts of the sacrifice must be perfect for God to be pleased - offeror, offering and offering ceremony.
would you really tell a 90 year-old lady who lives next door to a conservative NO church, with no access to (or even awareness of) a TLM, that she must stay home?First, I would explain to her why the new mass is wrong, and how it differs from the True Mass. Then I would tell her, based on its evils, that she shouldn't go. Then I would offer to take her to a True Mass. One's proximity to evil, does not condone a sinful act. One's hardship in fulfilling a religious obligation, does not change the obligation (within reason). If you are aware of someone who is in ignorance, you have the obligation to instruct them, if they are open to the Truth. It is a sin to let one stay in ignorance and to hide the truth.
He obviously had good intentions, or at least I presume so, in charity. But good intentions do not always equal good theology or good decisions.To remain consistent, you shoulf be arguing that according to Fr. Feeney, God would have sent missionaries (or angels) there to give them the sacraments.
I don't know, I wasn't there when the Japanese were able to have mass again. Theologians would consider it an impossibility to go without the sacraments and stay in the state of grace an impossibility ONLY when it is the decision/fault of the individual person. We all have actual grace at our disposal every second of our life and we can avoid mortal sins against the natural law by this means. In this particular situation, the japanese were persecuted and without the sacraments not of their own choosing but by Divine Providence, just as the early Christians were. They didn't turn into heathens overnight; God did not abandon them.
But it has never been in this moral sense in which the SSPX, Archbishop Lefebvre, or traditionalist apologists have used the term "intrinsic evil."Just because many have not labeled the new mass as an intrinsically moral evil, doesn't mean anything. Theology isn't judged by popular vote. The new mass is certainly philosophically evil. Whether or not it's intrinsically morally evil is debatable.
To remain consistent, you shoulf be arguing that according to Fr. Feeney, God would have sent missionaries (or angels) there to give them the sacraments.The Japanese had baptisms and marriage as the only sacraments, with all others very occasionally due to the persecutions, which you should not make light of, since many sacrificed their lives for Christ under harsh conditions.
I assume I can substitute the above like this? (The novus ordo) is intrinsically evil in the philosophical sense, but not in any kind of moral sense.
.
If so, this makes no sense. The novus ordo is immoral PRECISELY because its philosophy is modernistic, protestant, and anti-Trent (as said +Ottaviani and +Bacci, et al). Yet is it also immoral because of its faulty consecration prayers, it's lack of offertory intentions, and its sacrilegious communion service.
The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is not a sacrament but a prayer. It is composed of 3 ESSENTIAL parts - Offertory, Canon, Communion. No one can say, with a certainty of faith, that all novus ordo mases are valid. There are so many issues to judge that it's a highly complex question. Even if we assume they are all valid, this does not mean that the mass is pleasing to God, or the mass provides grace, because the mass is more than just a communion ceremony. All parts of the sacrifice must be perfect for God to be pleased - offeror, offering and offering ceremony.
.
A black mass can have a valid consecration but there is no grace produced; only a mockery of God.
.
First, I would explain to her why the new mass is wrong, and how it differs from the True Mass. Then I would tell her, based on its evils, that she shouldn't go. Then I would offer to take her to a True Mass. One's proximity to evil, does not condone a sinful act. One's hardship in fulfilling a religious obligation, does not change the obligation (within reason). If you are aware of someone who is in ignorance, you have the obligation to instruct them, if they are open to the Truth. It is a sin to let one stay in ignorance and to hide the truth.
The new mass does not have to be proven as intrinsically morally evil in order to have a blanket "100% off limits" policy.
The Japanese had baptisms and marriage as the only sacraments, with all others very occasionally due to the persecutions, which you should not make light of, since many sacrificed their lives for Christ under harsh conditions.
2) According to this, you are compelled to embrace sedevacantism, since the Church cannot promulgate a morally evil rite (though it can promulgate an inrinsically evil one in the scholastic sense, which basically means a deficient one).
Also, you confuse the principles (i.e., theology) which produced this deficiency, with the rite itself. But they are not the same thing: The principles/theology are the cause; the rite is the effect or result.The theology AND the rite are deficient. The rite is deficient because of the theology and also independent of it.
3) Straw man: Nobody is arguing all NOM are valid.My point is this: An invalid new mass is morally wrong to attend. A doubtfully valid new mass is wrong to attend. A 100% valid new mass is wrong to attend. Validity doesn't matter.
4) If somehow a blindfolded person were wheeled into a valid black Mass and received communion thinking they were receiving communion at a normal Mass, they would receive grace.You are using faulty Kantian logic: I think, therefore I am. ...I think it's a mass, therefore it is. ...I think I'm receiving communion, therefore God is present. It doesn't work that way.
5) That's all fine. But truth takes time to sink in, and it was Fr. Pfeiffer himself who (rightly) said that such people do not sin until they understand the obligation to abstain. How then can it be intrinsically evil in the moral sense (or is Fr. Pfeiffer advocating committing intrinsically evil moral acts?).Because the evilness of sin is separate from our guilt for it. The new mass is evil. In the craziness of our times, God will judge all hearts depending upon their openness to the truth and their understanding of its evil.
it is extremely questionable (to be charitable) to presume that because they retained (some kind of) faith, they also retained grace. Most would have committed grave sins after their baptism,I agree, it is extremely questionable and, under normal circuмstances, yes, most would fall from grace through weakness. But a persecution is not normal circuмstances and if you are constantly under threat of death, your prayer life is going to be great and you're going to be on your best behavior.
The new mass is not obligatory on any Catholic to attend, in any way, shape or form. It legally exists but is illegal to attend/say because it violates Quo Primum.
The theology AND the rite are deficient. The rite is deficient because of the theology and also independent of it.
My point is this: An invalid new mass is morally wrong to attend. A doubtfully valid new mass is wrong to attend. A 100% valid new mass is wrong to attend. Validity doesn't matter.
You are using faulty Kantian logic: I think, therefore I am. ...I think it's a mass, therefore it is. ...I think I'm receiving communion, therefore God is present. It doesn't work that way.
.
If a blindfolded person were wheeled into a black mass, with a valid consecration (note, they'd also have to be deaf or earplugged to not know that craziness was going on), no, this person would not receive ANY grace from said ceremony. They would only receive actual graces based on their disposition in THINKING (incorrectly) that they were at mass. Reality does not exist in the mind. Truth is the conformity of the mind TO reality. God provides grace through mass/sacraments when they are valid/pleasing to Him, not when we THINK they are valid/pleasing.
Because the evilness of sin is separate from our guilt for it. The new mass is evil. In the craziness of our times, God will judge all hearts depending upon their openness to the truth and their understanding of its evil.
.
Intrinsically evil acts of the natural law can be known by all men, because the natural law is written on our hearts. This is not so with matters of virtue and religion, because the supernatural law can only be known by grace. Therefore, one can sin intrinsically in matters of religion and not know in the same way that all men know that murder is wrong. But such sins are still highly displeasing to God, because He is offended even when a person is not guilty. Sin exists outside of ourselves and the offense against God is independent of the intention of the person.
It's a good thing the original, pioneer trads did not think like Sean. If they did, then there would be no TLM today. They are the ones who saw the NOM for what it is and did not participate in it for any reason. Lucky thing too because otherwise, they would not have preserved it for you to boast your "take it or leave it" thinking. And you went to St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary?
As for +ABL and other trad priests and bishops who would probably die rather than be caught saying the new "mass" for any reason, yet condone the attendance of it by others rather than wholly and vehemently condemning it for what it is, what do you call them? Consistent? Simpleminded? Newbies, or just not well-read?
Coming from an ex trad seminarian, your defense of the New "mass" dishonors STAS - or is that what they teach there? It also dishonors the trials and efforts of all those courageous pioneer trads who wholly condemned the NOM for what it is, and handed down and preserved the True Mass - just so you could boast that there is some type of justification in compromising. +ABL called that Liberal Thinking.
It's a good thing the original, pioneer trads did not think like Sean. If they did, then there would be no TLM today. They are the ones who saw the NOM for what it is and did not participate in it for any reason. Lucky thing too because otherwise, they would not have preserved it for you to boast your "take it or leave it" thinking. And you went to St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary?Well said, Stubborn! This is exactly what comes to mind reading SJ's pontificating.
As for +ABL and other trad priests and bishops who would probably die rather than be caught saying the new "mass" for any reason, yet condone the attendance of it by others rather than wholly and vehemently condemning it for what it is, what do you call them? Consistent? Simpleminded? Newbies, or just not well-read?
Coming from an ex trad seminarian, your defense of the New "mass" dishonors STAS - or is that what they teach there? It also dishonors the trials and efforts of all those courageous pioneer trads who wholly condemned the NOM for what it is, and handed down and preserved the True Mass - just so you could boast that there is some type of justification in compromising. +ABL called that Liberal Thinking.
So sorry to burst your bubble, but my position is the position is the position of Archbishop Lefebvre (a pioneer trad).By paragraph:
And who is talking about any trad clergy saying the new Mass besides you?
You are obviously delusional about what the position of what the position of Lefebvre, SSPX, and pioneer trad priests really was (who never did or could preclude NOM attendance in subjective/individual cases of necessity, despite the general/objective policy of avoiding it.....as the quote from Lefebvre ‘s spiritual conference above makes clear).
You don’t know your history.
Well said, Stubborn! This is exactly what comes to mind reading SJ's pontificating.
Let's keep things in perspective. What did we fight for all these past decades? We did not fight to compromise on the New 'Mess'. It wasn't to compromise on the New Mass that so many priests were persecuted in the 1970's and 1980's! Did all these priests fight in vain? Were these confessors of the Faith 'simple-minded,' 'poorly-educated', newbies?'
For shame, SJ.
1) You believe the NOM is intrinsically evil in the moral sense. But the Church cannot promulgate rites which are intrinsically evil in the moral sense. Therefore the Church did not promugate the NOM. You are thereforee compelled to embrace sedevacantism if you wish to maintain your opinion.No to all.
2) I notice you are now using the term "deficient." This is good, as it is synonomous with "evil" in the scholastic sense. This will put you on the right path (although it contradicts what you said just above).The novus ordo is evil because it is deficient. We are duty bound to offer to God the highest praise we can. If we do not, we are guilty like Cain and God will reject our offering.
3) Who is talking about validity? You are objecting to the idea that it is ever morally permissible to attend a NOM (e.g., even in necessity). You are doing this because you mistakenly believe the NOM is intrinsically evil in the moral sense, rather than in the scholastic/philosophic sense.An illegal mass, with a consistently immoral/irreverent/irreligious/anti-Catholic atmosphere is wrong to attend 100% of the time. Intrinsically evil or not.
4) On the contrary: You had stipulated that the black Mass would be valid. Therefore, a well-disposed communicant would receive the transmission of sanctifying grace.You're not distinguishing between the consecration/canon and the mass as a whole. See below.
6) You are confusing yourself, saying firstly that the consecration is valid, but later in the same paragraph that there is no Mass. Which is it? In any case, all that matters is that the consecration be valid, and the communicant well-disposed. If those two conditions are present, sanctifying grace is transmitted.The consecration of a mass could be valid (as at a black mass), but the mass as a whole would be invalid (because it's purpose is evil). You have to distinguish between the consecration and the mass overall. If a priest dies right after the consecration, then mass is not complete. The consecration is only PART of the mass. Ergo, the novus ordo can have a valid consecration but still not be a mass, nor be pleasing to God, because the sacrifice/consecration has a deficient offertory purpose and a sacrilegious communion service. Ergo, as a whole, the new mass is an abomination.
8: "Intrinsically evil acts of the natural law??" Aside from being off point, this implies nobody has been deceived about the evil of the NOM, which is obviously not the case. In fact, the majority of people fall into the opposite category (i.e., they have been deceived into believing it is good).
That the exceptional allowance for NOM Mass attendance for those in extreme necessity (per Archbishop Lefebvre, above) is interpreted as compromise does not speak well for the intellectual caliber (or honesty) of those making that argument.
+ABL wasn't infallible and many Trads disagreed with him on this topic. IMO, his allowance for the new mass in extreme necessity has led the new-sspx to the philosophical problems of today. If you allow that the novus ordo is ok sometimes, then you are saying that it could be a pleasing mass to God, in theory. Therefore, we should all search for the good novus ordo priest who says the good novus ordo mass and join new-rome's ecuмenical party. That's exactly what the FSSP did and what the new-sspx is doing.
There is never an "extreme necessity" to attend Mass. Receive the Sacraments, yes. But attend Mass? No. People sometimes confuse the two. One might say that in an extreme necessity one might receive the Sacraments through the Novus Ordo, but that doesn't equate to making it OK to attend the Mass. Either the Mass displeases God or it does not. Period. Now, even if it displeases God, in extremis it may be permitted to receive Holy Communion consecrated at such a Mass ... if one has no other alternative.
There is never an "extreme necessity" to attend Mass. Receive the Sacraments, yes. But attend Mass? No. People sometimes confuse the two. One might say that in an extreme necessity one might receive the Sacraments through the Novus Ordo, but that doesn't equate to making it OK to attend the Mass. Either the Mass displeases God or it does not. Period. Now, even if it displeases God, in extremis it may be permitted to receive Holy Communion consecrated at such a Mass ... if one has no other alternative.If there's no extreme necessity to attend mass, then how can there be an extreme necessity to receive Holy Communion? The former is obligated under the 10 Commandments/Church Law about 60 times a year; the latter only 1x a year, and only under Church law. Seems to me that there isn't a necessity to receive Communion, when safe/moral masses are unavailable.
and passing them off as “the positions of the pioneer trads of the 1970’s.”
If there's no extreme necessity to attend mass, then how can there be an extreme necessity to receive Holy Communion?
Archbishop Lefebvre said otherwise, in the quote above.
He said people would lose the faith (textbook definition of extreme spiritual necessity) if they were forced to go several months or more without Mass.
Now if people want to disagree with Lefebvre (as Pax is doing), then they are free to do so.
That the exceptional allowance for NOM Mass attendance for those in extreme necessity (per Archbishop Lefebvre, above) is interpreted as compromise does not speak well for the intellectual caliber (or honesty) of those making that argument.So Sean, direct question to you here - what do you call +ABL and the trad priests for condoning others to addend the evil thing, while they themselves would not be caught saying the evil thing? Consistent?
Nor does the belief that the intrinsic evil of the NOM is moral rather than philosophical/scholastic (which would impute legions of mortal sins to Archbishop Lefebvre for permitting it).
Right now, the SSPX CI monitors are howling with laughter at the ignorance displayed, and saying to each other, “Johnson even quoted ABL, and they completely ignored and dismissed it in order to maintain their own erroneous positions.”
In danger of death.
Obligation of law, such as to attend Mass, do not bind if there's no acceptable Catholic Mass to attend.Then the same would apply to Holy Communion, if there is no acceptable mass to provide it.
To be consistent, you must maintain that he was a terrible modernist, who induced people to commit intrinsically evil acts in attending the new Mass (e.g., In the quote from his spiritual conference I provided, but also in his 1980 acknowledgement that those attending the NOM fulfill their Sunday obligation (which could not be the case if they were committing intrinsically evil moral acts).
PS: If the Japanese kept the faith, did they also keep the state of grace? All Catholic theologians would consider that morally impossible without the sacraments (and any belief to the contrary is pious wishful thinking).
Ok, then maybe Holy Viaticuм is the only exception...provided of course, that you knew the priest and the consecration was valid.
.
Then the same would apply to Holy Communion, if there is no acceptable mass to provide it.
The catholics in England were martyred rather than attend an Anglican mass, one in which the only change (at first) was a philosophical one, that is, the mass was offered without the pope, in honor of King Henry VIII. Catholics died rather than be part of this schism and blasphemy (and the Anglican communions would've been valid, let's not forget). Yet it's ok for one to attend the new mass, which is FAR worse than the Anglican heresy, and which has FAR more blasphemies/sacrileges involved? It makes no sense.
as they wholly reject going to the new jazz because of what it is - a sacrilege against the propitiatory sacrifice of Calvary.:laugh1: I think the "new jazz" is offensive to classical jazz and certainly it is not as good as the current novus ordo music options - 1) meandering folk songs sang in operatic style by obese, ugly women, or 2) the new age, protestant-style guitar riff played by a former woodstock dude, accompanied by a hippie woman who is consistently off-key.
Wow, where to begin unraveling this?
It's clear from the +Lefebvre quote that AT THE TIME he was considering the NOM to be EXTRINSICALLY evil, evil because of the harm it does to the faith. That was his reasoning at the time of making those quotations. At different times over the years, he became more hard line on the NOM.
The Anglican heresy/schism clearly arose from a heretical act of mad King Henry VIII. This would have been crystal clear to any true practicing Catholic wherein even the uneducated laity could discern the same for themselves, wherein they could act in accordance with their conscience. And in so doing, many chose death instead of a clear heresy. But the new mass was promulgated by the Pope. How is it, then, that you can unequivocally say, with 100% confidence, that the new mass is entirely invalid? More important, how are the masses of the uneducated laity supposed to know this? Is it all one big trick, wherein billions have been fooled, and only the Catholic intelligentsia are able to recognize the truth? To me, that is what makes no sense. And I ask this question in all sincerity as it is one I simply can not get my mind around.You need to understand that the laity who accepted the new mass had a multitude of different excuses for doing so.
How is it, then, that you can unequivocally say, with 100% confidence, that the new mass is entirely invalid?
More important, how are the masses of the uneducated laity supposed to know this? Is it all one big trick, wherein billions have been fooled, and only the Catholic intelligentsia are able to recognize the truth? To me, that is what makes no sense.Those who were adults in the 60s and 70s knew their Faith. They were not fooled into accepting the new mass or V2 - they wanted it. Those that did not, God provided to them priests who started the Traditionalist movement.
I've seen a Novus Ordo Mass done entirely in Latin, accompanied by the usual Gregorian Chant from the Kyriale, with the priest facing the altar, with people kneeling for Holy Communion and remaining reverent and attentive the entire time. That Anaphora I is 98% the Roman Canon, with just a few minor alterations.
Is it, under those conditions, positively harmful to the faith? I think that it's hard to argue that it is.
So the question of its badness must go beyond the specifics of any given implementation (whether very reverent or not reverent at all).
But if people witness the reverent NOM I described above vs. being regularly exposed to Clown Masses, then their perception of how bad it is might vary.
Note to Pax: If you are now backing away from your initial claim that the NOM is intrinsically evil in the moral sense (which is good to see), then you are simultaneously and unavoidably compelled to acknowledge there can be circuмstances which make that attendance permissible, since it is only intrinsically evil moral acts which allow for no exceptions.I said from the beginning, only the Church can decide the intrinsic question..or at least not me. I tend to believe it is intrinsically evil (as +Ottaviani said, it has an anti-Trent theology...how can something anti-Trent be catholic? How can this be good?) Even if it's not intrinsically evil, there are 100s of other reasons one cannot attend, both related to church law and related to circuмstantial moral issues in its atmosphere.
I've seen a Novus Ordo Mass done entirely in Latin, accompanied by the usual Gregorian Chant from the Kyriale, with the priest facing the altar, with people kneeling for Holy Communion and remaining reverent and attentive the entire time. That Anaphora I is 98% the Roman Canon, with just a few minor alterations.When the changes were still new, we went to a NOM said entirely in Latin maybe 4 or 5 times - had to drive way down to Detroit for it. It was said in one of the beautiful old Italian Churches funded by one of the Detroit Mafia families who hated the changes, if it weren't for that, they would never have gotten away with saying it that way.
Is it, under those conditions, positively harmful to the faith? I think that it's hard to argue that it is.
So the question of its badness must go beyond the specifics of any given implementation (whether very reverent or not reverent at all).
But if people witness the reverent NOM I described above vs. being regularly exposed to Clown Masses, then their perception of how bad it is might vary.
The issue of intrinsic vs extrinsic evil is not germain to Lefebvre’s quote (except very indirectly); he is not discussed that point.
It most certainly is. His major consideration is how harmful it is to a person's faith.
It might not be harmful to the faith, but it would still be intrinsically evil in the scholastic (but not moral) sense, since howsoever they might put traditional veneers upon that Rite, it still lacks an offertory and any reference to sacrifice and a sacrificial priesthood.I agree, a "reverent" novus ordo is still wrong because it's not a mass, which REQUIRES the idea of sacrifice.
Archbishop Lefebvre said otherwise, in the quote above.So according to you, then, the Novus Ordo is not a danger to the Faith but can even supply and sustain the Faith. What a wacky world you live in.
He said people would lose the faith (textbook definition of extreme spiritual necessity) if they were forced to go several months or more without Mass.
Now if people want to disagree with Lefebvre (as Pax is doing), then they are free to do so.
But let’s not pretend they are adhering to the position of Lefebvre as they contradict him, or being more traditional in unwittingly inventing their own novel positions, and passing them off as “the positions of the pioneer trads of the 1970’s.”
So according to you, then, the Novus Ordo is not a danger to the Faith but can even supply and sustain the Faith. What a wacky world you live in.
If one is a liberal NOM Catholic, who suddenly discovers an EWTN-style Latin NOM, yes, there would be no danger to his faith, but in fact a strengthening of it. It would also be a stepping stone toward Tradition.He would receive an increase of actual graces, for sure. Just like if an atheist starts going to a protestant church. The movement towards God will be rewarded with actual graces.
And were such an one well-disposed, he would infallibly receive an increase of sanctifying grace from Communion there.
Conversely, were a trad to go to an EWTN-style NOM, his faith would be attacked, and even in the state of grace, because his anger and indignation might erect an obex gratiae to the transmission of grace available, he would not profit from Communion.If a Trad goes to a NOM, he would no longer be in the state of grace, because this act is contrary to the 1st commandment that one cannot worship with false religions, nor can they put themselves in an occasion of sin to one's faith. They wouldn't profit from the communion, even if the communion was valid, which can't be assumed.
He would receive an increase of actual graces, for sure. Just like if an atheist starts going to a protestant church. The movement towards God will be rewarded with actual graces.No, it is de fide that sanctifying graces are received by well-disposed communicants at a valid Mass.
.
It is inconclusive if sanctifying graces are imparted at a NOM because 1) we don't know if the priest is even a priest, 2) if the consecration was valid, 3) if communion in the hand was observed. Based on the number of doubts involved, we must assume that sanctifying grace is NOT there, but only actual graces, which are dependent upon the person's intentions.
If a Trad goes to a NOM, he would no longer be in the state of grace, because this act is contrary to the 1st commandment that one cannot worship with false religions, nor can they put themselves in an occasion of sin to one's faith. They wouldn't profit from the communion, even if the communion was valid, which can't be assumed.
This applies to a valid, licit and moral mass. It doesn’t necessarily apply to a valid, illicit mass, because illicit masses are sinful...so would the communions be. There’s so many other factors to consider. You’re over generalizing. You’re making no distinction between mass and the consecration.
?? So then it would be a good thing to receive communion at a black mass? That’s your logic.
.
If the rite doesn’t matter, then we should all go to the novus ordo because we can save our soul doing so...according to you.
Sean is living the liberal dream. He ignores the fact that the #1 reason that the new "mass" was perpetrated in the first place, was to *replace* the True Mass - in order to destroy the Church. "Take away the Mass, destroy the Church" - Martin Luther
Sean is living the liberal dream. He ignores the fact that the #1 reason that the new "mass" was perpetrated in the first place, was to *replace* the True Mass - in order to destroy the Church. "Take away the Mass, destroy the Church" - Martin LutherWell said, Stubborn. This is the understanding and mentality of a true traditional Catholic. No mixing truth with error.
Although he doesn't believe this, we can be certain that the Church's enemies always did, they understood this quite clearly, which should be all the explanation a trad requires to explain to him the purpose of what the new "mass" is all about - and on that account it deserves only to be wholly condemned, not condoned for any reason.
Why is it that so many of those trads who were brought up in the NO, then themselves having their eyes opened, corresponded with the graces offered, left that evil behind and became trads, are so often the same trads who are eager to sympathize with the evil thing they left, as being in some way good, or not always bad?
Sean, the only graces that can possibly come from participating in the evil thing, is the grace to get you away from it and all that it represents, while prompting you toward the True Mass and all it represents - which graces btw, are the same graces that you personally corresponded with, which are the same graces that get rejected by everyone who continually participates in the evil thing. That's just the way that works.
And then follows a litany of moronic comments from Stubborn. Ladislaus, and Hodie in quick succession (as though this were a Feeneyite thread):Sean the confused Liberal from the OP: "But it has never been in this moral sense in which the SSPX, Archbishop Lefebvre, or traditionalist apologists have used the term "intrinsic evil."
1) The asinine comment of Stubborn wants you to think I am ignoring the evil of the NOM, even though I have spoken in the deleterious effects of the uncatholic liturgical movement more than anyone else on this forum. Either he has issues with reading comprehension, or the intellectual horsepower is sputtering;
2) Ladislaus chimes in that the point raised by Stubborn is extremely important, even though this thread has NOTHING to do with the liturgical reform;
3) Then Hodie pretends to have informed the thread reader that ABL believed the NOM to be eintrinsically evil (as though I myself had not been saying that for 5 pages already).
Are you people official time wasters, or just butt-hurt Feeneyite obfuscators?
Sean the confused Liberal:Hodie in his post above quoting Archbishop Lefebvre:
PS: Note in the final paragraph of Hodie's post of ABL's quote from June/1981, the Archbishop is still allowing for occasional NOM attendance. He could not do that without sinning if he believed NOM attendance to be an intrinsically (morally) evil act. That was the whole point of this thread. If you missed that, you should go back to reading the funny papers.
Sean the confused Liberal from the OP: "But it has never been in this moral sense in which the SSPX, Archbishop Lefebvre, or traditionalist apologists have used the term "intrinsic evil."
Hodie in his post above quoting Archbishop Lefebvre: By June 1981, the Archbishop had reached a conclusion on the New Mass and said: “…that the evil in the New Mass is truly intrinsic, in the text … and not only something purely extrinsic, [in the abuses], this is certain."
Hodie in his post above quoting Archbishop Lefebvre:
"Listen, I cannot advise you to go to something which is evil. Myself, I would not go because I would not want to take in this atmosphere. I cannot. It is stronger than me. I cannot go. I would not go. So I advise you not to go."
Proof you are unable to properly digest what you read, and consequently have no idea what you are talking about:Like all Liberals, you are confused.
1) You think to rebut me by regurgitating my own argument (lol);
2) You conveniently quote ABL saying HE CANNOT GO TO THE NOM ((just like I say I cannot go to the NOM, and both of us for the reasons already mentioned), but ignore Hodie’s quote of ABL speaking of OTHERS going to the NOM (ie., the ignorant or those in necessity):
“I reply: Just because something is poisoned, it is not going to poison you if you go on the odd occasion.” (See final paragraph of Hodie’s post)
4) For this specific purpose (i.e., the transmission of sanctifying grace), if there is a sacrament + well-disposed communicant = grace passes.You are taking a general principle and applying it to circuмstances which don't make sense. You are leaving out all kinds of factors, which affect the morality of the situation.
Pax has now invented a new invalidity of mass "communion in the hand." Wow. What part of the mass is communion in the hand? If a person receives kneeling and the next person receives standing does Jesus disappear because mass is now invalid?Many of you are falsely viewing this debate through the lens of validity only. You are obsessed with this litmus test and ignoring all the other factors. Even if the new mass could be proven to be 100% valid, every single time, one could still not go. Because of the illegalities of the liturgy (which make it gravely sinful) and of the overall atmosphere which is anti-Catholic, irreverent and immoral. Communion-in-the-hand is a sacrilege, because only the priest's consecrated fingers are allowed to touch the Holy Eucharist. Communion-in-the-hand happens at 98% of every single novus ordo mass across the globe. Therefore to attend such a liturgy, where this sacrilege occurs on a normal basis, is also a sacrilege because one is not allowed to attend liturgies which allow sin. You would be openly and publically condoning this practice by your attendance. This is not to mention all other other, varied sacrileges (talking, dancing, women altar girls, women/men Eucharistic ministers, dogs in the sanctuary, homo/gαy services, immodest attire in the sanctuary, etc, etc). Validity, while an important question, is the least of the problems with the novus ordo. If you think you can go to any valid mass, while all the above nonsense takes place, and think God is honored and glorified with such anti-religious and anti-Catholic activities, you just aren't thinking like a catholic. At all.
Like all Liberals, you are confused.
You said +ABL never said the new "mass" was intrinsically evil - you are proven wrong. It not only is intrinsically evil, Archbishop Lefebvre said it is intrinsically evil. It is therefore intrinsically evil although you say it isn't and you said +ABL never said it was. So you are 100% wrong.
You conveniently quote ABL saying "Just because something is poisoned, it is not going to poison you if you go on the odd occasion" but ignore Hodie’s quote of ABL saying he concluded that he cannot advise anyone to go because it's intrinsically evil.
When's the last time you drank a little poison because that's all there was to drink?
“It must be understood immediately that we do not hold to the absurd idea that if the New Mass is valid, we are free to assist at it. The Church has always forbidden the faithful to assist at the Masses of heretics and schismatics even when they are valid. It is clear that no one can assist at sacrilegious Masses or at Masses which endanger our faith.…
You are an idiot.
1) I have maintained from the beginning that the NOM is intrinsically evil, but in the scholastic/philosophical sense, not the moral sense (which is undoubtedly correct, or ABL could not have permitted exceptional attendance at it without himself sinning);
If you couldn’t refute my position by now, I have no worries you shall be able to do so in the future (particularly since my position is the position of Archbishop Lefebvre).Your liberal position has been repeatedly proven false, but it is exactly that - your position. Have another beer.
Here it is again, Sean. Read it a few times and let it sink in. +ABL is not in your corner.
Adieu.
If I am dying in a car crash, and a schismatic heretical priest can hear my confession, am I obliged to withhold making it??Confession is necessary for salvation if one is in mortal sin; mass and Holy Communion are not, to the same degree at all.
But Catholics can “never” participate in, or receive, sacraments from heretics or schismatics.Canon Law allows schismatics and heretics (even atheists) to provide baptism, in cases of necessity. Heretics/schismatics can also hear confessions in emergencies. Don't think that Holy Communion is allowed in the same sense. If it is (and I'm not sure), the liturgy would have to be catholic and moral and valid. The new mass is not catholic or moral. That's the difference.
“I reply: Just because something is poisoned, it is not going to poison you if you go on the odd occasion.” (See final paragraph of Hodie’s post)I want to add that this can be misleading because about 20 years ago, I attended a NO funeral service of a young man from work who died, and I was sick for a week after that. It was certainly a poison, one that I did not expect could do any harm, boy was I wrong.
If I am dying in a car crash, and a schismatic heretical priest can hear my confession, am I obliged to withhold making it??This is another idea that should really never concern faithful trads - on their death beds, God does not send heretic priests to faithful trads who've only partaken in the true Mass and sacraments from faithful trad priests, and avoided everything NO while they lived.
But Catholics can “never” participate in, or receive, sacraments from heretics or schismatics.
Yet, if you concede this point (as you must), shall I then be justified in accusing you of promoting the reception of sacraments from heretics and schismatics (as you and your ignorant friends are doing)?
The analogy carries over to all the other sacraments in necessity, presuming they are valid.
Necessity dispenses with the law.
Typical Johnson MO. When he gets thoroughly refuted by the evidence, he abandons the thread.Hey, he lasted 6 pages. That's pretty good for him. :laugh1:
Me and my husband were both born into the novus ordo not even knowing about the TLM or true faith...God did however bring us to the true faith and the TLM and the knowledge understanding and practice of many aspects of living the faith.That shows you had good will and God rewarded your search for Truth with the True Faith.
I do not agree with Fr. Hewko on this point but I think that people tend to be too hard on each other in the fact that each person is trying to follow God and the faith to the best that they can.Fr Hewko is not condemning those PEOPLE who do not yet know the truth. He is condemning the new mass because it's wrong, whether you know it or not. Condemning the new mass is different than condemning people.
..we no longer go to any novus ordo mass or parish however because there are many heretical beliefs within the conciliator church. we believe it is a danger to a persons soul.This is exactly what Fr Hewko is condemning - that the new church is a danger to the faith, for all catholics (whether they know it or not). If they don't know it, then we must preach the truth and educate them.
So my main points are that we love Fr.Hewko and believe he has a point but that no one can really definitively state that no grace comes from the novus ordo because God in his goodness mercy and love can bring a person to the true faith no matter where they are.In your example, you were not converted/convinced to leave the new mass because of the graces you received from that service. God brought to your eyes the errors of this liturgy because you had good will in your heart and through your prayers (i.e. you corresponded with actual graces). It has nothing to do with sanctifying grace.
That shows you had good will and God rewarded your search for Truth with the True Faith.
Fr Hewko is not condemning those PEOPLE who do not yet know the truth. He is condemning the new mass because it's wrong, whether you know it or not. Condemning the new mass is different than condemning people.
This is exactly what Fr Hewko is condemning - that the new church is a danger to the faith, for all catholics (whether they know it or not). If they don't know it, then we must preach the truth and educate them.
In your example, you were not converted/convinced to leave the new mass because of the graces you received from that service. God brought to your eyes the errors of this liturgy because you had good will in your heart and through your prayers (i.e. you corresponded with actual graces). It has nothing to do with sanctifying grace.
.
Actual graces can be received anywhere, always and by all - under they are dead. You can receive actual graces every time you think about God, even if you're standing at a bus stop. Sanctifying graces only come from the mass/sacraments. No one can prove that the novus ordo offers this type of grace because it is not a mass and the communions may not be valid. It is best to assume there is NO sanctifying grace, as Fr Hewko is saying. If you assume the worst, and you instruct people about this doubtful issue, then they are more likely to leave this bad mass and come to Tradition.
This may be a silly question, but based on this logic, how does it no behoove us to side with the Pope and the Bishops in normal communion with him, over Lefebvre and now Williamson? Lefebvre is dead, so presumably you'd be siding with Williamson, and the 4 (I think) bishops he consecrated in 2017. Based on the *logic* you present here, how are you epistemically justified in siding with that over the Pope?
But opposing countless intelligent bishops who have experience and years of sacrifice and dedication to the cause -- with my own weak opinion? That is pride, pure and simple.
A little bell should go off when you are willing to believe that YOU ALONE have the truth, and all the theologians ON YOUR OWN SIDE -- including professors at the Seminary that formed you -- disagree with you. "Um... they all compromised! Yeah, that's it!"
...Sure they did.
The second sophistry is derived from his confusion surrounding the term "intrinsic evil," which is actually an ambiguous phrase: Something may be intrinsically evil in the realm of human acts, or it may be intrinsically evil in the realm of scholastic philosophy.
If we are speaking of intrinsic MORAL evil, then there are no circuмstances which can make it permissible.
It is in this sense which the Pfeifferians (and now Hewkonians/LaRosans) mistakenly believe the term "intrinsic evil" applies to the Novus Ordo.
But it has never been in this moral sense in which the SSPX, Archbishop Lefebvre, or traditionalist apologists have used the term "intrinsic evil."
Intrinsic evil as this term has been used in reference to the New Mass has pertained to its nature, not to the quality of the moral act of attendance.
Evil as a term in scholastic philosophy means "The privation or lack of a good which naturally belongs to a nature; the absence of a good which is naturally due to a being." (Fr. Wuellner. Dictionary of Scholastic Philosophy. See "evil.").
Once again, it is in this sense which traditionalists have referred to the new Mass as "intrinsically evil," not the moral sense.
Intrinsic evil as this term has been used in reference to the New Mass has pertained to its nature, not to the quality of the moral act of attendance.
Communion-in-the-hand is a sacrilege, because only the priest's consecrated fingers are allowed to touch the Holy Eucharist.The hands of Deacons are not consecrated, they do not commit sacrilege by distributing communion, the faithful who in times past received communion in the hand historically did not commit sacrilege either. You must stop using the wrong type of argumentation in this type of discussion. The boarders of the two nearest Latin diocese in which I live for example say the most conservative type of NO, have Eucharistic Congresses and are relatively catechised. This type of flawed argumentation, confusing piety with fact does damage to the ability to reach people. Many traditional Catholics give these types of answers which leads people to say, They don't understand their own churches history, They don't know what they are talking about. Trust me when I say people read what is said on traditional forums, I can attest to being asked questions about what has been said. Let's not forget that
This may be a silly question, but based on this logic, how does it no behoove us to side with the Pope and the Bishops in normal communion with him, over Lefebvre and now Williamson? Lefebvre is dead, so presumably you'd be siding with Williamson, and the 4 (I think) bishops he consecrated in 2017. Based on the *logic* you present here, how are you epistemically justified in siding with that over the Pope?
(BTW my gut tells me not to side with the current pope on much either, but I do sometimes wonder how I can epistemically justify that, and seeing this made me wonder)
The hands of Deacons are not consecrated, they do not commit sacrilege by distributing communion, the faithful who in times past received communion in the hand historically did not commit sacrilege either. You must stop using the wrong type of argumentation in this type of discussion. The boarders of the two nearest Latin diocese in which I live for example say the most conservative type of NO, have Eucharistic Congresses and are relatively catechised. This type of flawed argumentation, confusing piety with fact does damage to the ability to reach people. Many traditional Catholics give these types of answers which leads people to say, They don't understand their own churches history, They don't know what they are talking about. Trust me when I say people read what is said on traditional forums, I can attest to being asked questions about what has been said. Let's not forget that
Dr Marshall is wrong there are liturgical texts predating Basil that still exist in oriental churches catholic and Orthodox which cite how to receive in the hand. Copts recieve this way using cloths, although this was recently done by the last Coptic patriarch.If St Basil came after such texts, then maybe St Basil was overruling past practices, because such were no longer necessary? If such texts were AFTER St Basil, then you'd have an argument.
The quote from Sixtus is not from a historically reliable source.You'll have to prove your assertion here.
It was true in some areas that post Constantine prohibitions were put in place to curtail reception of communion in the hand.It's a historical fact that the Latin Church has always considered Communion in the hand to be a unique occurrence. Therefore, the "reintroduction" of the practice after V2 is problematic, because in both the liturgy and in morality, we must be striving for perfection. We cannot go backwards in our spiritual life, or in our practices of worshipping God. At the VERY minimum, St Thomas teaches that only priests can touch Our Lord. So, AT LEAST, this has been common for the Latin Rite since the 1200s.
In any way if Basil is saying there exist reasons when it can be done it can not be a sacrilegeYou're not understanding the definition of a sacrilege, which is simply the profanation or unholy use of a sanctified person, place or thing. Everyone can use holy water to bless themselves, but if you put holy water in your mouth and spit it out, that's a sacrilege. You have profaned a holy thing.
If you listen to Bishop Williamson in this clip, it is clear that he once publicly held that active attendance at the Novus Ordo Rite of Mass is intrinsically evil. How does Sean explain this away?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=opMuVJcud7M (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=opMuVJcud7M)
Bishop Williamson, in this short clip, explains the difference between a valid consecration and an illicit mass. One has to realize that because a Mass is valid does not mean it is permitted or licit (legal). Attending an illicit mass is a mortal sin.
Confederate,
I never said the communion in the hand invalidates the mass, but that the non-emergency, non-necessary indult is a Sacrilege.
What does Sean have to say about this?After being thoroughly pummeled, Sean took has bat and ball and went back home.
After being thoroughly pummeled, Sean took has bat and ball and went back home.
Is this topic part of the new book? Seems to me on the topic of the new mass’ inherent goodness, that Sean agrees with both the old sspx and the new-sspx, so not sure how this topic is part of the new-sspx changes.