Some considerations about Bishop Williamson's famous (and single) approval of Novus Ordo Mass attendance:

Although the other Resistance bishops would not go along with his statement, and although +W himself said in a later interview that he had gone too far, it has been noted that Archbishop Lefebvre was known to have given a similar approval in private.

When you study the public conferences of +L, you will find that he had a collection of talking points.  The same points appear in different conferences, repeated and recycled, with many conferences being nearly identical.  One of these points found among his conferences of the 1970's is very similar to +W's famous statement.

The Archbishop would ask people not to anathematize those who attend the NO under certain circuмstances.  He mentions old priests who feel "crucified" by the reform and don't understand the need to refuse it; priests who understand the sacrificial nature of the Mass despite the suppression of this understanding in the NO, and who try to say the Mass as reverently as possible.  He insists at the same time that even in this case, a layman who has no other option should not feel obligated to attend, and may stay home on Sunday.

I have noticed that this talking point disappeared completely before 1980.  In the years following, he discourages attendance categorically, urging his audience to look at the fruits of the New Mass.  He points out that the priests who used the NO Mass adopted an ecuмenistic mindset after several years.  The NO was designed to have that effect.

We have no right to expose ourselves to what evidently endangers our faith.

Never.

The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass has three essential parts. The Offertory, the Cannon, and the priest Communion. The NO fails all three.

The Offertory of the NO "mass" is a тαℓмυdic curse. It is not a prayer/ritual of the Church.

The Cannon was written by Protestants and then rewritten to the approval of more Protestants. Protestant is a kind way of saying heretic and therefore the NO cannon is not a prayer/ritual of the Church.

The priests communion of the NO is an implicit denial of the Real Presence (which ironically is probably true). First at the minor elevation the priest does not genuflect until after elevating the host as if the congregation must participate/approve before the  Sacrament is effected. Second in a responsorial prayer, Christ's second coming is highlighted and not the fact that He is supposed to be on the altar. Now factor in that unconsecrated vessels and even hands are all over their "Blessed Sacrament". This is not Catholic.

Now with this being said, even a real priest cannot form the intention to do what the Church does as he explicitly does not do what the Church does.

I hope this helps.

Never.

^^This.

I would guess around 1969 or so, my parents found Holy Family Church in Detroit. While all the other churches had already gone completely NO and off the rails, that was the only Church around where the old priest was saying the new "mass" in Latin, strictly "by the book" every Sunday.

From the pews, you the only difference between that and the old Mass was there were no prayers at the foot of the Altar and no second confetior. That's it. Beyond that, from the pews you would never know it was the NOM.   

Never.

It's not a Catholic Mass, and it's almost certainly invalid.

Pope Leo XIII declared in Apostolicae Curae that the removal of nearly every reference to the priest's power to sacrifice rendered Anglican Holy Orders invalid even if the essential form were correct (or corrected, as some tried to do), and that's due to the "intention of the Rite" itself, which was made in order to accommodate the "errors of the Reformers".  That's admittedly what they were doing with the NOM, and the Prots famously collaborated in it, with one of them saying he'd have no qualms of conscience using it.  That's the "intention of the Rite", which Pope Leo XIII declared invalidates a Rite.  WHY, historically, did it come into being?  To accommodate the Prot errors.

Most importantly, if a priest were to use the "Eucharistic Prayer I", largely the Roman, and you dressed it up like the Latin Novus Ordo at St. John Cantius, while outwardly you coudln't tell the difference, there's one fatal flaw that's not been given sufficient attention even by critics of the NOM, missed even by Father Cekada.

THE OFFERTORY

Father Cekada said the NOM has no Offertory.  That's incorrect.  It most certainly does.  But they changed WHAT is being Offered in their "service".

So, if you just go through the "Eucharistic Prayer", aka Canon, many other Prots do the same thing.  But what are they doing?  For many it's just the "institution narrative", where they're just re-ENACTING what Our Lord did at the Last Supper and told His followers to do likewise.

It's actually the OFFERTORY, in the Catholic Mass, that explains what the Church says is taking place here, where the Spotless Victim (Latin Hostia being a technical term for an animal blood sacrifice) is being offered for sins.  That is what the Mass is, and it's only explained clearly and unequivocally in the Offertory.  Remove the Offertory and you can spin it as anything you want, and even the word "sacrifice" by itself means nothing, since that just means making something holy, and its even use in terms like "sacrifice of praise".

In the NOM, the Catholic Offertory was replaced by a Jєωιѕн table prayer (almost verbatim), where they declare that they are offering the bread and wine, the "fruit of the earth" and "work of human hands" ... so it can become some kind of "spiritual drink" (whatever that means).

So, do bread and wine expiate sin?  Or do anything at all?

This was done on purpose, folks.  So, where have we seen those expressions "fruit of the earth" and "human work" before?  They sound familiar.  Oh, yeah, it was Cain who offered up the "fruit of the earth", and it was rejected by God, vs. Abel's blood sacrifice (of an actual "hostia").  People have asked about why Cain's sacrifice was rejected by God.  One answer is, where St. Paul explained, lack of right faith.  But the other reason is that ... if you look at Adam's punishment for Original Sin, God declared that "cursed is the earth in thy work".

So the Novus Ordo Mass is offering to God the "fruit of the earth, work of human hands", when God has declared "the earth .. cursed ... in [human] work"?

We replace offering the Hostia, the Victim, with offering the cursed punishment for Original Sin?  Yeah, don't think that's going to do much more than incur God's wrath.

And, the offering is almost verbatim a Jєωιѕн table prayer.

Our Lord had complained to Marie-Julie Jahenny that "those who crucified Me" were perparing a New Mass that was "odious" in His sight and contained "words from the Abyss".  Hmmm.  Those that crucified Him, the Jews, introducing Jєωιѕн table prayers to replace the Catholic Offertory ... could those be the "words of the Abyss" to which He had referred?  What else could that be?  Reducing the number of Kyrie Eleison / Christe Eleison?

Also, Catherine Emmerich foresaw a new Church in which their Eucharist was invalid, but that God would reward some who devoutely attend it with some graces, but not because of a valid Sacrament, basically, ex opere operantis vs. ex opere operato from a valid Eucharist.

So, no.  We can never attend the Novus Ordo (except passively for the usual reasons we might attend other non-Catholic Rites).  We cannot actively participate.  It's not a Catholic Mass.

And just because groups like St. John Cantius tried to put lipstick on that pig doesn't make it a Catholic Mass.  It's the Offertory, stupid!  If they had not removed the Offertory, I would say that it might be OK if done like below at St. John Cantius in Chicago ... and almost certainly valid if offered by a valid priest.  But I hold that it's almost certainly invalid ... even after they fixed the English mistranslation of the form.



Don't be fooled by this.  Many Motarian groups are accepting the Novus Ordo in Latin as a replacement for the Tridentine Mass (including a couple in my area), and most don't know the difference ... but that's becaue they're all about the smells and bells and not the substance.

If attending the NO is a danger to your faith then don’t go. I do think a conservative NO where the priest has the faith, allows or even encourages communion on the tongue (doesn’t do gαy blessings, doesn’t allow cohabiting couples to take communion etc) is ok if there is no traditional mass nearby and/or there are other reasons why you can’t go to the traditional Latin mass (on case by case basis as the late Bp Williamson advised).

This is all subjective nonsense.  Dont go to the new mass, ever.  It’s not catholic.  It’s anti-Trent.  It’s a sacrilege.  

When God blesses us with a truly Catholic pope (and it will happen), he will condemn V2 and the new mass as the ABOMINATIONS that they are. 

Baptisms, funerals, or weddings only.  I wouldn't receive communion.

And only passive attendance as well. No responses, signs of the Cross, "handshake of peace", etc.

Never understood the point of passive attendance.  You're literally there because...someone asked you to be?  And you go, even though you 100% disagree with it?  This is the definition of a wimp with no backbone.  (not talking about you, in particular, but the idea).  "Passive attendance" is just peer pressure.  Why not just sit in your car?

If y'all truly understood/believed that the new mass was a heresy, a fake mass, a sacrilege, an anti-Trent, anti-Catholic "service" (however you want to describe it), why would you go at all?  Why couldn't you attend an abortion procedure, with a friend who "needs your support"?  It's just "passive attendance", right?

If you cater to people who are in error (i.e. new mass goers), then they'll never change.  If you don't take a stand and say "No, i'm no going to that heretical fake mass!" then your family members are never going to WAKE UP and SAVE THEIR SOULS.  As it is, if you go and "passively attend" you are sending the message that the new mass "isn't that bad, it's just a preference."  Because logically, if it WAS THAT BAD (i.e. an abortion clinic) then you wouldn't go.  But if you think that passive attendance is allowable, then you truly don't grasp the evilness and sinfulness of the new mass.

Just go to the wake before and the cemetery after.  No real need for you to go to the mass. 

Same thing with a wedding.  I've watched the wedding ceremony (which is a sacrament) but left afterwards and skipped the mass.  If the church is uber liberal, and people are all dressed half-naked, i won't watch the wedding ceremony at all.  A bride who is getting married with half her chest exposed is a blasphemy.  I can't watch that insult to God.  Just go to the reception.

There is no "need" for anyone to go to the mass.