Crisis of Conscience: Can I ever go back to the NO?

[discalced]

I'm a few hours home from my first TLM, the 12:10 Low Mass at The Church of the Annunciation here in Houston. The church was built in 1869 and is Houston's first Catholic Church. It's quite beautiful. The only other option is a FSSP parish northwest of the city, and I plan to go there next.



I left that Mass both invigorated and saddened. Invigorated because I had just experienced exactly what I always imagined a Catholic Mass to be. Receiving Holy Communion at the rail, on the tongue, was like receiving for the first time. Even the pain in my runner's knees during the extended periods of kneeling (as compared to the NO anyway) made me happy. How great to sacrifice even a little bit more for the Lord.

But I was a bit sad on the drive home. The question immediately arose in my mind, "Can I, in good conscience, ever go back to the NO?" Why would I, you might ask? It's 2min from home for the NO versus 30+min for both the TLM options. I was catechized and Confirmed there, have friends there, established roots. I felt bad for considering such selfish reasons. No matter how reverent the NO, something feels off. I can't quite put my finger on it. Is the NO liturgical abuse by its very nature, or is it possible to have a good one? Is a priest somehow compromised if he celebrates both?

Does anyone here still occasionally go to the NO? Or did you leave it behind for good?

[Jayne]

I don't remember exactly how long it was, but I think I spent two or three years attending both.  At first, I kept up involvement in my N.O. parish because I wanted to support and encourage the priest there.  And he did end up learning to say the traditional Mass due to my influence, so it was probably worth it.  He was transferred elsewhere and shorty after that we moved to another town.

Even then it was hard for me to make a complete break because my husband is emotionally attached to the Novus Ordo.  He understands intellectually all the arguments in favour of the Tridentine Mass, but he just likes going to the N.O. better.  He does occasionally attend the TLM with me, but he'll go to church twice on those days because he does not feel like he really went to Mass.

Eventually, my husband pulled rank and told me that I was not allowed to attend the N.O.  I invariably got upset every time I went.  He said I should not go if that was the effect that it had on me.  So I stopped, pretty much completely, at that point.

I have been to a few Korean language NO Masses over the past year because I was going with a Korean friend.  He knew almost nothing about Catholicism and I did not think I could overcome the language barrier to explain it to him.  So we went to a Mass where he could understand what they were saying, but not what they were doing, while I understood what they were doing but not what they were saying. 

[Miriam_M]

Dear Discalced,

Trust your gut.  I have been traveling between 45 minutes and 90 minutes, in each direction, 2-3 times/week, between two TLM's, because it cannot be compared with the N.O. Please understand that the N.O. is about much more than a particular rite/form ("Ordinary" vs. "Extraordinary").  It is also about an entire world view -- a moral view, a spiritual view, a political-social view -- if you will, which together produce a collective theology that contradicts Catholic Tradition.  Those results or world views all stem from and/or are reflections of the N.O. Mass itself and the Second Vatican Council from which it ultimately proceeded.

I have a close friend who is stubbornly attached to the N.O. for emotional reasons and guilt reasons, both of which are inappropriate.  This is so regardless of her intellectual belief that the TLM is a superior form of worship and feeds her hunger far better than the N.O. does.

We cannot compromise our salvation for the sake of making others feel good by our presence.  The mere fact that people exclusively at the N.O. feel insecure about parishioners leaving their parish underscores the weak position the N.O. represents.  The N.O. appeals to people who rely on the N.O. for a particular social experience they have come to associate with the holy liturgy, but the Sacrifice of the Mass is about the objective worship due to God, not about its perceived effect on us, individually or as a group.

In case you are partly motivated by social expectations yourself, my advice to you would be to stay friends with those people, but outside of their Mass.  Invite them to yours, meet them socially outside of Mass, but do not ignore your gut feeling.  It's not a gastrointestinal malady, but the Holy Spirit Himself.

Since the N.O. is the dominant form throughout the modern Church, it is unusual to have a nearby TLM.  Commit to the TLM.  You will not regret it.

[Jayne]

I missed this question:

Is the NO liturgical abuse by its very nature, or is it possible to have a good one? Is a priest somehow compromised if he celebrates both?

I have been to a good NO Mass.  It can be done. (But even then it is not as good as the TLM.) So I would not say it is liturgical abuse by nature, but rather highly susceptible to abuse. In practice, it is so rare to have an abuse free NO, that this distinction almost never matters.   

We have a diocesan TLM near me and the priests who celebrate there also do the NO.  I don't think this compromises them.

[discalced]

It is also about an entire world view -- a moral view, a spiritual view, a political-social view -- if you will, which together produce a collective theology that contradicts Catholic Tradition...

...do not ignore your gut feeling.  It's not a gastrointestinal malady, but the Holy Spirit Himself.

Commit to the TLM.  You will not regret it.

A lot of good stuff here. I think you're absolutely right. Thanks for taking the time.

[Maximilian]

The only other option is a FSSP parish northwest of the city, and I plan to go there next.

There are several other options for the Latin Mass in the Houston area. I've never been to Houston myself, but I've heard good things about this chapel:

https://www.tradlatinmass.com/

The question immediately arose in my mind, "Can I, in good conscience, ever go back to the NO?"

No. It's like Lot leaving Sodom and Gomorrah. Don't look back and turn into a pillar of salt. Or don't be like the Israelites who wanted to return to the fleshpots of Egypt. It's better to be with God in the desert than to have all the amenities in a land of slavery.

[discalced]

I have been to a good NO Mass.  It can be done. (But even then it is not as good as the TLM.) So I would not say it is liturgical abuse by nature, but rather highly susceptible to abuse. In practice, it is so rare to have an abuse free NO, that this distinction almost never matters.   

We have a diocesan TLM near me and the priests who celebrate there also do the NO.  I don't think this compromises them.

I tend to agree with you on the first point. It's way too easy to get complacent and, if I'm being honest, it's likely that I'm missing things that would be classified as abuse.

Regarding the priests, I'm still torn there. The following from "An Open Letter to Confused Catholics" is the source of my concern. Even if a priest has succumbed to the pressure of a handful of dedicated parishioners and agrees to a weekly TLM, is his heart there? Does it matter? I'm not sure yet.

Yet the situation is even more serious than it appears. The question has also to be asked, how many priests still have the faith? And even a further question, regarding some of the priests ordained in recent years: are they true priests at all? Put it another way, are their ordinations valid? The same doubt overhangs other sacraments. It applies to certain ordinations of bishops such as that which took place in Brussels in the summer of 1982 when the consecrating bishop said to the ordinand, "Be an apostle like Gandhi, Helder Camara, and Mohamed!" Can we reconcile these references, at least as regards Gandhi and Mohamed, with the evident intention of doing what the Church intends?

The definition of the priesthood given by Saint Paul and by the Council of Trent has been radically altered. The priest is no longer one who goes up to the altar and offers up to God a sacrifice of praise, for the remission of sins. The relative order of ends has been inverted. The priesthood has a first aim, which is to offer the sacrifice; that of evangelization is secondary.

[mikemac]

I don't agree with those that say to avoid the Novus Ordo Mass at all cost even if you don't have access to a TLM.  That's telling Catholics to skip their Sunday obligation, which is a sin.  I attend a diocesan TLM, so the priest also has to offer the NO Mass.  On Friday nights after Adoration I stay for the NO Mass, which is said reverently.  But there is nothing like the Traditional Latin Mass.

[Miriam_M]

I don't agree with those that say to avoid the Novus Ordo Mass at all cost even if you don't have access to a TLM.  That's telling Catholics to skip their Sunday obligation, which is a sin.  I attend a diocesan TLM, so the priest also has to offer the NO Mass.  On Friday nights after Adoration I stay for the NO Mass, which is said reverently.  But there is nothing like the Traditional Latin Mass.

I did not say "at all cost," Michael.

[mikemac]

I don't agree with those that say to avoid the Novus Ordo Mass at all cost even if you don't have access to a TLM.  That's telling Catholics to skip their Sunday obligation, which is a sin.  I attend a diocesan TLM, so the priest also has to offer the NO Mass.  On Friday nights after Adoration I stay for the NO Mass, which is said reverently.  But there is nothing like the Traditional Latin Mass.

I did not say "at all cost," Michael.

I wasn't referring to you Miriam.

[Michael Wilson]

The N.O.M. Is not Catholic; it is not the unblody renewal of the bloody sacrifice on Mt. Calvary. Its not a Mass, but by the definition of the men who concocted it, nothing but a memorial meal (Article #7, from the General Introduction to the N.O.M.):

The Lord's Supper or Mass is a sacred meeting or assembly of the People of God, met together under the presidency of the priest, to celebrate the memorial of the Lord.[4] Thus the promise of Christ, "where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them," is eminently true of the local community in the Church" (Mt. 18, 20).

Read the original critique of the N.O.M. Published by a group of Roman Theologians in 1969 and co-signed by Cardinals Ottaviani (the then prefect of the Holy Office) and Bacci, here: https://sspx.org/en/ottaviani-intervention
From the cover letter by the two Cardinals:

1. The accompanying critical study of the Novus Ordo Missae, the work of a group of theologians, liturgists and pastors of souls, shows quite clearly in spite of its brevity that if we consider the innovations implied or taken for granted, which may of course be evaluated in different ways, the Novus Ordo represents, both as a whole and in its details, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session XXII of the Council of Trent. The "canons" of the rite definitively fixed at that time provided an insurmountable barrier to any heresy directed against the integrity of the Mystery.

[Heinrich]

Go to the FSSP and don't look back.

[The Curt Jester]

Consider that many people will consistently travel 30+ minutes to do various unimportant things such as eating at a favorite restaurant, going to a golf course, walking on the beach, etc.  I used to travel forty minutes each way to go to a weekly bowling league.  If we can do such things without complaint so we can enjoy a fun activity, surely thirty minutes isn't that great a sacrifice to get to Mass.

[Daniel]

I don't think there's a simple answer. And I don't think listening to others' fallible opinions is going to get you the answer. What you need to do is ask God. Because if you're His friend and if you persistently ask Him, He's going to move you in the right direction. Maybe it'll take years. But in due time you'll know what to do, and you won't even want to do the opposite.

[Miriam_M]

Again to clarify my own position on this:

The OP referred to a situation where he had the option of either Mass.  He did not say that the TLM was 5 hours away, would cause him to compromise his state in life, deprive others of their dependency on him, etc.  The comparison he made was between two situations of merely relative convenience. 

Having a very close-by N.O. (2 minutes, which is extraordinary) "versus" a frankly mere 30-minute TLM is not even a contest, in my book.  We're talking about a lazy option that disappoints (leaves him feeling unsettled, as if "something is off"), compared to a normal amount of "work" (driving) that is in a class by itself.  I don't understand what the real "contest" is since the OP does in fact like the TLM!

The Curt Jester brought up a very good point in the interim when he mentioned the length/time people will go to for secular amusements that are of no consequence to their souls (or in some cases perhaps terrible consequences to their souls -- such as driving far to casinos when such people might already have a serious gambling addiction).

I would never advise a sister or brother in Christ to violate conscience.  But this isn't a conscience matter, as presented, and the Church has not yet gone so far as to claim (lie) that the N.O. is superior to the TLM or that the TLM harms one's soul.  Therefore, I don't see any violation of conscience issue for the OP. 

Now I will state my position for myself:  The behavior of the bishops in the last 4 months has been so reprehensible that my relationship with the diocese is over, and without guilt.  If others feel compelled to continue attending the N.O. (if they have other options), that's their business, but I won't be joining them, even if the N.O, wherever I am living, becomes my own only option. This is absolutely a matter of conscience, not "preference."  As far as I'm concerned, the bishops in my area have shown their true colors in being, even unconsciously or out of weakness, in league with the devil. To save my soul, I must stay as far away from them as possible.