Day of Reparation for Amazon Synod outrages

[Therese]

Miriam, or Lynne, or Non Nobis or anyone that wants to listen, I am not saying that I am an authority on the validity of the new Mass either.  My one and only beef is that the SSPX is telling Catholics to avoid the Mass if there is not a Latin Mass within driving distance, and that is sinful.  The SSPX is telling Catholics to commit mortal sin.  There is no long drawn out discussion here, it's a mortal sin, period.

So, if someone is losing their faith because they are going to the NO, you think they should still go if they have no other option, and in the process lose their faith completely?

I have had relatives years ago who because of the NO were losing their faith, realized that and stopped going and just prayed their missal, etc., instead - until the time came when they were able to go to the Latin Mass. So you think they were committing a mortal sin by them doing what they thought was the only option at the time to safeguard their soul? That they should have kept going and lost their faith completely and in the process their children's faith as well? I say it was an approximate occasion of sin for them if they had kept going.

The orthodox have valid sacraments - we can not attend them. A black mass can be valid - we certainly would never dream of having anything to do with that. When the Anglican schism first occurred, they had all valid sacraments, and the Mass was not immediately changed. How many people chose torture and martyrdom over attending their services, even once?

I believe that the NO can be valid. I will certainly not hold it against anyone who believes that they need to fulfill their Sunday obligation at any cost. However mere validity is not the only thing to consider.

When there is heresy being preached, Our Lord is being treated with the utmost disrespect, altar girls, etc., etc., The list could be a mile long. (I know for a fact that the closet NO church to me has no problem baptizing a child with two "parents" of the same sex. I've seen picture proof of it with the Deacon who performed the ceremony and the two women involved. What chance at all does that child have? The people are obviously being given at the very least the impression that everything is just peachy with that situation. I'm sure it has happened more than once. How about when a "marriage"  is "blessed" when both parties are already married with living spouses and no annulments (or grounds for) between them. Everything is just great as they send them down towards hell!!!!)

Sorry, it is not worth my eternal soul.

I have relatives that go to the NO, and relatives that go the Latin Mass at all the various options. I can tell you quite easily whose children are more likely to still know, practice and are serious about their faith and those who are more likely to not practice anymore or are just nominal Catholics...

[Nazianzen]

Great reply, Therese, thank you.

The other thing worth mentioning, since there seems to be some confusion over the gravity of the Sunday Obligation, is that according to the authorised moralists "any moderately grave inconvenience" excuses from it.

St. Alphonsus, for example, says that if there were an unique opportunity to make a very large sum of money, but only by missing mass on a Sunday, we would be excused.  I know many will be surprised to hear this, but it's a fact.  Imagine for example there were an auction of a property on a Sunday morning, and you knew that the sale price is going to be super cheap, but you could not attend the auction and also get to mass.  You'd be able to attend the auction with a clear conscience.

The Church very much emphasises the Sunday Obligation in her sermons etc., because of course in practical terms once people start missing mass their faith is under grave threat.  This we know from experience.  (Just as we know from experience that when people attend the Novus Ordo their faith is under grave threat.  The survival of the faith of the minority is hardly an argument the other way).  But this emphasis on the importance of the obligation does not amount to a law, and the law is clear, and it is that illness, distance, etc., all excuse from the obligation.  Obviously the fact that this new liturgy was designed to make heretics happy is an excellent reason to avoid it, and it certainly constitutes a "moderately grave inconvenience"!

Not only is there no sin in missing the New Mass, there is certainly no sin in advising others not to assist at it.  Quite the contrary, it's obviously a work of charity, notwithstanding that Noobs to Tradition are shocked by it...

In the Immaculate,
Naz.

[awkwardcustomer]

No, but transferring of the words Mysterium Fidei can help the overall process of transforming the Traditional Rite of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass into the new reformed rite of the celebration of the Paschal Mystery of Christ's Death and Resurrection.

The transfer of the words Mysterium Fidei from the formula of the consecration of the wine to another part of the mass carries no theological objection in itself, regardless of the intentions of those who presided over the changes. The Church approved it. Furthermore, the fact that the words themselves do not pertain to the essential form of the sacrament as recorded in the Gospels, and the fact that they are absent from all other ancient rites of the Church, should quieten any troubled spirits.

The General Instruction on the Roman Missal gives only three ends of the Mass, omitting, of course, the propitiatory end.

You are wrong.

You can read the whole text here. I'll just quote one of the relevant parts:

2. The sacrificial nature of the Mass, solemnly asserted by the Council of Trent in accordance with the Church's universal tradition, was reaffirmed by the Second Vatican Council, which offered these significant words about the Mass: "At the Last Supper our Savior instituted the Eucharistic Sacrifice of his Body and Blood, by which he would perpetuate the Sacrifice of the Cross throughout the centuries until he should come again, thus entrusting to the Church, his beloved Bride, the memorial of his death and resurrection."

What the Council thus teaches is expressed constantly in the formulas of the Mass. This teaching, which is concisely expressed in the statement already contained in the ancient Sacramentary commonly known as the Leonine, "As often as the commemoration of this sacrifice is celebrated, the work of our redemption is carried out", is aptly and accurately developed in the Eucharistic Prayers. For in these prayers the priest, while he performs the commemoration, turns towards God, even in the name of the whole people, renders him thanks and offers the living and holy Sacrifice, namely, the Church's offering and the Victim by whose immolation God willed to be appeased; and he prays that the Body and Blood of Christ may be a sacrifice acceptable to the Father and salvific for the whole world.

In this new Missal, then, the Church's rule of prayer (lex orandi) corresponds to her perennial rule of belief (lex credendi), by which namely we are taught that the Sacrifice of the Cross and its sacramental renewal in the Mass, which Christ the Lord instituted at the Last Supper and commanded the Apostles to do in his memory, are one and the same, differing only in the manner of offering, and that consequently the Mass is at once a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, of propitiation and satisfaction.

3. Moreover, the wondrous mystery of the Lord's real presence under the Eucharistic species, reaffirmed by the Second Vatican Council and other documents of the Church's Magisterium in the same sense and with the same words that the Council of Trent had proposed as a matter of faith, is proclaimed in the celebration of Mass not only by means of the very words of consecration, by which Christ becomes present through transubstantiation, but also by that interior disposition and outward expression of supreme reverence and adoration in which the Eucharistic Liturgy is carried out. For the same reason the Christian people is drawn on Holy Thursday of the Lord's Supper, and on the solemnity of the Most Holy Body and Blood of Christ, to venerate this wonderful Sacrament by a special form of adoration.

Nevertheless, the validity of the mass is not dependent upon the wording of the GIRM. The GIRM is a mere manual.

I was thinking of this.

78. Now the center and summit of the entire celebration begins: namely, the Eucharistic Prayer, that is, the prayer of thanksgiving and sanctification. The priest invites the people to lift up their hearts to the Lord in prayer and thanksgiving;

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20030317_ordinamento-messale_en.html

[awkwardcustomer]

One consolation of the NO being invalid is that Christ has never had to be present at a Clown Mass or at any of the other abominable shows they put on.

[mikemac]

...
The Church very much emphasises the Sunday Obligation in her sermons etc., because of course in practical terms once people start missing mass their faith is under grave threat.
...

Yeah for example the 30 years between 1977 when Archbishop Lefebvre started to tell Catholics not to attend Mass if they weren't close enough to travel to a TLM and 2007 when Pope Benedict promulgated the Summorum Pontificum.  What were our parents and millions of Catholics suppose to do during those 30 years, when they only had access to the NO Mass?  And still to this day a lot of Catholics do not have access to a TLM.  What are they to do?  See, this is the blaring question that nobody seems to want to address.  If the answer from sedes like you and SSPXers is still to avoid the NO Mass for those 30 years you are all sinning by telling Catholics to skip their Sunday obligation.

[Nazianzen]

...
The Church very much emphasises the Sunday Obligation in her sermons etc., because of course in practical terms once people start missing mass their faith is under grave threat.
...

Yeah for example the 30 years between 1977 when Archbishop Lefebvre started to tell Catholics not to attend Mass if they weren't close enough to travel to a TLM and 2007 when Pope Benedict promulgated the Summorum Pontificum.  What were our parents and millions of Catholics suppose to do during those 30 years, when they only had access to the NO Mass?  And still to this day a lot of Catholics do not have access to a TLM.  What are they to do?  See, this is the blaring question that nobody seems to want to address.  If the answer from sedes like you and SSPXers is still to avoid the NO Mass for those 30 years you are all sinning by telling Catholics to skip their Sunday obligation.

You're very confident for a guy who showed up fifteen minutes ago and probably still hasn't worked out where the water cooler is...

This is likely pearls before swine, but let me risk it.

The people that the Archbishop was advising are those who were attached to the liturgy of the Church.  That liturgy was taken away and replaced with a man-centred alternative, written to make heretics happy.  This resulted in the people we are speaking of being forced out of their own churches and assembling around priests who remained faithful to the liturgy of the Church.  The bishops who took the mass away, and replaced it with the hippie liturgy, maintained their position against the mass, so the situation became essentially permanent.  Hence the traditionalists.  (The hippie liturgy is now very dated, of course, which is what happens to all novelties.)

The usual way of referring to traditionalists amongst those of the New Mass attendees who pay attention is "schismatics."  This is correct, in that there was a schism, but it is entirely unjust in alleging that the traditionalists were at fault.  Actually, the Latin Rite bishops were exclusively, solely, entirely, and unarguably responsible for the schism, and the traditionalists were passive, inoffensive, and faithful.  Their "offence" was that they failed to go along with the revolution.

Now, the mass was offered to traditionalists several times on condition of approving of the new mass.  This is impossible.  However, there are people who, not perceiving the evil of the new mass, think that it is wrong of the traditionalists to reject such an offer.  These (i.e. the people who like the old mass but do not reject the new hippie liturgy as actually evil) are what we refer to as "Indult" Catholics.  They prefer the old mass, but they think, inexplicably and without the slightest proof, that the schism is our fault. 

I don't believe that the Archbishop ever addressed such people in order to offer them advice on where to go to mass, and I don't imagine too many of them read his books and discovered for themselves that he thought it wrong to attend the new mass.  Indeed, they tend to have a pretty low opinion of him.  The same is true of the SSPX, which is not directing its advice to people who don't already look to it for that advice.

So, now that you have the facts, tell us what your point was?

And please don't say you don't accept my facts without stating your alternatives.

In the Immaculate,
Naz.

[mikemac]

...
The Church very much emphasises the Sunday Obligation in her sermons etc., because of course in practical terms once people start missing mass their faith is under grave threat.
...

Yeah for example the 30 years between 1977 when Archbishop Lefebvre started to tell Catholics not to attend Mass if they weren't close enough to travel to a TLM and 2007 when Pope Benedict promulgated the Summorum Pontificum.  What were our parents and millions of Catholics suppose to do during those 30 years, when they only had access to the NO Mass?  And still to this day a lot of Catholics do not have access to a TLM.  What are they to do?  See, this is the blaring question that nobody seems to want to address.  If the answer from sedes like you and SSPXers is still to avoid the NO Mass for those 30 years you are all sinning by telling Catholics to skip their Sunday obligation.

You're very confident for a guy who showed up fifteen minutes ago and probably still hasn't worked out where the water cooler is...

This is likely pearls before swine, but let me risk it.

The people that the Archbishop was advising are those who were attached to the liturgy of the Church.  That liturgy was taken away and replaced with a man-centred alternative, written to make heretics happy.  This resulted in the people we are speaking of being forced out of their own churches and assembling around priests who remained faithful to the liturgy of the Church.  The bishops who took the mass away, and replaced it with the hippie liturgy, maintained their position against the mass, so the situation became essentially permanent.  Hence the traditionalists.  (The hippie liturgy is now very dated, of course, which is what happens to all novelties.)

The usual way of referring to traditionalists amongst those of the New Mass attendees who pay attention is "schismatics."  This is correct, in that there was a schism, but it is entirely unjust in alleging that the traditionalists were at fault.  Actually, the Latin Rite bishops were exclusively, solely, entirely, and unarguably responsible for the schism, and the traditionalists were passive, inoffensive, and faithful.  Their "offence" was that they failed to go along with the revolution.

Now, the mass was offered to traditionalists several times on condition of approving of the new mass.  This is impossible.  However, there are people who, not perceiving the evil of the new mass, think that it is wrong of the traditionalists to reject such an offer.  These (i.e. the people who like the old mass but do not reject the new hippie liturgy as actually evil) are what we refer to as "Indult" Catholics.  They prefer the old mass, but they think, inexplicably and without the slightest proof, that the schism is our fault. 

I don't believe that the Archbishop ever addressed such people in order to offer them advice on where to go to mass, and I don't imagine too many of them read his books and discovered for themselves that he thought it wrong to attend the new mass.  Indeed, they tend to have a pretty low opinion of him.  The same is true of the SSPX, which is not directing its advice to people who don't already look to it for that advice.

So, now that you have the facts, tell us what your point was?

And please don't say you don't accept my facts without stating your alternatives.

In the Immaculate,
Naz.

The title of this video is "Should Catholics Attend the New Mass?"  It's not titled "Should SSPX members attend the New Mass?"  It would be a different story if it was.  This SSPX priest is addressing all Catholics by publically broadcasting this video to Catholics.  And he is sinning by telling Catholics to skip their Sunday obligation.

[yt]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hZrRGMs6CY[/yt]

The same way Archbishop Lefebvre was in 1977.  You dodged my question again.  What were they to do?  That's alright, I doubt if I'll ever get an honest answer from yous.  There seems to be just about as much confusion and ambiguity in the SSPX as there is with Vatican II.

[Nazianzen]

Well, if they had stopped going to the new mass, they would have stopped sinning in that way (if they had knowledge, of course, like any sin).  So that would have been good, period.

In the practical order (NB outcomes are not guides to morality) actually if more Catholics had done their duty and refused to cooperate with the revolt from Christ that was the new mass, then more priests would have been emboldened to likewise, and the faithful would have had mass.

[mikemac]

Well, if they had stopped going to the new mass, they would have stopped sinning in that way (if they had knowledge, of course, like any sin).  So that would have been good, period.

In the practical order (NB outcomes are not guides to morality) actually if more Catholics had done their duty and refused to cooperate with the revolt from Christ that was the new mass, then more priests would have been emboldened to likewise, and the faithful would have had mass.

You are contradicting yourself.

...
The Church very much emphasises the Sunday Obligation in her sermons etc., because of course in practical terms once people start missing mass their faith is under grave threat.
...

[Nazianzen]

The new mass is not the mass, it's an unlawful substitute, and cannot be the object of any obligation - except the obligation to avoid it.

[Lynne]

...
Do you agree with the other point I made?  "If one accepts the description of the new mass in the Ottaviani Intervention, there are no reverent new masses.  That's a contradiction in terms."

Yes.   

Well that's quite the tricky question.  And answer.  If I were to accept the description of the new mass in the Ottaviani Intervention I would also agree that there are no reverent new masses.  But I don't accept the description of the NO Mass in the Ottaviani Intervention.  In the Ottaviani Intervention it says "IV The Essence. The Real Presence of Christ is never alluded to and belief in it is implicitly repudiated."  This is not correct at all; in fact it's a lie.  Possibly that's why Archbishop Lefebvre was not one of the group of Roman theologians that agreed with Cardinal Ottaviani and Cardinal Bacci at the time.

Anyway at a NO Mass at the elevation of the Body the priest says,
TAKE THIS, ALL OF YOU, AND EAT OF IT, FOR THIS IS MY BODY, WHICH WILL BE GIVEN UP FOR YOU.
(... and  genuflects in adoration.)

Similar on page 893 of my 1962 Missal published by the Angelus Press, which I believe is affiliated with the SSPX, at the elevation of the Body the priest says,
FOR THIS IS MY BODY

Likewise at the NO Mass at the elevation of the Blood the priest says,
TAKE THIS, ALL OF YOU, AND DRINK FROM IT, FOR THIS IS THE CHALICE OF MY BLOOD, THE BLOOD OF THE NEW AND ETERNAL COVENANT, WHICH WILL BE POURED OUT FOR YOU AND FOR MANY FOR THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS.
(... and  genuflects in adoration.)

Similar on page 895 of my 1962 Missal at the elevation of the Blood the priest says,
FOR THIS IS THE CHALICE OF MY BLOOD, OF THE NEW AND ETERNAL TESTAMENT: THE MYSTERY OF FAITH: WHICH SHALL BE SHED FOR YOU AND FOR MANY UNTO THE REMISSION OF SINS.

Clearly there is belief in the Real Presence of Christ and transubstantiation at the NO Mass.

I figured I'd include a copy of this below just for winks and giggles. 

...
Just because you can find one and "have never been to an irreverent" one does not mean that most trads, or even most conservative Catholics, can find one.  I can probably find one easier than some can, but I know that many others are stuck because there may be fewer operational parishes in their locale to begin with, from which to choose.
...

I'm starting to think that the problem is more brainwashing than anything.  Before I had access to the Latin Mass every Sunday I used to feel the same as coffeeandcigarette "(and I am totally in the grimace-and-bear-it-while-you-attend-your-local-NO camp)".  Possibly I'd still think that way if I didn't have access to the Latin Mass every Sunday.  Or possibly I was brainwashed myself from reading similar threads in these forums.  The bottom line is that I eventually got disgusted with myself for thinking that way while in the Presence of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ at a NO Mass.

Mike, after the consecration of the Host there is supposed to be 2 genuflections. One after the priest says the words and then after he holds up the consecrated Host for the people's adoration. The same with the chalice.

The Novus Ordo Mass removed the first genuflection for both the Host and the Chalice because that would cause disunity between Catholics and Protestants. The Protestants believe that Jesus's Body and Blood are only symbolically present and only after the people view them, hence the single genuflection for the Host and Chalice respectively.

It's an *insult* to view that.

You are changing the narrative Lynne.  What you say does not change the fact that the Real Presence of Jesus Christ is recognized and believed in the NO Mass.  And it doesn't change the fact that it is sinful for the SSPX to be saying to avoid the NO Mass at all cost even if you can't make it to a TLM.

Besides it certainly didn't take long to find a NO Mass where the priest genuflects twice, one after the priest says the words and then again after he holds up the consecrated Host for the people's adoration.  And then twice again, before and after the Chalice is held up.  You can see it at 51:00 minutes on this video if you want.

[yt]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXO_Z6bEdL8[/yt]

The other day Xavier posted a Crux article that said a new survey claims that only one-third of Catholics in the US believe in the Real Presence.  I find this very hard to believe.  It is certainly not the case around here.  I think we have to consider where it comes from.  The Pew Research Center, who did the survey is not a Catholic organization.  And John L. Allen Jr., the editor of Crux was a correspondent for the National Catholic Distorter for 16 years.

Miriam, or Lynne, or Non Nobis or anyone that wants to listen, I am not saying that I am an authority on the validity of the new Mass either.  My one and only beef is that the SSPX is telling Catholics to avoid the Mass if there is not a Latin Mass within driving distance, and that is sinful.  The SSPX is telling Catholics to commit mortal sin.  There is no long drawn out discussion here, it's a mortal sin, period.

I'm not changing the narrative. The NO Mass has caused belief in the Real Presence to be diminished (as designed).

[Miriam_M]

The other day Xavier posted a Crux article that said a new survey claims that only one-third of Catholics in the US believe in the Real Presence.  I find this very hard to believe.  It is certainly not the case around here.  I think we have to consider where it comes from.  The Pew Research Center, who did the survey is not a Catholic organization.  And John L. Allen Jr., the editor of Crux was a correspondent for the National Catholic Distorter for 16 years.

Miriam, or Lynne, or Non Nobis or anyone that wants to listen, I am not saying that I am an authority on the validity of the new Mass either.  My one and only beef is that the SSPX is telling Catholics to avoid the Mass if there is not a Latin Mass within driving distance, and that is sinful.  The SSPX is telling Catholics to commit mortal sin.  There is no long drawn out discussion here, it's a mortal sin, period.

Regarding your first paragraph:

I am not a statistician regarding the "one-third" number, but I am a keen observer of church behavior, since I was virtually forced to hang out in the Nervous Disorder for so many years.  So, Mike:  Do you think that Catholics who throw the host in the air after they receive CITH, and before consuming, actually believe that the host is the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity and not just a symbol of Him?  What about those who chat, saunter, chew gum, on their way to the CITH line?  Or the communicants who have not (by their admission) visited a confessional in maybe 5 or 10 years?  It is very difficult to stay out of mortal sin for that long if you have not been going with some regularity for venial sins.  But heck, if you've committed a mortal sin some time in those 5 to 10 years, what difference would it make unless that host is indeed the real Presence?  And all the N.O. churches I've been in where Protestants are encouraged to receive?  Is that or is that not a hint that perhaps it simply "doesn't matter" who receives because in Protestant churches all are invited, given that their host is not the real presence.

Regarding your second paragraph:

I also have no authority to guide the consciences of others.  That's why I mentioned recommending to others that they consult their traditionalist priest. I can only speak for my own self, from experience, as to the fruits of chronic non-attendance at Mass.  I know myself that I cannot be a home-aloner for an extended or indefinite period of time.  If I found myself without a trad Mass -- perish the thought -- I would find the least offensive N.O.M. (with the fewest chatty attendees and the most silent priest) for Sundays, but I would be watching the online trad Masses, listening to every trad sermon on Sundays and avail myself of the counter-influences to the N.O. in every way possible.  Still, I tell you that even then, my faith would suffer.

[Miriam_M]

Also, Mike, the video you posted is not very representative of the N.O. Masses available to most Catholics -- Sundays, weekdays, whenever.  You've posted an outlier Mass when it comes to what is the most available standard for the average Catholic.  I could also post an outlier Mass in my location (Ad Orientem, English/Latin hybrid, all male sanctuary, orthodox preaching, full cohort of altar servers), but again, it is simply not a majority Mass in its form.  If I had to attend such a less-offensive Mass, it would be less of an endurance or torture experience, but it does fall short of the TLM.  However, I would be able to fulfill my Sunday obligation.

We have a couple of hybrid/too-frightened-to-actually-say-the-full-TLM  Masses in my region because we are an urban location with many options.  Unless one lives in such an area, the diocesan pickings are few, and a trad will not even recognize the "Mass" available as actually Catholic.  Often, the place is not even called a Catholic parish, but "a Christian Community."    I'm sure there are more alluring Protestant services out there than most of the N.O. Masses being celebrated in the 'burbs.

[dellery]

The SSPX is not the Church.
The faithful need to do what is necessary for them to keep their faith.
If that means assisting at the New Mass, or rejecting the Francis papacy altogether, the SSPX having no authority, has no say in this.

[mikemac]

The new mass is not the mass, it's an unlawful substitute, and cannot be the object of any obligation - except the obligation to avoid it.

Says you.  Well there, you've said it.  You have condemned my parents and millions of Catholics to hell because they fulfilled their Sunday obligation with the NO Mass.  Who to heck do you think you are anyway.  You are not God.

"When Archbishop Lefebvre was absent on a Sunday, the seminarians would go and assist at Mass together at the Bernadine convent of La Maigrauge where an old monk celebrated the New Mass in Latin."  "Make every effort to have the Mass of St. Pius V, but if it is impossible to find one within forty kilometers and if there is a pious priest who says the New Mass in as traditional a way as possible, it is good for you to assist at it to fulfill your Sunday obligation."  These two quotes from an SSPX web site plus the rumour that Archbishop Lefebvre said the new Mass for the first two years seem to contradict you Nazianzen, even though Lefebvre flip flopped at a later date.

Most NO Masses are valid and licit.  I can't say the same for SSPX masses.  The canonical situation of the SSPX is unresolved and at an impasse.  "The PCED also explained that the Masses celebrated by SSPX priests are valid but illicit."

illicit
adjective
forbidden by law, rules, or custom

At this point I wouldn't attend an SSPX mass even if I lived next door to an SSPX chapel.  And even if I didn't have access to the diocesan Latin Mass and had to attend a reverent NO Mass.

Xavier I'm thinking you should have listened to Heinrich's suggestion a few months ago about considering an FSSP seminary.  It's not too late.