The Novus Ordo Service: Renounce It Entirely

[Alphonsus Jr.]

Do you wish to be a traditional Catholic? Then you must renounce the Novus Ordo service entirely, meaning that 1) you do not participate in it, and 2) it's without the realm of possibility that you'll ever willingly participate in it.

True, renunciation of the Novus Ordo service alone doesn't make one a traditional Catholic. But while insufficient, it's necessary.

From Ch. VII of The Catechism of the Crisis in the Church by Rev. Matthias Gaudron:

65) Is it permissible to take part in the New Mass?

Even if the New Mass is valid, it is displeasing to God inasmuch as it is ecumenical and protestantizing; moreover, it represents a danger to our faith in the holy sacrifice of the Mass. Thus it must be rejected. Whoever has understood the problem of the New Mass must no longer attend it because he would be deliberately endangering his faith, and at the same time would be encouraging others to do likewise by seeming to assent to the reforms.

-How can a valid Mass be displeasing to God?

Even the sacrilegious Mass an apostate priest might celebrate to mock Christ would be valid yet clearly offensive to God, and it would not be permissible to take part. Likewise, the Mass of a schismatic Byzantine-Rite priest (valid and celebrated according to a venerable rite) is displeasing to God inasmuch as it is celebrated in opposition to Rome and the one Church of Christ.

-Surely one may attend a New Mass when it is devoutly and piously celebrated by a Catholic priest with an absolutely unquestionable faith?

The celebrant is not at issue, but the rite he uses. It is, unfortunately, a fact that the new rite has given many Catholics a false idea of the Mass, one much closer to the Protestant supper than to the holy sacrifice. The New Mass is one of the main sources of the current crisis of faith. It is thus imperative to distance oneself from it.

66) May one attend the New Mass is some circumstances?

One should apply rules analogous to those governing attendance at non-Catholic ceremonies to attendance at the New Mass. One may attend for family or professional reasons, but without actively participating; and, of course, one does not go to Communion.

67) What should be done when it is not possible to attend a traditional Mass every Sunday?

One for whom attendance at a traditional Mass is not possible is excused from the obligation to attend Mass that Sunday. The precept of hearing Mass on Sunday only applies to attendance at a true Catholic Mass. One must, however, in this case at least try to attend a traditional Mass at regular intervals. Moreover, even if one is dispensed from attending Mass (which is a commandment of the Church), one is not dispensed from the commandment of God ("Remember thou keep holy the Lord's Day"). Thus, the Mass one could not attend must be replaced by something; for example, by reading the text of the Mass in one's missal, by uniting one's attention for the duration of a Mass with a Mass celebrated elsewhere, and by making a spiritual communion.

----

Also see the following excellent pieces:

http://www.olrl.org/new_mass/evils.shtml

&

http://www.sspx.org/motu_proprio/theology_of_the_mass.pdf

And behold:

[LouisIX]

Dude.

[Gottmitunsalex]

Since the day that I reverted, I rejected, denounce (whenever possible) and renounced the NO service.
May God bless Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.

[voxxpopulisuxx]

Dude.

I am left breathless with anticipation>

[Bonaventure]

Since the day that I reverted, I rejected, denounce (whenever possible) and renounced the NO service.

Only by the grace of God, though, and not by your own strength or intelligence.

[Jayne]

This is a much better argument for staying away from the NO than saying that it is not a Catholic Mass.  This argument is based on saying that it is a danger to the Faith.   Because we have a duty to protect the gift of Faith that has been bestowed on us, this is adequate reason to not fulfill one's Sunday obligation. 

Saying that the NO is not a Catholic Mass is not a position that makes sense for a sedeplenist. 

[Mithrandylan]

This is a much better argument for staying away from the NO than saying that it is not a Catholic Mass.  This argument is based on saying that it is a danger to the Faith.   Because we have a duty to protect the gift of Faith that has been bestowed on us, this is adequate reason to not fulfill one's Sunday obligation. 

Saying that the NO is not a Catholic Mass is not a position that makes sense for a sedeplenist.

I don't think you've actually been reading what some users have been posting, then.

[Jayne]

This is a much better argument for staying away from the NO than saying that it is not a Catholic Mass.  This argument is based on saying that it is a danger to the Faith.   Because we have a duty to protect the gift of Faith that has been bestowed on us, this is adequate reason to not fulfill one's Sunday obligation. 

Saying that the NO is not a Catholic Mass is not a position that makes sense for a sedeplenist.

I don't think you've actually been reading what some users have been posting, then.

You have been making sedevacantist arguments.  If you think that you are a sedeplenist, you need to do some self-examination.

There are a lot of connected ideas involved.  The stronger one's claim about about what is wrong with the NO, the stronger the remedy one can propose.  If one claims that the NO is not a Catholic Mass, then it follows that no Catholic should attend it.  But claiming that the NO is not Catholic has implications for ecclesiology.  Both Louis and Bonaventure have posted about these from their different perspectives.

Personally, I think that the strongest claim that one can make about the NO without problematic ecclesiology is that it is inherently susceptible to being and likely to be a danger to the faith.  This is sufficient grounds for anyone to decide to renounce the NO.  However, since it is basically an argument from prudence, it cannot be imposed on others.

[Bonaventure]

This is a much better argument for staying away from the NO than saying that it is not a Catholic Mass.  This argument is based on saying that it is a danger to the Faith.   Because we have a duty to protect the gift of Faith that has been bestowed on us, this is adequate reason to not fulfill one's Sunday obligation. 

Saying that the NO is not a Catholic Mass is not a position that makes sense for a sedeplenist.

A Catholic Mass cannot be a danger to the Faith. That would mean the Church has given the Faithful stones instead of bread..

[Bonaventure]

Personally, I think that the strongest claim that one can make about the NO without problematic ecclesiology is that it is inherently susceptible to being and likely to be a danger to the faith.  This is sufficient grounds for anyone to decide to renounce the NO.  However, since it is basically an argument from prudence, it cannot be imposed on others.

That's the same thing. Your approach solves no problem, even if you think it does.

A Catholic liturgy, which Holy Mother Church gave to the Faithful, cannot be "susceptible" to being a danger to the Faith. It cannot be "likely" to be a danger to the Faith.

"The liturgy does not create dogmas, but it expresses dogmas because in her manner of praising God or praying to Him the Church expresses what and how and according to what concepts God wants to be publicly worshipped....[so] the Church cannot permit that things should be said in the liturgy in her name that are contrary to what she herself holds or believes." (p.37)

Pope Pius VI

The proposition of the synod by which it shows itself eager to remove the cause through which, in part, there has been induced a forgetfulness of the principles relating to the order of the liturgy, "by recalling it (the liturgy) to a greater simplicity of rites, by expressing it in the vernacular language, by uttering it in a loud voice"; as if the present order of the liturgy, received and approved by the Church, had emanated in some part from the forgetfulness of the principles by which it should be regulated,--rash, offensive to pious ears, insulting to the Church, favorable to the charges of heretics against it.

and

The prescription of the synod about the order of transacting business in the conferences, in which, after it prefaced "in every article that which pertains to faith and to the essence of religion must be distinuished from that which is proper to discipline," it adds, "in this itself (discipline) there is to be distinguished what is necessary or useful to retain the faithful in spirit, from that which is useless or too burdensome for the liberty of the sons of the new Covenant to endure, but more so, from that which is dangerous or harmful, namely, leading to superstitution and materialism"; in so far as by the generality of the words it includes and submits to a prescribed examination even the discipline established and approved by the Church, as if the Church which is ruled by the Spirit of God could have established discipline which is not only useless and burdensome for Christian liberty to endure, but which is even dangerous and harmful and leading to superstition and materialism,--false, rash, scandalous, dangerous, offensive to pious ears, injurious to the Church and to the Spirit of God by whom it is guided, at least erroneous.

[Jayne]

Personally, I think that the strongest claim that one can make about the NO without problematic ecclesiology is that it is inherently susceptible to being and likely to be a danger to the faith.  This is sufficient grounds for anyone to decide to renounce the NO.  However, since it is basically an argument from prudence, it cannot be imposed on others.

That's the same thing. Your approach solves no problem, even if you think it does.

A Catholic liturgy, which Holy Mother Church gave to the Faithful, cannot be "susceptible" to being a danger to the Faith. It cannot be "likely" to be a danger to the Faith.

I agree that claiming the NO is inherently or intrinsically a danger to the faith is not compatible with a sedeplenist position.  I think we avoid this problem when we allow for the theoretical existence of a NO Mass that is not a danger to the faith, even if we are not likely to encounter one.

[LouisIX]

This is a much better argument for staying away from the NO than saying that it is not a Catholic Mass.  This argument is based on saying that it is a danger to the Faith.   Because we have a duty to protect the gift of Faith that has been bestowed on us, this is adequate reason to not fulfill one's Sunday obligation. 

Saying that the NO is not a Catholic Mass is not a position that makes sense for a sedeplenist.

A Catholic Mass cannot be a danger to the Faith. That would mean the Church has given the Faithful stones instead of bread..

That analogy isn't sufficient proof for your premise, however.  It'd be interesting to see the premise explicitly affirmed in Magisterial teaching, but as I've said before, no one really contemplated these issues because they would never have been anticipated.

[Bonaventure]

Personally, I think that the strongest claim that one can make about the NO without problematic ecclesiology is that it is inherently susceptible to being and likely to be a danger to the faith.  This is sufficient grounds for anyone to decide to renounce the NO.  However, since it is basically an argument from prudence, it cannot be imposed on others.

That's the same thing. Your approach solves no problem, even if you think it does.

A Catholic liturgy, which Holy Mother Church gave to the Faithful, cannot be "susceptible" to being a danger to the Faith. It cannot be "likely" to be a danger to the Faith.

I agree that claiming the NO is inherently or intrinsically a danger to the faith is not compatible with a sedeplenist position.  I think we avoid this problem when we allow for the theoretical existence of a NO Mass that is not a danger to the faith, even if we are not likely to encounter one.

That's like saying Hell exists but no one is in it.

"Oh, the NO is perfect and orthodox, we just haven found one yet."

A pipe dream.

[Bonaventure]

This is a much better argument for staying away from the NO than saying that it is not a Catholic Mass.  This argument is based on saying that it is a danger to the Faith.   Because we have a duty to protect the gift of Faith that has been bestowed on us, this is adequate reason to not fulfill one's Sunday obligation. 

Saying that the NO is not a Catholic Mass is not a position that makes sense for a sedeplenist.

A Catholic Mass cannot be a danger to the Faith. That would mean the Church has given the Faithful stones instead of bread..

That analogy isn't sufficient proof for your premise, however.  It'd be interesting to see the premise explicitly affirmed in Magisterial teaching, but as I've said before, no one really contemplated these issues because they would never have been anticipated.

Pius VI addresses it

[Jayne]

I agree that claiming the NO is inherently or intrinsically a danger to the faith is not compatible with a sedeplenist position.  I think we avoid this problem when we allow for the theoretical existence of a NO Mass that is not a danger to the faith, even if we are not likely to encounter one.

That's like saying Hell exists but no one is in it.

"Oh, the NO is perfect and orthodox, we just haven found one yet."

A pipe dream.

It is not necessary to posit the NO being a perfect Mass.  If one claims that it is not heretical, in itself, and theoretically capable of being celebrated without being a danger to the Faith, that is enough to be compatible with a sedeplenist position. And a person claiming that would have no trouble justifying renouncing the NO by saying that it is likely to be a danger to the Faith.