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.

You really ought to think before you hit the keyboard:

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.

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.

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.
.
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.

No, it is de fide that sanctifying graces are received by well-disposed communicants at a valid Mass.

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.  

The quality of the rite has nothing to do with it:

If the sacrament is valid, grace is present within it.

At that point, the only question is whether the recipient is well-disposed to receive it.

That's the teaching of the Church.

Period.

??  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.

Leaving aside the fact that this is now the second time you are bringing up the black Mass (which means you did not learn from my first response), your comments are not doctrinally based, but emotional/sentimental/liberal.

Nevertheless, I will have another go:

1) Obviously, nobody is saying the black Mass (or the Novus Ordo!) is good;

2) What is being driven home, is that were a well-disposed communicant to receive at either (howsoever said communicant would have to be blindfolded, deceived, etc.), he would infallibly receive the grace contained in the sacrament.

3) That is de fide: Contrary to the Pfeifferian/Hewkonian/LaRosan fanatics, there is no such thing as a sterile sacrament (Trent);

4) For this specific purpose (i.e., the transmission of sanctifying grace), if there is a sacrament + well-disposed communicant = grace passes.

5) It was not until Fr. Pfeiffer's war against Bishop Williamson that the heretical notion of sterile sacraments (contra Trent) was invented (unless one wants to cite the brief and erroneous Angelus position of Fr. Carl Pulvermacher in 1984; a position for which he was roundly lambasted by the faithful who red his opinion, yet he dug his heels in, showing how priests too are subject to pride and ignorance...even good ones like Fr. Pulvermacher).

6) But your final sentence is so adolescent, that I cannot tell whether you are being a difficult child, or just dense, as I have rebutted this sophistry several times above (i.e., whether or not the rite matters depends upon where you are today: As Ladislaus pointed out, if you are a Prot, the wildest (valid) NOM represents an improvement; if you are a liberal NOM, then EWTN-style Masses represent an improvement; if you are an indulter, then EWTN represents a threat to your faith, and so on).  But no Trad would go to it, because being disposed against an evil rite, he would not benefit.

I get the impression that you simply don't want to take any of this in.  Suit yourself, but please quit pretending you are holding the line of the early traditionalists (the greatest of which contradicts you flatly).

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

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.  



 

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

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.  



 

Well said, Stubborn. This is the understanding and mentality of a true traditional Catholic. No mixing truth with error.
Archbishop Lefebvre:

• “And we have the precise conviction that this new rite of Mass expresses a new faith, a faith which is not ours, a faith which is not the Catholic Faith. This New Mass is a symbol, is an expression, is an image of a new faith, of a Modernist faith… Now it is evident that the new rite, if I may say so, supposes another conception of the Catholic religion - another religion.” (Sermon, June 29, 1976)

• “I will never celebrate the Mass according to the new rite, even under threat of ecclesiastical penalties and I will never advise anyone positively to participate actively in such a Mass." (Conference April 11, 1990)

• “The current Pope and bishops no longer hand down Our Lord Jesus Christ, but rather a sentimental, superficial, charismatic religiosity through which, as a general rule, the true grace of the Holy Ghost no longer passes. This new religion is not the Catholic religion; it is sterile, incapable of sanctifying society and the family.” (Spiritual Journey, p. ix)

• “It is the new Mass in itself. It is not the priest who is saying it. It is not because he says it piously or anything that the new rite changes. It doesn’t change anything in the rite of the Mass. It is obvious that this new rite is a rite that has been made only to draw us closer to the Protestants. That is clear! (April 11, 1990)

• “This Mass is poisoned, it is bad and it leads to the loss of faith little by little. We are clearly obliged to reject it.” (The Mass of All Times, p. 353)

• “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.…All these innovations are authorized. One can fairly say without exaggeration that most of these [new] Masses are sacrilegious acts which pervert the Faith by diminishing it. The de-sacralization is such that these Masses risk the loss of their supernatural character, their mysterium fidei; they would then be no more than acts of natural religion. These New Masses are not only incapable of fulfilling our Sunday obligation, but are such that we must apply to them the canonical rules which the Church customarily applies to communicatio in sacris with Orthodox Churches and Protestant sects.” (The New Mass and the Pope, November, 8, 1979)

• “… this [new] rite is bad! Is bad, is bad. And the reason why this rite is bad in itself, is because it is poisoned. It is a poisoned rite! Mr. Salleron says it very well, here;
  "It is not a choice between two rites that could be good. It is a choice between a Catholic Rite and a rite that is practically a neighbor to Protestantism,”
  and thus, which attacks our Faith, the Catholic Faith! So, it is out of the question to encourage people to go to Mass in the new rite, because slowly, even without realizing it, they end up ecuмenist! It’s strange, but it's like that. It is a fact. Then, ask them questions on ecuмenism, on what they think of the relations with other religions and you will see! They are all ecuмenist. For the priest himself, the fact of saying this mass and celebrating it in a constant manner, even without thinking about anything, about its origin, or why it was made, turns him and the people who assist at it ecuмenist.” (Conference, April 11, 1990)

• "This union which liberal Catholics want between the Church and the Revolution is an adulterous union — adulterous. This adulterous union can only beget bastards. Where are these bastards? They are [the new] rites. The [new] rite of Mass is a bastard rite. The sacraments are bastard sacraments. We no longer know whether they are sacraments that give grace. We no longer know if this Mass gives us the Body and the Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ. ... The priests emerging from the seminaries are bastard priests." (Homily preached at Lille, August29, 1976)

• “The radical and extensive changes made in the Roman Rite of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and their resemblance to the modifications made by Luther oblige Catholics who remain loyal to their faith to question the validity of this new rite.”(Écône, February 2, 1977)

• “Your perplexity takes perhaps the following form: may I assist at a sacrilegious Mass which is nevertheless valid, in the absence of any other, in order to satisfy my Sunday obligation? The answer is simple: these Masses cannot be the object of an obligation; we must moreover apply to them the rules of moral theology and Canon Law as regards the participation or the attendance at an action which endangers the faith or may be sacrilegious. The New Mass, even when said with piety and respect for the liturgical rules, is subject to the same reservations since it is impregnated with the spirit of Protestantism. It bears within it a poison harmful to the faith.” (An Open Letter to Confused Catholics, Ch. 4)

• “The current problem of the Mass is an extremely serious problem for the Holy Church. I believe that if the dioceses and seminaries and works that are currently done are struck with sterility, it is because the recent deviations drew upon us the divine curse. All the efforts that are made to hang on to what is being lost, to reorganize, reconstruct, rebuild, all that is struck with sterility, because we no longer have the true source of holiness which is the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Profaned as it is, it no longer gives grace, it no longer makes grace pass.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, August 1972, priestly retreat)

• “We must not forget that the conciliar reforms of the liturgy, the reforms of the Bible, the changes in the internal structure of the Church, of the constitution of the Church—all these things are a result of the ecuмenical spirit. That is clear, since Protestants were present for the changes in the Mass—six Protestant ministers were photographed with Pope Paul VI who thanked them for having come to participate in the liturgical commission, which transformed our Catholic Mass! Everything was done in this ecuмenical spirit: liturgical reforms, catechetical reforms, an ecuмenical Bible—which is sold in the bookstore at the Vatican. There was then, a considerable Protestant influence.” (Conference in Germany, October 29, 1984)

• “…if they are going to the New Mass—slowly, slowly they change their mind and become, slowly, slowly Protestant. It is very dangerous to go to the New Mass regularly, each week, because the New Mass is not some accidental change, but it is a whole orientation, a new definition of the Mass. It has not the same definition as the True Mass.” (Interview, St. Michael’s Mission, Atlanta, April 27, 1986)

• “… So, if someone asks me: “I only have Mass of St. Pius V once a month. So what should I do on the other Sundays? Should I go to the New Mass if I do not have the Mass of St. Pius V? ...
  I reply: Just because something is poisoned, obviously it is not going to poison you if you go on the odd occasion, but to go regularly on Sunday like that, little by little the notions will be lost, the dogmas will diminish. They will become accustomed to this ambiance which is no longer Catholic and they will very slowly lose the Faith in the Real Presence, lose the Faith in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, and have a spirituality, since the prayers are changed and they have modified everything, in the sense of another spirituality. It is a new conception of Christian spirituality. There is no longer any ascetical effort, no longer a combat against sin, no longer a spiritual combat. There is a great need to combat against our own tendencies, against our faults, against everything which leads us to sin. So I would say to them: 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." (Spiritual Conference at Econe, June 25, 1981)

• “The consequences of this state of mind or spirit spread within the Church, inside the Church, are deplorable, and are ruining and sapping the spiritual vitality of the Church. In conscience, all we can do is turn priests and faithful away from using the Novus Ordo Missae if we wish that the complete and whole Catholic Faith remains still living.” (Letter to John Paul II, April 5, 1983 - Archbishop Lefebvre, Conference #1, St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary, April 24, 1983)

• In many cases, Masses by their translation, by the intention (of the celebrant), for many reasons are probably no longer valid. But, nevertheless, personally, I have always said, in fact, that if the Mass was said according to the rite approved by Pope Paul VI, in Latin, and with the intention of doing what the Church does, and, obviously, with the (valid) matter also, by a priest who is a real Catholic priest, I think that the Mass is in effect valid, although it does not necessarily follow that because it is valid we must inevitably attend it. ...
  My judgment is, given that this [New] Mass, as I had occasion to remark when interrogated by the Holy Office, is that this Mass is a Mass which has been poisoned, and one cannot oblige a person in conscience to receive poison. Consequently, if these people do not wish to go to Mass on Sunday, for example, because they are aware that it is a poison for their souls, they are certainly not committing a mortal sin. ...
  What we can say, objectively, as a general rule, is that it is a danger to the faith to attend such Masses. Subjectively, we must take into consideration the individual, and consequently we must know how to judge as a (good) pastor and not only purely in an objective manner, as if we had nothing to do with human beings who find themselves by consequences in diverse circuмstances. ... Obviously, the orthodoxy of the priest does not change the quality or the situation of the New Mass. (Even if a priest is well intentioned, a doubtful Mass will remain doubtful.) This is what they tell me in Rome: "You say that the Mass of the Pope is not good; you say that the Mass of certain cardinals is not good." I must reply "yes," because this concerns an objective question, that this Mass was made with the help of Protestants, finalized in a spirit of ecuмenical protestantism, and that the essential elements of the Mass are tainted more or less. Consequently, the faith is no longer expressed as it should be expressed, in such a way that the people finish by having an ecuмenical spirit and a Protestant spirit, which is excessively dangerous. (Interview with the Houston Chronicle, May 1983)

• "... we have the precise conviction that this new rite of Mass expresses a new faith, a faith which is not ours, a faith which is not the Catholic Faith. This New Mass is a symbol, is an expression, is an image of a new faith, of a Modernist faith. For if the most holy Church has wished to guard throughout the centuries this precious treasure which She has given us of the rite of Holy Mass which was canonized by Saint Pius V, it has not been without purpose. It is because this Mass contains our whole faith, the whole Catholic Faith: faith in the Most Holy Trinity, faith in the Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ, faith in the Redemption of Our Lord Jesus Christ, faith in the Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ which flowed for the redemption of our sins, faith in supernatural grace, which comes to us from the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, which comes to us from the Cross, which comes to us through all the Sacraments.
  
  This is what we believe. This is what we believe in celebrating the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass of all time. It is a lesson of faith and at the same time a source of our faith, indispensable for us in this age when our faith is attacked from all sides. We have need of this true Mass, of this Mass of all time of this Sacrifice of Our Lord Jesus Christ really to fill our souls with the Holy Ghost and with the strength of Our Lord Jesus Christ. Now it is evident that the new rite, if I may say so, supposes another conception of the Catholic religion-another religion." (Ordination Sermon, July 29, 1976)

• [As we], on the other hand, do not cease to affirm: the new Mass has been made in collaboration with the Protestants in order to please them; it still has a Protestant definition and produces Protestants. These reasons are more than sufficient for not giving it the titles reserved to the Catholic Mass of all time in its various rites. (Letter to Friends and Benefactors, March 1983)
  

• In April 1974, before the Archbishop had reached a decision about the New Mass, he stated:
  “Is the Mass really intrinsically evil? If the Mass was intrinsically evil, intrinsically, I say, well one cannot do an intrinsically evil act, an intrinsically evil act is always forbidden: But if the Mass is not intrinsically evil, but is evil by circuмstances, by what surrounds it, by certain prayers, because the Mass is not what it should be, and so as circuмstances can change, can be modified, ... it is obvious that with them, I think it is better to abstain, not to go to Mass for a whole month rather than go to Masses like that, that's for sure!”
  

• 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. Precisely by this general effect which diminishes the proclamation of our faith, this diminution is present everywhere, in the words and in the actions. They wanted to be ecuмenical to such a point, to bring themselves closer to the Protestants in order to pray with them, that in the end they no longer affirm the Faith. And that is very grave. This diminution is excessively grave for our faith, how can it be otherwise? … Really, in conscience, I cannot advise anyone to attend this Mass, it is not possible.” (pp. 224 in Dr. David Allen White’s, The Horn of the Unicorn).

• Archbishop’s conferences on the New Mass on June 23/24/25, 1981:
• “The liturgical reform consisted ultimately in taking a Protestant text, while affirming that one does not deny the truths the Protestants deny and, by virtue of the negation of these truths, they made this Novus Ordo…. the modernist liturgists who entered the Church found nothing better than to take the Protestant text and say: We do not deny the truths that the Protestants deny ... We do not deny the truths, but we take the same text, because this text has no formal heretical text! These texts were made by virtue of the negation of these truths, but they do not explicitly deny them, so they then say: We are not doing something heretical by taking these texts, but us, we do not deny the truths that the Protestants deny! ... I do not see how one can say: This [liturgical] reform is only evil in a purely accidental way, in a purely external or extrinsic way. In my opinion, the protestant reform, this Mass of Taizé is certainly evil because it no longer affirms truths … it is a poisoned mass. A poisoned mass, because when one no longer affirms the truly Catholic truths of the Mass, as the Protestants wanted, little by little faith in these truths also disappears. This, I would say, is so obvious, so obvious in all the consequences...”
  
  “…we cannot, in three conferences, say everything on internal characteristics, on the similarities with Protestant texts in an ecuмenical spirit, and thus of the danger which the [New] Mass entails for the Faith because of this diminution of the affirmation of the faith, a diminution of the affirmation of the dogmas which are essential to the Mass.… it [the New Mass] is not formally heretical, but indirectly it favors heresy because it puts you in a climate that no longer affirms the fundamental truths of the Mass , which no longer sufficiently affirms the fundamental truths of the Holy Mass.”
  
  “… So, if someone asks me: “I only have Mass of St. Pius V once a month. So what should I do on the other Sundays? Should I go to the New Mass if I do not have the Mass of St. Pius V? ...
  
  I reply: Just because something is poisoned, obviously it is not going to poison you if you go on the odd occasion, but to go regularly on Sunday like that, little by little the notions will be lost, the dogmas will diminish. They will become accustomed to this ambiance which is no longer Catholic and they will very slowly lose the Faith in the Real Presence, lose the Faith in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, and have a spirituality, since the prayers are changed and they have modified everything, in the sense of another spirituality. It is a new conception of Christian spirituality. There is no longer any asceticism, no longer a combat against sin, no longer a spiritual combat. There is a great need to combat against our own tendencies, against our faults, against everything which leads us to sin. So I would say to them: 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."
  
  

And then follows a litany of moronic comments from Stubborn. Ladislaus, and Hodie in quick succession (as though this were a Feeneyite thread):

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 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."

Sean the confused Liberal:
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.

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."