Quote from: Matthew

No, you can never choose a "doubtful" Liturgy in place of a certain one -- neither in the abstract nor in the concrete.

And St. Pius V declared in Quo Primum that the Tridentine Mass, at any rate, would always be acceptable for priests to say and Catholics to attend.

That is what I call sticking with what we know in a time of crisis. That's the very definition of being a Traditional Catholic.

It's not a matter of choice if the legitimate authorities make it clear that this is the rite they want you to use.  Again, IF the NO can be said in the way I indicated above, THEN the conclusion given above stands.

The Novus Ordo can be illicitly promulgated, and/or promulgated by means of deception, without affecting its status as intrinsically evil or not intrinsically evil.

Hey, the Novus Ordo is "bad", I'd be the first to insist on that.  It's wrong, it's dangerous, it's many things.

But I just don't see how the Conciliar Church, if it is the Catholic Church at all, could promulgate OR appear to promulgate something that was as evil as sterilizing oneself or procuring an abortion.

The evidence just doesn't point to the "fact" that there is no grace at all to be found in the Novus Ordo. The continual procession of people out of the Novus Ordo right into Tradition suggests otherwise. There is still Catholicism there. There are still "survivors". Just like a few sailors on a ship with poisoned food stores could survive by eating rats, sawdust, leather, and dead bodies. It wouldn't be pleasant, they wouldn't be in good shape, the survivors would number far less than 100% (closer to 2%), but there would be some nutrition (grace) to be scraped up.

You'd certainly be foolish to join that crew ON PURPOSE in the midst of their ordeal! It's the last place you'd want to be.

So I'd say the reality isn't much better than what you propose, and it still has plenty of mystery -- but at least it's something people can wrap their minds around. For God's own reasons, He allowed the Freemasons to infiltrate the Church, and through clever means these enemies of God came up with a new Mass, and Paul VI appeared to foist it upon the whole Church. They chanted the mantra of "obedience" even while sometimes admitting the Tridentine Mass wasn't forbidden. There were holes in their story, for those with eyes to see. And of course the wise Catholics knew about Quo Primum, Church History, etc. and they understood they had the right to stick with Tradition with no permission from Rome.

But the view that the Novus Ordo is intrinsically evil leads to an inescapable conclusion: that the Sedevacantists/ecclesiavacantists must be correct. Namely, that there is nothing Catholic at all in the Conciliar Church, not even as much grace as one could find nutrition in a restaurant's dumpster.

It leads to a "Traditio" or "Novus Ordo Watch" view of the Conciliar Church. The Pope isn't the Pope, the cardinals aren't cardinals, none of the bishops or priests has any orders, and the Novus Ordo Mass is equivalent to a Black Mass, except it's not even valid so nevermind!

I think it's more subtle than that.

I think a grave injustice was done to the Catholic world by focusing on the term "sedevacantist". It suggests that there's a big debate over whether or not the See of Rome is vacant. But it's SO MUCH MORE than just the See of Rome! The REAL question is whether the CHURCH is vacant or not. Sedevacantists say "yes"; others say "no".

How do these church-vacantists think the Church is going to be restored after the Chastisement? I know, most of them think some miracle will be worked. A heavenly light will shine on some man and he will magically become Pope.

That's not how God works. When he wiped the world out in a flood, he didn't create another man from the slime of the earth -- He preserved Noe and his family. When He rebuilds the Church, He will most likely use the means started by Christ: the existing Apostolic succession. He won't "reboot" or "reset" the Church and load up the last saved game; He will purify it and re-invigorate it.

I know your argument is basically that the Novus Ordo is evil, and only ignorance would excuse one of it.

But if the Novus Ordo is truly equivalent to a Black Mass, then how could you say, "Some of those people who attend Black Masses are in ignorance, and so they don't meet one of the criteria for Mortal Sin. So these ignorant ones are not culpable."

Have you ever read a description of a Black Mass? How could anyone, even 0.000001% of them be innocent when participating in such a Mass?

So you see, I would posit that your position leads to a pharasaical scorn of Novus Ordo Catholics, which history has proven to be a fact. Just look at the fruits of sedevacantist sites like Traditio and Novus Ordo Watch.

It leads to giving up on the Novus Ordo Catholics, and a superiority complex with no charity. This is necessarily connected with the position you describe, because by exaggerating the evil of the Mass they attend, you must conclude that they all MUST be of bad will.

After all, how can anyone of good will or invincible ignorance participate in something intrinsically evil like a Black Mass?

Matthew, one big difference between the new mass and a Black Mass is that the new mass deceives people into embracing false doctrines of man as though they are the true doctrines of the Church, whereas the black mass outright worships Satan. Though that may mean the same thing in the end, the paths are two different paths.

Evil is evil but arguably, the new mass' worst evil lies in it's deception, in it's intent by design to fool people who are led to believe they are worshiping God with it's adulterated liturgies, sins that are not sins, false love, false ecuмenism, no tabernacle and etc. ad nausem, these are deceptions which, regardless of our intentions, offend God to at least some degree, no?  

The case of the downs syndrome sufferer with the mental capacity of a 6 year old, is just as incapable of the use of reason as any 6 year old, so I guess I do not see the point. I mean, certainly only God knows, but it seems to me that any person of whatever age who has a mental impediment that prevents or severely clouds their use of reason and who goes to the new mass because that's where he is taken cannot be held accountable.

 

Matthew,

I think your dilemma can be solved by understanding that both the New Mass and a Black Mass are intrinsically evil, but the Black Mass is more intrinsically evil than the New Mass.  Murder and lying are both intrinsically evil, but murder is more intrinsically evil than lying.

If you steer away from accepting that the New Mass is intrinsically evil, then you move away from the position of Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX under him.  Also, you would place yourself in a position to acknowledge that the New Mass may be attended if the circuмstances are good.

D) become sedevacantists (and, like most sedevacantists, become ecclesiavacantists as well), because we're talking about the "Catholic Church" pushing a positively evil BLACK MASS EQUIVALENT on the entire world! The Catholic Church could never do that.

With regard to this point in particular, the Catholic Church is prevented through her indefectibility and disciplinary infallibility from promulgating even a DEFECTIVE Rite of Mass, not only a "Black Mass".  Even Bishop Williamson admits this principle ... though he goes on to argue from the "non-promulgation" angle against the SV conclusion.

So no, the Novus Ordo is not acceptable for decently intelligent, aware and/or informed Catholics to attend.

If what you say is true about the NOM, then it's not acceptable PERIOD for anyone to attend.  What you MEAN to say is that those who are uninformed or sincerely mistaken would not subjectively commit a sin in attending it.  It's a very clear distinction, but in your attempts to defend Bishop Williamson at all costs, you blur these just as he did.  Honestly, it's NOT that complicated.

Matthew,

Like most SSPX trads, you describe the Novus Ordo Missae as bad, not good, troublesome, problematic, defective, wrong, dangerous, etc. These words betray an underlying fault of looking at the Mass as it relates to us, as it relates to man, and not looking at the Mass as it relates to its object, God.

I hold, and will defend this position, that the Novus Ordo Missae is a sacrilege, and in the objective order a mortal sin.  And that it represents an evil that is worse than sterilizing oneself or abortion, for the simple reason that sins against the first and second commandments (directed squarely at God) are more heinous than sins against the fifth.

Most Catholics who hold your position do so because they have not a clear idea of what the Mass is.  Whether they admit it or not, they imagine that men may worship God as they please, rather than being bound by the first commandment which decrees that we must worship God as HE pleases.  We are the creature, He is the Creator.  He has absolute domination over us, and we have no right whatsoever to decide how we will adore His Infinite Majesty.  

The true Mass was given to us by Christ Himself, grown and developed organically over time under the guidance of the Holy Ghost and the care of the Church, and is a perfect, pleasing, spotless and immaculate sacrifice, a fitting act of adoration and worship of the most Holy Trinity.  It is, literally, God giving God to God.  

The Novus Ordo Missae is a creation of man.  It is not simply man telling God that they will adore Him as they please.  It is, in reality, man telling God that we will worship man in place of God.  The purpose, the whole reason for its existence, is to replace the true Mass, to bring to an end the worship of the True God.  You are, I'm sure, aware of the numerous "problems" of the Novus Ordo.  I will not labor through that list here, but have you considered how and to what degree those "problems" are offensive to God?  We have whole books written about how they're offensive to Catholics, but few consider how the Majesty of God is offended by these "problems".  Add to that the fact that each time the mockery is performed, it is a violation of the standing law of the Church (Quo Primum), and by that fact alone constitutes a sacrilege of unimaginable proportions.

Holding the position that the act, the event, of the Novus Ordo Missae being evil and a sacrilege, does not lead to inescapable conclusion that there is "nothing Catholic at all in the Conciliar Church."  Rather, the fact that it was given to us by the very shepherds of the Church makes its sacrilegious nature all the more poignant.  It is the difference between the Babylonians creating a false rite and the priests of the Mosaic Law creating one.  The latter example is far more odious than the former.  Does the fact that the Hebrew priests devised their own false worship, their own "Novus Ordo", demand we take the position that there was nothing of the worship of the true God left in old covenant?  

And how does the Novus Ordo Missae being evil force us to take the position that "The Pope isn't the Pope, the cardinals aren't cardinals, none of the bishops or priests has any orders"?  The very fact that these same men are the ones perpetrating the sacrilege is what makes it so heinous.  If a simple layman were to offer the Novus Ordo, it would be bad, but not on the level of a priest of God taking part in it.

The validity of conciliar orders is another topic altogether.  I do not have the authority to decide whether they're valid or not.  The very fact that there is a question, however, precludes my approaching them for the sacraments.  I will wait for the Church to decide the issue, and in the meantime will take the safer course.

Your point touching on how God will restore things after the chastisement has little bearing on the topic.  That's His business, not mine.  My job is to adore Him as He desires to be adored, not defend the indefensible.

The subjective culpability of each of the attendees at the Novus Ordo is an issue that we can't delve into because it's in the internal forum, but the nature of the act itself is certainly up for review.  Their innocence or guilt doesn't change the fact that the act itself is sacrilegious.  

I cannot speak for others, but my holding the this position has never lead to "a pharasaical scorn of Novus Ordo Catholics".  On the contrary, having been one for 20 years I know all-too-well what it's like, and have nothing but compassion for them.  I have little trouble making a distinction between their actions and their person, and the fact that they have an immortal soul which needs help.  

The bottom line, Matthew, is that Bishop Williamson was wrong.  He screwed up.  Just accept the fact and move on.