Author Topic: The New Mass as Sacrilege (Read 1840 times)

BrJoseph · « **on:** April 25, 2016, 09:02:42 PM »

Masterful article written by Hugh Akins and a co-author.

Noted at: http://www.ecclesiamilitans.com/2016/04/25/the-new-mass-as-sacrilege/

Original at: http://www.catholicactionresourcecenter.com/sacrilegestthomasaq.htm

JPaul · « **Reply #1 on:** May 05, 2016, 11:05:22 AM »

It is encouraging to see that there are others who see it for what it is.

Matthew · « **Reply #2 on:** May 05, 2016, 11:24:34 AM »

The only "problem" I'd have with this, is it's very similar to saying:

The New Mass as protestant service.

A case could be made for that as well.

However, there's the point that's tricky to avoid, and that is the issue of human fallibility and ignorance. When your church reads, "Immaculate Conception Catholic Church" it's understandable that parishioners there believe themselves to be adhering to the Catholic Church, founded by Christ in 33 AD.

And a Catholic Church offers up pleasing worship to God, not a hateful-to-God sacrilege. Everyone knows that, especially Catholics!

So no matter how protestant or evil the Novus Ordo Mass objectively is, there will always be ignorant people who think they are doing the right thing by going there. There will always be people who "don't understand" or "don't get it" when it comes to the Crisis in the Church and the exact nature of the Novus Ordo Mass.

And you or I -- or Bishop Williamson -- could give them a good spiel about why they need to reject the Novus Ordo completely. But, in the end, you can't force them to get it. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. Frustrating, I know. But that's the way things work. You can't physically put your brain inside your subject's head, and get them to understand the Crisis as you do. Even if you're the world's best teacher, you can't guarantee results.

Trads are guilty of this all the time: Mr. Pushy Trad argues with a parishioner about something, giving it his best shot. He does his best to convince them. And at the end of the conversation, he asks, "Are you convinced?" and the person says, "No." So Mr. Pushy Trad assumes that since the "truth" was basically forced into the subject's brain and obviously rejected, the subject must necessarily be of bad will. Mr. Pushy Trad says exactly that to his fellow parishioner: "You're of bad will. I'll pray for you." in a snide voice.

Trads. Sometimes I just want to

There is also the tricky point that the (conciliar) Catholic Church has approved the Novus Ordo Mass for the whole world. (It hasn't officially forbidden the Tridentine Mass, mostly because they CAN'T, but that's another story). Can the Catholic Church approve a Mass which is intrinsically evil for everyone to attend, even the ignorant? Can the Catholic Church approve a sacrilege for the whole world's use?

You can see why those who trek down this path almost always end with embracing sedevacantism (which includes "ecclesiavacantism" -- the belief that there is no overlap between the Catholic Church and the so-called Conciliar Church in Rome today)

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #3 on:** May 05, 2016, 12:05:59 PM »

Quote

And a Catholic Church offers up pleasing worship to God, not a hateful-to-God sacrilege.

The problem is that you associate 'sacrilege' with hating God, or hating Catholicism, or some evil intent. A sacrilege is not wrong because of intent but because of the object that is associated with it.

Definition: A violation or misue of something sacred.

The obvious sacrileges involve a sin committed in regards to a something holy, ie a cleric, a church, a blessed object. But here a few examples where the act itself is not wrong, but the circuмstances make it so:
- Saying Mass without proper vestments,
- Omitting the proper prayers or rubrics for sacraments,
- Holding a banquet, concert or meeting inside a church, or other informal actions

Point is, recognizing a sacrilege is not necessarily obvious, when it comes to the liturgy. If one does not have the proper training (such as a cleric does) one may not know the many ways that one could violate proper protocols when dealing with the sacred objects.

For example, if a priest accidentally drops the host, there are exact protocols he must follow to cover Our Lord and dispose of Him. If he does not, that's a sacrilege.

Thus, laymen could witness many sacrileges and not know it (even many done NOT through malice but though laziness or improper training). The novus ordo, with its casual, non-exact and (in many cases) non existant rubrics, makes these sacrileges very easy to commit.

This doesn't take into account the obvious ones like woman altar girls, lay eucharistic ministers, communion in the hand, kiss of peace, etc, etc, etc. All these acts can be done with the intention to praise God, but they are still objectively wrong because God determines how He is to be praised, not us.

Matthew · « **Reply #4 on:** May 05, 2016, 12:25:22 PM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis

Thus, laymen could witness many sacrileges and not know it (even many done NOT through malice but though laziness or improper training). The novus ordo, with its casual, non-exact and (in many cases) non existant rubrics, makes these sacrileges very easy to commit.

This doesn't take into account the obvious ones like woman altar girls, lay eucharistic ministers, communion in the hand, kiss of peace, etc, etc, etc. All these acts can be done with the intention to praise God, but they are still objectively wrong because God determines how He is to be praised, not us.

So let's say there was a priest who committed many of these "hidden" sacrileges, and you were talking to his parishioners about why they need to find another place for Mass, because it's bad to go to a Mass where sacrileges are committed.

In the end, most of them don't follow your advice. Now what? Are they evil? Committing sin? of bad will?

And when you speak of "God's perspective" that's kind of cheating, because all sides could claim to have God on their side. God hasn't appeared to anyone and spoke about how He considers the Novus Ordo.

Does the Novus Ordo give grace? Is it a horrible blasphemy that mocks God? We can argue about this, and your opinion is as good as my opinion or someone else's opinion -- because none of us can lay claim to be the LAST WORD or objective truth about the matter.

No matter how much we appeal to God, we do so in vain. God hasn't spoken yet about this.

We just don't know. God hasn't stepped in and settled things once-and-for-all. Not yet.

Croixalist · « **Reply #5 on:** May 05, 2016, 01:25:12 PM »

It really is fantastic, thanks for posting!

Quote

In fact, since 1958, the year John XXIII was elected Pope, “the proportion of Catholics attending Mass fell 23 percentage points . . .” according to a recent Gallup poll.

It's gotta be waaay higher than that!

Quote

In other words, there might be, let us grant for the sake of argument, a possibility that if the priest used the distorted form it might be valid. That is to say, the wine might be changed into the Blood of Christ. But the use of the words “for many” would absolutely guarantee a valid form. Therefore, according to moral law, one is obliged to choose the certainly valid form over the doubtfully valid from. And in the case of the Sacrament of the Eucharist, to choose the doubtful form (i.e. to use the words “for all men”) constitutes a grave sin of sacrilege. Thus, in all new Ordo Masses using the doubtful form the priest commits a sacrilege every time he attempts to say Mass.

Last time I heard, didn't Pope Benedict address the "for many" issue? Even so, I still believe that the N.O. is absolutely designed to cause indifference in the priests and laity in regards to the Holy Eucharist which is in fact sacrilegious. This is readily observable at every single Mass, most notably when the Sacred Host is placed in the hands of a casual Catholic with unbent knees.

It's an old story going on its sixth decade now. I was born well after VII and the implementation of the new Mass and I'm still astounded at how much liberal Catholics from that era who, like my mother, disdain the TLM. Then they turn around and try to pretend like they can still claim anything pre-VII as their own. It would have been better had they just left the Church and joined a hippie commune somewhere instead!

JPaul · « **Reply #6 on:** May 05, 2016, 02:47:17 PM »

Friendly reminders,

Quote

Now we have received not the spirit of this world, but the Spirit that is of God; that we may know the things that are given us from God.

The Novus Ordo is of the first spirit, and not given us by God

Quote

That he might sanctify it, cleansing it by the laver of water in the word of life: That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy, and without blemish.

It does not mention a half rotten Church here, nor does it mention Fellay's caricature of a spotless Church

My fault is that I happen to believe Christ and His Church. I know with certainty that the Novus Ordo is not a work of the Catholic Church, and as such cannot please or honor God.

That is the principal which I firmly hold without exception, as this false ritual does not have any legitimate place in the Catholic Church.
One fails to see the problem here, The Mass is from God, the Novus Ordo is not.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #7 on:** May 05, 2016, 04:38:19 PM »

Quote

So let's say there was a priest who committed many of these "hidden" sacrileges, and you were talking to his parishioners about why they need to find another place for Mass, because it's bad to go to a Mass where sacrileges are committed.

In the end, most of them don't follow your advice. Now what? Are they evil? Committing sin? of bad will?

And when you speak of "God's perspective" that's kind of cheating, because all sides could claim to have God on their side. God hasn't appeared to anyone and spoke about how He considers the Novus Ordo.

1. If the priest doesn't follow the rubrics, he's not following the laws of the Church, ergo it's a sacrilege. It may be "hidden" to the laity but that's because it's the priest's job to know what/how to do church/sacramental functions. There are plenty of laity-related sacrileges going on too, which they should be aware. If they are not aware, it means they don't have a properly formed conscience and God will judge accordingly.

2. If they don't follow my advice, well, that's on them. If they don't pray about it, or research it, that's between them and God. There have been plenty of people over the decades whose consciences were formed well enough that they recognized sacrilegious liturgical actions and left the novus ordo. Many recognize and still stay. God will judge accordingly.

3. God has spoken on liturgical matters and how sacred objects are to be treated through His Church, which has created rubrics, the roman ritual prayers, etc. The rules exist. If they aren't followed, or are followed lazily, God's sacraments and objects are not treated with the reverence they deserve and a sacrilege takes place.

Alexandria · « **Reply #8 on:** May 05, 2016, 04:50:00 PM »

Quote from: Croixalist

It really is fantastic, thanks for posting!

Quote
In fact, since 1958, the year John XXIII was elected Pope, “the proportion of Catholics attending Mass fell 23 percentage points . . .” according to a recent Gallup poll.

It's gotta be waaay higher than that!

Quote
In other words, there might be, let us grant for the sake of argument, a possibility that if the priest used the distorted form it might be valid. That is to say, the wine might be changed into the Blood of Christ. But the use of the words “for many” would absolutely guarantee a valid form. Therefore, according to moral law, one is obliged to choose the certainly valid form over the doubtfully valid from. And in the case of the Sacrament of the Eucharist, to choose the doubtful form (i.e. to use the words “for all men”) constitutes a grave sin of sacrilege. Thus, in all new Ordo Masses using the doubtful form the priest commits a sacrilege every time he attempts to say Mass.

Last time I heard, didn't Pope Benedict address the "for many" issue? Even so, I still believe that the N.O. is absolutely designed to cause indifference in the priests and laity in regards to the Holy Eucharist which is in fact sacrilegious. This is readily observable at every single Mass, most notably when the Sacred Host is placed in the hands of a casual Catholic with unbent knees.

It's an old story going on its sixth decade now. I was born well after VII and the implementation of the new Mass and I'm still astounded at how much liberal Catholics from that era who, like my mother, disdain the TLM. Then they turn around and try to pretend like they can still claim anything pre-VII as their own. It would have been better had they just left the Church and joined a hippie commune somewhere instead!

:cheers:

Yes, many of us wished back then that the liberals would leave the Church. It took us a long time to find out why they never did. They were doing their job - destroying it. We were the ones who had to go and be gotten out of the way.

Gerard from FE · « **Reply #9 on:** May 07, 2016, 08:59:11 PM »

Quote from: Matthew

There is also the tricky point that the (conciliar) Catholic Church has approved the Novus Ordo Mass for the whole world. (It hasn't officially forbidden the Tridentine Mass, mostly because they CAN'T, but that's another story). Can the Catholic Church approve a Mass which is intrinsically evil for everyone to attend, even the ignorant? Can the Catholic Church approve a sacrilege for the whole world's use?

You can see why those who trek down this path almost always end with embracing sedevacantism (which includes "ecclesiavacantism" -- the belief that there is no overlap between the Catholic Church and the so-called Conciliar Church in Rome today)

The point, I would like to bring up in reference to this, is the notion that the laws of the Church are impeccable or "infallibility extends to…" This is all a de facto dissent from the definition given at Vatican I. Heresies are both denials and exaggerations. One of my main points in addressing trads is this problem that developed prior to and after Vatican I which pushed infallibility outside of its defined parameters.

But also with that said, the Novus Ordo was published only for the Latin Church. All of the Eastern Churches are essentially every bit as Catholic as they were prior to Vatican II, though they have their own issues.

One of the questions to explore is how much can the church bind and loose what is sacrilege? It's generally a sacrilege for an unordained person to touch the sacred vessels or self-communicate. But dispensations have been given to Kings and astronauts. So, if the Pope allows a bishop to decide for communion in the hand, is it still really a sacrilege? It doesn't discuss whether or not it's actually wise or prudent, but if sacrilege is what it is and the power of the Church is what it is, touching the sacred vessels or doing any number of things is on the one hand a sacrilege if done illicitly and a privilege given if done with permission.

An example in the other direction. Could the Church go very harsh someday and declare it a sacrilege for anyone not in the state of grace to enter the Church itself? And the confessionals would be in the entryway/ Narthex before one could enter?

Charlemagne · « **Reply #10 on:** May 07, 2016, 10:17:05 PM »

Quote from: Croixalist

I was born well after VII and the implementation of the new Mass and I'm still astounded at how much liberal Catholics from that era who, like my mother, disdain the TLM. Then they turn around and try to pretend like they can still claim anything pre-VII as their own. It would have been better had they just left the Church and joined a hippie commune somewhere instead!

Unfortunately, as members of the Conciliar Church, that's exactly what they've (unwittingly) done.

hollingsworth · « **Reply #11 on:** May 09, 2016, 04:47:45 PM »

Matthew: And when you speak of "God's perspective" that's kind of cheating, because all sides could claim to have God on their side.

Quote

God hasn't appeared to anyone and spoke about how He considers the Novus Ordo.

Does the Novus Ordo give grace? Is it a horrible blasphemy that mocks God? We can argue about this, and your opinion is as good as my opinion or someone else's opinion -- because none of us can lay claim to be the LAST WORD or objective truth about the matter.

Exactly, from my perspective anyway. But hey, maybe God did appear to J. Paul and Ladislaus and told them directly what He feels about the NO. :rolleyes:

JPaul · « **Reply #12 on:** May 10, 2016, 04:31:21 PM »

Trent,

Quote

CANON XI.-If any one saith, that, in ministers, when they effect, and confer the sacraments, there is not required the intention at least of doing what the Church does; let him be anathema.

CANON XIII.-If any one saith, that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church, wont to be used in the solemn administration of the sacraments, may be contemned, or without sin be omitted at pleasure by the ministers, or be changed, by every pastor of the churches whomsoever, into other new ones; let him be anathema.

God has spoken to J.Paul, to Ladislaus, and to His Church. :rolleyes: