Author Topic: -Minute 10:37 Therefore, I would not say..." (Read 2148 times)

Pax Vobis · « **on:** December 17, 2016, 09:30:27 PM »

Quote

-Minute 10:37 “Therefore, I would not say every single person must stay away from every single Novus Ordo Mass”:

This. is. the. crux. of. the. issue.

Fr Wathen would disagree wholeheartedly. Either the novus ordo is ok (in theory) or it is not. Obviously, there are novus ordo masses said by bad priests and in a bad manner (i.e. clown masses). I'm not talking about these. For there can be latin masses said in a similar manner. What I'm talking about is a "pure" novus ordo. IS THIS OK to attend?

Cardinal Ottaviani, Cardinal Bacci, etc, etc would say 'no way'.
Fr Wathen would say 'no way'.
Fr DePauw would say 'no way'.
All those who have written critiques of the N.O.M. since the 70s would say 'no way'.

+Lefebvre would say 'probably not'
+ Fellay would say 'probably not'
+ The other 2 bishops would say 'probably not'
+ Williamson says 'probably not'

The sspx has always been unprincipled on the new mass. 50 years later we are seeing the effects: +Fellay is itching to make a deal, the other 2 bishops are with +Fellay, and +Williamson is "against" a deal but still "apologizing" for a false mass.

As they say, "buyer beware". Know who you are dealing with. Follow Truth, not men, unless the men you follow stick with Tradition (like Fr Wathen, Fr Depauw, etc).

Matthew · « **Reply #1 on:** December 18, 2016, 08:16:51 AM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis

The sspx has always been unprincipled on the new mass. 50 years later we are seeing the effects: +Fellay is itching to make a deal, the other 2 bishops are with +Fellay, and +Williamson is "against" a deal but still "apologizing" for a false mass.

Yes, if by "principled" you mean "simplified, black and white thinking to the point of distorting the truth".

If by "principled" you mean "simple-minded sedevacantist", then yes. +Lefebvre and his successors (who today include: +Williamson) are not "principled".

You realize that both sides claim the "truth" in this matter, so you might as well stop throwing that word around. That is for this discussion, for the readers, to determine. We think YOU are lacking the objective truth. We think your position is distorted. So remember that. Claiming the truth in a discussion like this is like one of the lawyers (prosecution or defense) to attempt to rule on a case. Ridiculous!

Just make your points, and move on.

In this regard, +Fellay (I believe it was) was correct with his assessment (I paraphrase, since I can't remember the exact quote:)

"If this Crisis goes on much longer, we're all going to end up like the Orthodox -- in Schism. So we need to make a deal with Rome."

He's correct insofar as he's saying we're all in trouble: the Crisis is going to be harder and harder on us, as time goes on. But his solution is wrong. Instead, we need to redouble our commitment to Tradition and grow ever closer to Our Lord, throwing ourselves at the foot of Calvary and offer up fervent prayers and mortifications. Also, take refuge in the protection of Our Lady -- as we keep up the good fight!

And while it's not true that Tradition NECESSARILY has an "expiration date" PER SE, nevertheless it virtually does have an expiration date. In the practical realm, with real human beings, that is. The longer things go on, the more both sides dig in, and the doctrine starts to simplify and become more black-and-white. People forget why and how the movement started. It becomes "us" vs. "them".

You're talking about a multi-generational conflict now! Have you ever heard the narration for any movie, or read any book, about a multi-generational war/fight/struggle? What is the first thing they say?

"Both sides forgot what the conflict was originally about. They don't remember who started it. All they know now is this grueling war, which seems like it has gone on forever..."

That's Tradition, and the Crisis in the Church, today. For me, the Novus Ordo has been around since 7 years before I was born. My parents were married, and baptized all their children, in a small, independent chapel set up by Thomas. A. Nelson and the Order of St. John, Knights of Malta (with no official Church jurisdiction).

I was married, and my first 5 children were baptized, in an SSPX chapel -- also with no official Church jurisdiction behind it. But #6 was born a few hours after I attended a pro-Resistance Mass with Fr. Voigt. And #7 was baptized at our Resistance chapel, St. Dominic's.

Matthew · « **Reply #2 on:** December 18, 2016, 08:41:19 AM »

Seriously, please meditate on this one:

You have some altercation between, say, Mr. Hat and Mr. Coy. The conflict started when Mr. Hat ran over Mr. Coy's dog. So it was originally about restitution and apologizing for killing a neighbor's dog.

But then Mr. Coy tilled up Mr. Hat's entire garden.
Then Mr. Hat "girdled" 6 of Mr. Coy's trees (girdling = cutting a ring 1/4 inch deep all the way around the base of a tree will totally kill the tree)
Then Mr. Coy set Mr. Hat's front yard on fire, during the dry season.
Later, Mr. Hat set Mr. Coy's garage on fire, trying to make it look like an accident.
A week later, Mr. Coy set Mr. Hat's garage on fire, which caught his house on fire. It burned to the ground.
Mr. Hat had to move to a different area, but the hatred seethed. 20 years later, his children were trained to hate Mr. Coy and his family.

Mr. Hat's oldest son, COWBOY, eventually hit Mrs. Coy with his truck -- there were no skid marks before the collision. Witnesses said the truck actually SPED UP before the collision.

And so it continued for years.

Now let's pause the action for a moment. If you asked Mr. Coy how to resolve this conflict, he'd say, "When all the Hats are dead!" Why? "They're devils, that's why!"

What about restitution for the dog? Does Mr. Coy even remember the dog that Mr. Hat ran over originally? Probably not. The conflict has seethed, grown, escalated, and a habit of fighting has nurtured anger -- and constant anger has morphed into hatred (as it always does).

It's hard to maintain CHARITY and RIGHTEOUS INDIGNATION for decades, without either A) giving up on the indignation or B) letting the indignation breed HATRED of the men in the Vatican we oppose.

Domitilla · « **Reply #3 on:** December 18, 2016, 10:43:47 AM »

Matthew, I'll send you the Deharbe Catechism for Christmas. You will find nothing but solid Roman Catholic doctrine to meditate upon.

Merry Christmas!

JPaul · « **Reply #4 on:** December 18, 2016, 12:34:31 PM »

Actually and in fact the issue is as black and white as there is truth or error, there is no in between save in the minds of men.

Both sides may claim the truth but truth is with those who follow, not the opinions of men, but those who hear the voice of Christ's Church and follow it.

There is one Catholic Mass which Divinely inspired, is received from the Apostles and approved by the Church. The other is an illegitimate imitation and a mockery of what God inspired.

The Church forbids participation in such a de-Catholicised and dangerous ritual.
The Church forbids participation in any doubtful sacrament under pain of mortal sin.
Mortal sin carries the penalty of eternal damnation if not repented of.

What more needs to be said?

There is no question of what a Catholic should do if he values his salvation.
And there is no question what a Bishop or priest should do to help the souls under his influence to save their souls. If such a one has been misled or does not know what peril he is in, then it is the Bishop and priest's duty to instruct them about it and do what is needed to convince them of their erroneous ways.

Read today's Martyrology about the great Saint Bishop Eusebius who struggled against the Arians. He battled the heretics at his own peril, yet still went about strengthening those whose faith had been weakened by the Arians and teaching the the Christian doctrine in that time of crisis.

Conciliarist have a similarly weakened and distorted faith. They need to be brought back to the orthodoxy of the Christian religion and to the way of salvation.

What need has the Church of Bishops and priests who will not battle its enemies and save its children from eternal loss?
SSPXism and the other R&R sects need to step down from the tightwire which they have strung between themselves and the conciliar entity and an assume an uncompromised stand with Christ's Church and orthodoxy against the false council and the false "mass", and their heterodoxy.

The large part of neo-tradition suffer the cognative dissonance of believing that Catholicism and Conciliarism can exist together in the same Church. It is a lie. There is only one true Church and one Holy Religion, all else is false and of the Devil.
My humble advice is to eschew the opinions of men and hear only the voice of Christ's Holy Church.

Incredulous · « **Reply #5 on:** December 18, 2016, 05:48:12 PM »

Graces found in the Novus ordo missae ? :scratchchin:

There are Graces coming from the Holy Ghost... in spite of the Novus ordo missae.

Once one takes the step to seek the Truth, receives and then accept the Graces of the Holy Ghost, distributed by Our Lady, you're to then seek true Roman Catholicism.

And leave the Novus ordo missae construct... bringing as many souls as possible with you.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #6 on:** December 18, 2016, 06:07:56 PM »

Matthew, I am not a sedevacantist, nor do I hate +W. I don't appreciate being attacked just because I disagree with +W. Let's stick with the facts. When I say he, and the sspx are 'unprincipled' on the new mass, I mean it. One cannot say the new mass is wrong, then 2 sentences later speak of its "catholic parts" without implying (and at other times saying directly) that it is ok to attend, in some circuмstances. This is illogical. This is what I have a problem with.

If the NOM is only circuмstantially wrong, then, in theory, if the circuмstances were fixed, it would be ok to attend. If this be true, then we all MUST be with Rome. The trad movement is wrong and we MUST accept the NOM, since it comes from the Church. We should all be "fighting inside the church" and "under Rome " for the problem is not with the NOM mass, essentially, but only in its "trimmings" which can be improved. This is what the FSSP and all the other former trads believe, and why they "made a deal". And, if it be true, we should all make a deal, because to be outiside of Rome is sinful and schismatic.

I hold that the NOM is intrinsically wrong because it's theology is new, it's liturgy is Protestant and it's not a mass but just a Eucharistic memorial. It is therefore wrong IN ITS ESSENCE. The traditional movement is keeping the Faith alive and we are absolutely correct to hold to tradition and to reject the heresies of new Rome.

You cannot have it both ways. Either the NOM is able to be attended or not.

songbird · « **Reply #7 on:** December 18, 2016, 06:32:41 PM »

We know who brought on Satan, Bloshevik Communism, or Our Lady would have come in vain to ask for consecration to her Immaculate Heart, to take care of eve. The Immaculate Heart and the Sacred Heart are to reign in the heart and souls of Our Lady's children, us. Salvation through her scapular and rosary, by the Powers of God.

We saw the Mass destroyed in Europe and it was the error of errors to sweep the world. And some people still ask?! is the new order ok?! That is putting ones head in the sand!

If the Mass is going to end, or even nearly as Cptr. 12 of Daniel states, is there another way that I missed and is still to come, if it is not what we all ready have and see, new order?!

Are we not very close to Chpt 12?! We do as St. John the Baptist says, "Penance, make way for the Lord"

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #8 on:** December 18, 2016, 10:41:20 PM »

Here is a quote from Fr Braga, one of the authors of the NOM (-from "Work of Human Hands", p 222)

Quote

"In other cases, ecuмenical requirements dictated appropriate revisions in language. Expressions...of the past are no longer in harmony with the Church's new positions. An entirely new foundation of Eucharistic theology has superseded devotional points of view or of a particular way of venerating and invoking the saints."

The recent ecuмenical docuмent "From Conflict to Communion" between the Lutherans/Catholics:

Quote

"The decisive achievement was to overcome the separation of sacrificium (sacrifice) from sacramentum (sacrament). If Jesus Christ is really present in the Lord's supper, then his life, suffering, death and resurrection are also truly present together with His body, so that the Lord's Supper is 'the true making present of the event on the cross'."

This is rank heresy! This new theology merges the sacrifice of the cross with the sacrament of the Eucharist. It combines Holy Thursday and Good Friday into one action, so that the mass' true purpose, which is the re-offering of Christ at Calvary to God the Father (i.e. the perfect sacrifice) is overshadowed by the 'memorial' of Christ's Holy Thursday 'offering'. The Lutherans can tolerate a the celebration of the eucharistic 'memorial'. They cannot tolerate the idea that the mass is a true sacrifice, nor do they like the idea of the priesthood. This new theology is totally anti-catholic.

Quote

If anyone says that in the Mass a true and real sacrifice is not offered to God, or that the act of offering is nothing else than Christ being given to us to eat: let him be anathema. (Council of Trent, Session XXII, Canon 1, Dnz 948)

The Lutheran docuмent continues:

Quote

"The liturgical form of the holy meal must, however, exclude everything that could give the impression of repetition or completion of the sacrifice on the cross. If the understanding of the Lord's Supper as a real remembrance is consistently taken seriously, the differences in understanding the Eucharistic sacrifice are tolerable for Catholics and Lutherans."

Again, we see the new theology is false and anti-catholic. It is replacing the true sacrifice and purpose of the mass with a 'memorial' and a 'remembrance' of Holy Thursday, which somehow, in some mysterious manner, makes the sacrifice of the cross 'present' to those in attendance.

Quote

If anyone says that the sacrifice of the Mass is only one of praise and thanksgiving, or that it is a mere commemoration of the sacrifice consummated on the cross, but not one of propitiation; ...let him be anathema. (Trent, Session XXII, Canon 3, Dnz 950)

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #9 on:** December 18, 2016, 11:00:08 PM »

Quote

-Minute 10:37 “Therefore, I would not say..."

This is a LOUSY title for a thread.
It tells the reader of the New Posts page NOTHING of the thread's contents.

Stubborn · « **Reply #10 on:** December 19, 2016, 04:26:04 AM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis

Quote
-Minute 10:37 “Therefore, I would not say every single person must stay away from every single Novus Ordo Mass”:

This. is. the. crux. of. the. issue.

I suggest +Williamson and everyone else whose been in this crisis for many years, preaching (as is the case of trad priests and bishops) and striving to keep the faith for themselves and for their children yet is perhaps struggling with the crux of this issue, to do what I did.

Simply go to any NOM (preferably a funeral NOM) and experience the abominable thing first hand. I even suggest you do a little investigation and find one near you with a reputation for being conservative or having a conservative priest - and go to that NOM for your Sunday Obligation instead of the TLM.

For those who've only assisted at the TLM and have never been to a NOM, you will be completely lost as you watch the show. You can chit-can whatever you know and however you assisted at the TLM your whole life, zero of that applies at the NOM.

Then, if you can still say that you would not say every single person must stay away from every single Novus Ordo Mass, please post your reasons for that advice here in this thread or start a new thread in this forum.

Incredulous · « **Reply #11 on:** December 19, 2016, 07:31:41 AM »

+W used to say the NOM was the "engine of destruction of the Catholic Church".

The crux of these recent NOM debates is, "Why has +W changed his position?"

JPaul · « **Reply #12 on:** December 20, 2016, 09:58:38 AM »

Quote from: Incredulous

+W used to say the NOM was the "engine of destruction of the Catholic Church".

The crux of these recent NOM debates is, "Why has +W changed his position?"

I would say that why he may have changed is not as important as the change and this position now present a danger to souls.