The Heart of the Church

463 thoughts on “The Heart of the Church”

1. Great article. Thank you.

   Reply

2. Great story, what I take from it is you had to seek out the TLM to find the faith of your fathers. As a Florida Catholic who did the same, I understand completely.

   Reply

3. I never knew these words of Christ from Padre Pio and yet knew them in some way. This is what saddens me most of all; to see the little black shoes on the feet of our priests turn away from Christ starting at their irreverent and self centered Masses to their love of praise from the world before all. Thank you for your beautiful expression of your faith. I can relate to much of your journey in general. I too had missed so much!

   Reply

   • So, it looks like the Extraordinary Form is no protection from bad priests or bad faith. Padre Pio had that vision in 1913 while the Latin Mass was still the standard. St. John Chysostum complained often about priests and bishops saying that the road to hell would be paved with their skulls. That was before the Latin Mass was developed. The truth is that the Church has always been in turmoil and always will be. We had a lull during most of our lifetimes but the rest of our history is full of internal conflict. It won’t go away, but the Church will survive. Jesus said so.

     Reply

     • True, though to say that we had a lull for most of our lives I think is a bit naive at best, dishonest at worst. We are in the middle of a crisis, one of the largest in the history of the Church…

       Reply

     • You make a good point.
       The only thing I would add, is that, there is not just a lull right now, but a definite push by the authorities in power to redefine the Church. And, for me and my family, staying faithful to Traditional Mass, and all the Traditions of the Church helps us to be strong and persevere in our Trust in the Lord.

       Reply

     • A validly ordained Priest who is “bad” and has “bad faith” still offers an infinitely pleasing Sacrifice to God when he uses the traditional Roman Rite (I refuse to call it the Extraordinary Form).

       The faithful present join with even a bad priest in an acceptable Mass, and both fulfil their obligation and receive the Blessed Sacrament.

       Reply

       • “A validly ordained Priest who is “bad” and has “bad faith” still offers an infinitely pleasing Sacrifice to God when he uses the traditional Roman Rite (I refuse to call it the Extraordinary Form). ”

         How do you now this to be so?

         Reply

         • Hello Peter, the answer is that I listen to the Church.

           I just finished a post to someone else regarding this, and I quoted Leo XIII’s Apostolicae Curae. Here it is again.

           “When a person who has correctly and seriously used the requisite matter and form to effect and confer a sacrament, he is presumed for that very reason to have intended to do (intendisse) what the Church does. On this principle rests the doctrine that a Sacrament is truly conferred by the ministry of one who is a heretic or unbaptised, provided the Catholic rite be employed.” Apostolicae Curae, 33.

           http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_le13ac.htm

         • My question has more to do with your claim that a priest who is “bad” and has :bad” faith still offers an infinitely pleasing sacrifice to God just because he is offering it in the EF.

           How do you know that? There is nothing about that in your reference from AC33.

         • If the minister, matter, form and intention to do what the Church are present, a Sacrament is effected. It is not the faith of the Priest that counts. as long as he has the intention, then it is the Faith of the Church that he joins to.

           The EF, or the traditional Roman Rite of Mass, lays out clearly all the Divine truths that God wanted us to worship Him with.

           The Church has infallibly taught that this rite of Mass is absolutely free from error. It is a perfect manifestation of the Faith.

           AC goes into details about how Sacraments work. You might want to read the whole thing.

           It doesn’t matter if the priest is in the state of grace or not; it doesn’t matter whether he has Faith or not. As long as he intends to do as the Church does, by using proper form and matter in a Catholic rite, the Mass is valid and the Sacrifice of Calvary is renewed again upon the altar.

           I hope this helps!

         • Which would apply to the NO as well. So therefore, use your own words ” A validly ordained Priest who is “bad” and has “bad faith” still offers an infinitely pleasing Sacrifice to God when he uses the Novus Ordo.”

         • I don’t know about the Novus Ordo. I don’t know if it is able to manifest the intention in the priest to do what the Church does, because it suppresses Catholic theology regarding what the Mass essentially is.

           Would a validly ordained Priest offer a pleading Sacrifice if he used the Anglican Lord’s Supper rite? It has the words “This is my body/blood” in it.

           Why? Why not?

           Let’s hear from you.

         • If you don’t know if in the NO you can’t tell the intention of the priest, then neither can you in the EF.

           As for the Anglicans, they are not Catholic. So their rite does not count and is totally irrelevant to our discussion.

           But both NO and EF are Catholic.

         • The Novus Ordo is a theological parallel of the Anglican rite. It does count in the discussion.

           I can know the intention of the Priest in the Roman Rite (the EF as you prefer) because the Church tells me in Quo Primum and the canons of the Council of Trent that it perfectly expresses the Catholic theology of the Mass. Pope Leo XIII said that when proper form and matter are used properly in a Catholic rite, then the intention is presumed – i.e, we can proceed on that as a valid sacrament.

           The Novus Ordo doesn’t represent the Faith of the Church. That’s just a plain fact. If guy is using a rite that is not in concordance with the Catholic faith, but something else, then I don’t know what the hell he intends.

         • Obviously, you want it to be true. That’s understandable. The situation is terrible.

           I simply don’t know. I wish I did, but as long as all this is up in the air, I can’t say for certain, and all I have to go by is the teaching of the Church, pre-Vatican II. You should go to the sources yourself if you want to know more.

         • I was merely pointing out that based on your responses, your statement could be re-written with NO in place of EF and it will be perfectly in accord with your posts and citations.

         • Hello Peter, the answer is that I listen to the Church.

           Which one, considering the Church has been celebrating the NO?

           Are you saying that the NO is invalid?

         • I have said in several posts in this section that I don’t know if it is valid or not. It’s an enormous departure from tradition. I know the traditional rites are good and safe; why should I trust novelties? Why especially should I trust novelties (I get sick of typing this!) which suppress the essential points of Catholic theology regarding the Mass?

           I’m not going to go to the Novus Ordo. I’m just not. You’re welcome to it, but I’m never assisting at it again, may God help me. It’s not a mere preference for this or that. It’s a principle.

         • What I was questioning is the assumption in your post that only the EF is the one that has been approved by the Church.

           The way you have been writing it seems that that is the only valid Mass.

         • It’s certainly the received and approved Roman Rite. It traces its way back to Apostolic times, and the theology has never changed.

           Now after nineteen and a half centuries, a committee of dodgy heretics (who publicly bragged about their intention of overthrowing the Catholic theology of the Mass they detested), created a synthetic novel rite that suppresses all mention of the most important aspect of the Mass – that it is the renewal of the Sacrifice of Calvary.

           And I’m supposed to swallow it?

           The Church guards her traditions. They are our link back to Christ and the Apostles. She does not dabble and experiment with novelties – especially when they bring a shift in doctrine, which results in an incredible loss of Faith across the world practically overnight.

           I don’t know where this Novus Ordo comes from. It is extraordinary.

           The Old Testament Prophet, Daniel spoke of a future time when the “daily sacrifice” would come to an end. He was talking about the Mass. Whether or not we have entered this period of history, time will tell. I don’t know. But what I do know is that it is not outside of God’s permissive will to allow the Mass to be taken away, either completely or on a large scale, for a time.

           So the traditional Mass is certain on two points. It is safe, and it is valid. I know where it comes from. I can’t say the same for the new mass. What’s a guy gonna do?

     • The EO is no panacea for sure but it is undoubtedly the building block of the Catholic restoration. IMHO Our Lord allowed the Mass to be taken away for a time in the 20th century because the hearts of many of His priests were already away from Him. They were already becoming one with the spirit of the world (liberalism modernism etc) and wanted to be like everyone else instead of the chosen people. The terrible punishment has been God granting their wish. You want to focus on yourself instead Me? Fine – you can have your manufactured man-centred liturgy. You want to be esteemed by the world and it’s false maxims? Fine – let the false religions into the Holy Place and see how you fare without My Spirit to sustain you. Only when we are absolutely miserable and broken like the prodigal son will we be in a state to turn back to Him with true repentance and humility.

       Reply

       • I certainly believe that Leo XIII did have a mystical experience in which he heard satan challenge God that given enough power, in 100 years’ time he could destroy the Church. I’ve always wondered *why* God would have allowed this. I mean, compared to God, satan is as nothing. Plus, nothing whatsoever can happen unless God positively wills it or permits it to happen. By faith, we know that God draws greater good out of the evil He permits, but looking at the tremendous amount of evil that has happened in the past 100 years, I don’t see any “greater” good. I hardly see any “good” at all. But, of course, I’m not God and myself am as nothing compared to Him. Maybe it’s still in the future.

         Reply

       • The EF is no panacea for sure but it is undoubtedly the building block of the Catholic restoration

         Not necessarily. What we need is reverence. And that can be absent too in a perfunctory Latin Mass.

         I read somewhere that back then there used to be a 10 min Mass.

         Reply

         • The Church being at the service of Almighty God must have public worship and adoration, hence the need for a liturgy to offer this worship. For those that are members of the Latin Rite this has been solemnly defined by Pope St Pius V to be the Roman Missal of His time. Many do not realise that He bound The Church and His successors in this as a matter of divine law, since the public worship of God is not simply a matter of ecclesiastical law but divine law (lex orandi lex credendi). The fact that a rite can be abused in a “perfunctory” manner in no way detracts from the necessity of it being a part of the life of a well functioning Church. Benedict XVI admitted as much when he linked the crisis in the Church with the breakdown in the liturgy. As for reverence that should be expected with anything that is holy and given to us from God though His Church.

         • My point was that NO or Latin it can be abused.

         • Theologians have said that a low Mass in less than fifteen minutes is a mortal sin.

           Pope St Pius X said his daily low Mass in twenty.

           A ten minute low Mass is an abuse of the rite. The novus ordo on the other hand has abuse baked right into it.

         • And the bad Novus Ordo is an abuse of the Novus Ordo.

           I am not saying that Latin is bad and NO is good. I am saying that both are open to abuse.

           There’s good and not so good in both.

         • It’s heresy to say that about the traditional Roman Rite.

           There’s lots to learn about our Faith, and I assume you have not studied these issues in too much detail. Otherwise to say that there’s something not good in the traditional Mass would be a grave sin against Faith.

           But don’t take my word for it – it’s not worth anything.

           Over to the Council of Trent for real authority:

           “If anyone says that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs which the Catholic Church uses in the celebration of masses, are incentives to impiety rather than stimulants to piety, let him be anathema.” Canons on the Sacrifice of the Mass (September 17, 1562) Canon 7.

           http://www.catholicliturgy.com/index.cfm/FuseAction/DocumentContents/Index/2/SubIndex/37/DocumentIndex/502

         • How does saying that there’s a good and not so good in both EF and NO going against your quote from the council of Trent?

         • Peter, what is wrong with your powers of comprehension? Why cannot people nowadays understand plain English?

         • Or perhaps it is you who do not understand English?

           Read my reply to Mike.

         • Read the quote again, slowly, two or three times. The italicised bold type in quotation marks. It’s right there.

         • So you think that saying that there is something not so good in the EF is impiety? Saying it is not so good does not mean it is bad. Just that it can be better.

           You need to read my post better and understand my questions better.

           Furhtermore, the bolded quote can equally apply to the Novus Ordo because it is the one that the Catholic Church uses.

         • So has the Novus Ordo borne good fruit or bad fruit? Has it increased piety among the Faithful, or decimated it?

           Per the quote from Trent, if it’s a Catholic rite, it cannot fail to produce good fruit, because to say that the Catholic rites used for the celebration of Mass have caused any detriment to the Faithful is a condemned heresy.

           If it’s not a Catholic rite, then we can examine it, find it wanting, strip it bare, give it a public flogging, and hang, draw and quarter it, and send the pieces to the four corners of the earth.

         • I have seen this kind of illogic in most anti-Catholic interliocutors. But it grieves me much more when I see this from Catholics who -one would hope- are better at logic and consistency.

           1) We were not talking about fruit good or otherwise. But since you’ve gone down that path;
           2) With your statement that begins “per the quote of Trent” you’ve basically said that the Church now is no longer the Catholic Church because Novus Ordo is the rite of the Church now. So what Church is it now?

         • I can’t say any more about that. The facts are there. The Church gives us universal principles so we can apply them.

           Does the Novus Ordo produce piety or impiety?

         • Which Church? The Church of Trent? If you accept that the Church of Trent exists to this day, then this Church now gives us universal princiiples too.

           By asking ” Does the NO produce piety or impiety, you are therefore casting doubt on the NO and consequently casting doubt on whether the Church now is still the same Church as the one at Trent.

           Is it a sign of piety to celebrate the Mass in 10 minutes? Is it a sign of piety to chat outside the Church and come only to kneel during the consecration then go out again? Can we say that both are products of the EF?

         • No they are abuses.

           But according to Cardinal Ottaviani “the Novus Ordo represents both in its whole and in its parts a striking departure from the theology of the Mass as formulated by session XXII of the council of Trent.”

         • Precisely! They are abuses. Which could also be said of the NO.

         • We are allowed to ask questions. The Church teaches us for a reason.

           Has the new mass contributed to the loss of Faith and unprecedented apostasy since it was introduced, or not?

         • Has the EF contributed to the loss of faith of the many who lost faith then?

         • No. They lost their faith for other reasons. The council of Trent says that the liturgy cannot cause impiety.

           So, you think the Novus Ordo is perfectly good, and doesn’t tend towards error/heresy, or allow any error, and it’s just lousy clergy who are to blame. Is that right?

         • So when people lose faith post V2 it’s because of the NO. But when people lose faith pre-V2 it’s not because of the EF. Go figure.

         • No, because the Church as said that the traditional Mass is free from error. The massive apostasy began at the same time the new mass came out. There has never been anything like it in history. Sorry, you cannot seriously defend the novus ordo.

           The Novus presents a major shift in theology, and it resulted in millions having their Faith distorted, changed, eroded and eliminated.

         • I don’t really know whether you will get this (as I’ve tried several times).

           If the Church said the traditional Mass is free from error, do you really think that the Church will give us a Mass that is full of error. Unless of course ( as I keep pointing out) you think that the Church of today is not the same one yesterday.

           If the Church (the Catholic Church which exists till now) is the one that gave us error free EF, then why would she give us full of error NO?

           What you need to resolve in your head is whether that same Church exists today because the only way your argument will make sense is if you said that the church died during V2 and what we have now is no longer the Catholic Church.

         • No, the Church cannot die.

           The new mass deliberately suppresses the essential truths that the traditional Mass affirms. There’s no Offertory for starters. It tends towards error, to wards heresy, towards apostasy. The fruits are there for all to see, although not everyone wants to know.

           I have to conclude that something is seriously off with the creation of the Novus and its publishing/promulgation. There’s a red flag. There is some defect. Something is wrong. Whatever way you want to explain it, you can’t say that the Church gives us a rite that does this. The Church is indefectible, so for whatever reason, I cannot see how the novus came from the Church.

           Do you think the new mass has any defects? Please answer without any reference to any other rite, because it’s a red herring, and I’ve had lots of those already.

         • So you affirm that : “the Church cannot die” and “The Church is indefectible, so for whatever reason, I cannot see how the novus came from the Church”.

           Really leaves you in a conundrum.

         • My hands are tied regarding what I can say regarding how I think best explains these mysteries, without contradicting anything the Church taught before Vatican II. Sorry!

         • We were warned by several popes and theologians – for more than a century – that the enemies of the Church were at work in “the very veins” (Pius X) to bring about the current situation – apostasy.

         • True. But they never said that the Church in her entirety will.

         • No one says it now.

           Look Peter, you and I can see that something is terribly wrong. Regardless of the explanation, trace back to the point where the “wrong thing” happened, and practice the Faith as it was up unil that point, and don;t go any further.

           God will put this right, but in the meantime, our duty is simply to “hold fast to tradition” as St Paul commanded, and not adopt or approve any novelty, especially having seen first hand the almost universal apostasy that has resulted because of them.

         • I can see something that is terribly wrong.

           And one of the terribly wrong things I see is the idolatry of the EF.

         • I am amazed that that’s your argument in response to what I said. Amazed.

         • (Er, “idolatry” ?) I think one team is a couple players short so don’t sweat this too much.

         • Our friend did not know the novus was devoid of an Offertory until this week.

         • Well, after being baptized tridentine rite in ’65, & then being abandoned (‘schooled’ & ‘churched’ in the NO), I had absolutely no clue re: vesting prayers, asperges me, judica me, the Canon, Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament, Last Gospel, internal ‘participation’, venial sin vs. mortal sin, examination of conscience, septuagesima, ‘state of Grace,’
           Leonine prayers, act of contrition, the angelus, the mysteries of the holy rosary,
           brown (or any) scapular, first Friday devotions to the sacred heart, the Sanctus candle, churching of women, the offertory, etc etc etc etc etc etc etc until 1 1/2 years ago.

         • You, me, and countless millions of other people were lead away from these things by the Catholic Church…but isn’t the Church indefectible in Her teaching mission? So, either you, me and the millions of lost souls were not really lead away from the Faith, or the institution responsible for the apostasy was not the Catholic Church.

         • #2 false church

           Satan is no idiot; fallen angelic beings are still angelic beings & understand God’s laws better than we

           He has had, & still has, many willing accomplices for all of his evil, whether knowing or unknowing

         • Our friend is defending the new whatever-it-is like a trooper, yet he is a victim of the very thing he is defending. They have distorted and confused the Faith that he received at Baptism, and robbed him blind of his right to the unsullied Faith. It’s like Stockholm syndrome.

         • Yup, exactly, on all points.
           Horrible. Sad. Lives & souls in peril.
           As you said earlier, has happened to literally millions.
           Unfortunately, including our loved ones.
           And its self-perpetuating – a vicious cycle.
           I hate the Devil.

           .

         • Good that you are amazed. Because it is true that this high regard for the EF is bordering on idolatry to the point that you have practically said that all those who have been brought up in the NO have practically been fed poison.

           That is the problem with the rad trad. In their anger against what is happening in the Church now, their thinking becomes muddy and clouded.

           The NO could certainly do with a revision towards a more reverent celebration and as Cardinal Sarah has said, we can start with Ad Orientem. But the way most people in these blogs go on and on about the superiority of the EF is really bordering on idolatry of the rite.

         • We are talking past each other. I’m not going to the Novus. You shouldn’t either. You should just go to same the rite of Mass that all Roman Catholics went to since Apostolic times.

         • So basically you are saying that people should not go to Mass. Because there are very, very, very many dioceses who do not have the EF. So you’d rather the people do not obey the Lord so that they can obey you. Wow, what arrogance.

         • Yep. Ok.

         • Have not heard anything sicker from someone who claims to be Catholic.

         • Mike. You are make-a me both sad & to laughing. ????

           Sadly, it sounds like the non-conversations
           I have had w. my mom.
           There just comes a point.

         • Yes we think we’ve been fed poison. Yes we have high regard for the EF.
           And those 2 statements are putting it MILDLY.
           On the whole we also make sure we educate ourselves and know exactly what we’re talking about.
           ‘My people shall perish for lack of knowledge.’

         • You think? How about actually showing how you have been fed poison by the Mass.

           Interesting that you say that the NO is like being fed poison. Tsk, tsk to say that of the Eucharist.

         • These Canons from Trent were taliking about the rites that existed at that that time. Since it’s dogmatic, then the truth it lays out won’t change.

           It doesn’t say that it’s impiety to say there’s something deficient in the traditional Mass. It says it’s heresy to even say that the rites of Mass can cause impiety rather than piety.

           So, if we don’t want to be heretics, and simultaneously hold that the Novus Ordo is a Catholic rite, then we have to deny what our senses tell us, and say that the new mass has produced only good fruit, and an increase in piety among the Faithful.

           Quite a connundrum!

         • You’ve really put yourself in a conundrum.

           If there is only one Church which continues to this day, then that applies to the rites of the Church now.

           However, if you believe that somehow the church of Trrent has ceased to exist, then I will grant you your argument.

         • It has not ceased to exist. That’s impossible.

           Our Lady of La Salette warned in 1846 that “Rome will lose the Faith and become the seat of the Antichrist. The Church will be in eclipse”.

           That’s the best way I can resolve this. The Church has been eclipsed. That means it’s still there, but something is standing in front of it, making it obscure. This is the cause of the darkness that the earth is shadowed under, but it is also temporary. This crisis will end and the Church will be as radiant as ever.

         • So you are saying that the Church has been in eclipse for the past 60 years? If the Church is in eclipse for that long, how can she fulfill her duty to the Lord?

           What does it even mean for the Church to be in eclipse?

         • I don’t know fully. An eclipse is an allegory. The situation’s a mystery. I can see that from the time the changes came in everything was a disaster. So I avoid them.

         • Yes, it’s possible. 60 years is possible. It has to be. Something went horribly wrong 60 years ago.

           Do you believe the Church can poison her children, and lead them into heresy, apostasy and damnation, or is that impossible?

           That’s what it comes down to.

         • So basically you are saying that the gates of hell have prevailed. Contrary to what the Lord promised.
           If the Church poisons here children she is no longer the Church.

         • No part of the true Holy Mother Church poisons her children . Anything / person that has the outward appearance of being part of Christ’s Holy Spouse, yet is poison, is being used by satan.

         • What is the true Holy Mother Church. If the Church today is not the True Holy Mother Church then do point out for me where she is and which one is she.

         • OK “Phoenix From the Ashes” H.J.A. Sire.

         • No, the gates of hell will not prevail. Our Lady said the Church will be eclipsed. Whether this is the time she spoke of or not doesn’t matter. God can permit His Church to be eclipsed. He gave us the internet so we could find out these things right when we need to. It’s not a toy.

         • If the gates of hell has not prevailed, then the Church remains and the guidance of the Spirit remains ergo the NO is valid and everything that applied to the EF applies to the NO.

         • Validity aside, is it a danger to the Faith? Without an offertory, is it pleasing to God?

         • What do you mean there is no offertory?

         • I mean “the Novus Ordo has no Offertory”. There is no offering of the Divine Victim as a propitiatory Sacrifice in the new mass.

           Is this news to you? You have strong opinions on all this. I thought you’d know that. Its probably the biggest theological problem with the new mass.

         • Yes. Frankly, using the words “Novus Ordo” & “mass” together makes me feel ill.

         • Catholics in the pre-Vatican II days were taught that in order to fulfil one’s Sunday obligation, one had to be present at the minimum, for:

           1. The Offertory
           2. The Consecration
           3. The Priest’s Communion.

           Why?

           Becasue these three elements are the essence of the Mass. They are one continuous action and cannot be seperated from each other.

           Once the Offertory has begun, by the unveiling of the Chalice and the Offertory prayers, the Priest must continue at least until his Communion. If he becomes unable to complete this, another Priest must be brought in to complete it.

           The Mass is the renewal of the Sacrifice of Calvary on the altar under the appearance of bread and wine. Thus the Mass is a real and pleasing Sacrifice offered to God for the remission of sins for the living and the dead.

           So, without an Offertory, how does the Novus Ordo satisfy the Sunday obligation?

         • There is an offertory in the sense that we offer the bread and wine. It is not the same as one in the EF but one can ask whether it is absolutely necessary that the offertory be as it is in the EF.

         • The offering of bread and wine has got nothing to do with Catholicism and the Propitiatry nature of the Mass.

           All propitiatory sacrifices, other than the offering of the Son to the Father under the appearance of bread and wine, are unacceptable to God. We are in the New Testament, not the Old.

           Further, the offering of bread and wine (which God is made in the plural. “…which WE have to offer…”

           Where’s the Catholic teaching on the ministerial Priesthood which Our Lord instituted at the Last Supper in all of this?

           Once you simply begin to scratch away at the surface of the Novus Ordo, you see what’s beneath.

         • So that’s it then?

         • What I see as feeble is your attempt to portray EF as the be all and end all of worship.

           As I have already shown, you are in conundrum. You either say that the Church has vanished after V2 or you have to accept that NO is valid.

           Adding more words will not make that conundrum disappear.

         • How do you square the contradiciton, like an elephant, between the traditonal Mass and the novus?

           The Church teaches, we learn.

           There’s a point to all this teaching business that the Church does, you know.

           She wants us to know where the boundaries of the Faith are, so we can make our way through this world wothout becoming heretics.

         • What is the contradiction? I don’t see a contradiction. The NO never said that all parts of the Mass should be Versus Populo.

           Being able to understand what is going on in the Mass is an absolute plus. In fact, the reason we have Latin was because back then, Latin is what people understood.

           It is true that we ended up with a bad English translation. But it does not mean that the Mass itself is a source of impiety as you seem to imply.

         • It doesn’t have an Offertory. Could you please comment on that?

         • I already said it does.

         • Well that settles it.

         • Here’s a novus ordo explanation of the Offertory for you.

           https://stmarywalpole.com/explanation-of-the-offertory

         • o. m. g.

         • Well I think that settles it, ladies and gentlemen. We’re done here.

         • Looks like someone simply does not know WHAT the offertory actually is.

         • It’s the collection, according to that link. This is the depth of understanding that the novus produces, even in among the “presiders over the assembly”.

         • It is a pseudo church at best, though much worse really, as u know.
           After, by the grace of God, having come to an (ever-increasing) understanding of what the heck has happened here, & why, & what it has done to people the world over, my family, me, etc., I can’t bring myself to attend even for family events. It makes me want to claw my eyeballs out.

         • At first I just liked the old better. But as time passed, the real underlying issue became clear and it was no longer about what suited my taste. Even if I personally preferred the Novus Ordo I and didn’t like the traditional Mass I would not attend the new mass.

         • Ditto here.

         • Same. I love the Church, and I wanted to know what happened to it after the 1960’s. I lost lots of sleep when I began to delve into the mystery, but had not yet reached all the way through. When I realised what it was, I was relieved and thought, “so that’s it”.

           I was relieved because I did not have to hold mutually contradictory ideas together at the same time. I could love, admire and trust the Catholic Church on everything she teaches.

           If anyone is comfortable with, and is capable of, holding two contradictions together in their mind in perfect peace, then that would be a sign of either malice or insanity!

         • Good.

         • I really don’t care what the novus ordo says. Actually the unsalvageable problem is what the Novus Ordo doesn’t say.

           What doesn’t it say? It doesn’t say that it is the same propitiatory Sacrifice of Calvary being renewed on the altar and offered to the Blessed Trinity under the appearance of bread and wine. And this is the very heart and essence of the Catholic Mass, and the Faith.

         • I have noticed something truly sad, something surely the devil has a hand in orchestrating.

           When people get hung up on the NO or on defending it either internally or out loud, they do 2 main things –
           1 accuse ‘traditional’ (?) catholics of being rigid / picky / demanding / snobby, and,

           2 never give up, by golly, trying to pin the bow-tie(s) on the pig

           Rampant in my family

           Rampant online

         • Well if you are going to debunk the NO then you have to care what it says. Otherwise it’s just all straw men.

           So maybe it doesn’t say that the same propitiatory Sacrifice is being renewed. That still does not mean that there is no offertory. Your argument is that there is no offertory.

         • Yep. Alright.

         • Which proves my point.

         • Dear Mr. Santos.
           1 Get yourself a $6 little red missal.
           2 Read the english (right side) “Offertory.”
           3 Find this in the Novus Ordo. 4 Come back.
           5 Tell us.

         • Dear Mr C2,

           Get a definition of offertory.

           No need to tell me.

           It is enough that you get educated.

         • ??

         • Use a Latin-English hand Missal (assuming it’s your primary language; I’m not sure).

           It would be better if the NO was in Latin or some other language, so it couldn’t do as much damage to the Faithful.

           I can tell that you have not studied the Mass in any great detail. I bet $20 that you just live on soundbites from EWTN or Catholic Answers or something.

         • You are saying that it is better if the people do not understand the NO (hence your preference for it being in Latin). What is in the NO that is damaging to the faithful that they should not hear it?

           Well I think you live from a rigid notion that somehow the EF is it as far as liturgy is concerned.

         • Yep.

         • Heretic comes to mind.

         • So, have you found an Offertory in the Novus Ordo? Please let me know if you do.

         • There is. Go to one and you will know that there is.

         • I went there for decades, and my Faith was completely deformed by it. I will not go back to it again. Anyone can pull up a side by side comparison online in thirty seconds. We’re out of excuses.

         • Well my faith is not deformed. True I would like a more reverent Mass but my faith is not deformed by the NO. In fact, because of there are more readings, I get more of the Word of God.
           There are some things that I prefer in the EF but I will not say that the NO is bad. It could be better. But so could the EF.

         • You’re bringing all these subjective things to the table that don;t belong here. The apparent holiness of others. We don’t judge based upon these things.

           Having said that, since you brought it into the discussion, I didn’t know how deformed my Faith was by sitting in the muck. I had to get out and assess it objectively. Then I saw that I had been robbed. I learned that there is only one infallible standard to use: The unchanging teaching of the Church through the ages.

           The novus ordo cannot be defended when compared to the Mass and Faith that has come to us through traditon.

           Again, where’s the Offertory in the novus?

         • Because you brought subjective things to the table. In fact, that is practically where your arguments lie, in the subjective.

           It was not an unchanging teaching of the Church that the Mass should be the EF. Prior to the EF as you know it, the Mass was different. You are idolizing a rite in a specific time.

           Every now and again, someone brings up antiquarianism, but the way the rad trads argue for the EF is almost antiquarianism.

         • You are simply misinformed on so many points, there’s no point continuing this. Go and read up for yourself on what the Church says.

         • And you think you are informed. You are operating from a bias stemming from a rigid adherence to the EF as if somehow Liturgy has been set in stone. You are in fact guilty of antiquarianism.

         • That’s right.

         • Validity is not the only issue. Is it a danger to the Faith? What do the statistics for the last fifty years tell you? What does every single article posted on 1P5 etc tell you? We are in the greatest crisis and mass apostasy in history.

         • How? When I know many saintly people who attend the NO.

           We are indeed in the greatest crisis, but to blame all that on the NO is foolish.

         • Saintly people dispose themselves to receive God’s grace. They are following what they believe to be true, and want to serve God the best they can. They have been innocently deceived and short-changed.

           But once the nature of the crisis is traced back to its cause, anyone who is of good will and does so recognises the danger and avoids it.

         • But if the NO is not valid, there would not be these saintly people because they are all nourished from the same Mass.

         • I am not going to go back into the validity thing.

           We know the Faith by what the Church teaces us. The novus ordo has no offertory. That is still not answered.

         • Sure the NO does. Not exactly what you have in the EF, but there is an offertory. Who gets to define what the offertory should constitute?

           In the end, our whole argument goes back to authority in the same manner that the Protestant problem did. Basically, you have put yourself as the authority and with that you have practically declared that the Church of the NO is no longer the Church of the EF. According to you of course.

         • So you don’t know the definition of “Offertory”, yet you confidently claim the novus ordo has one. Right.

         • I do know the definition of the offertory. But you seem to think that it means only one thing with a narrow definition.

           It’s like saying that an umbrella must only be in black, with a wooden handle and a particular size.

           Or like saying that bread is only Ciabatta.

         • Yep, alright.

         • Thanks for agreeing with me.

         • You get to decide Peter.

         • u = funny????

         • You’re the one doing the deciding putting yourself above the Church.

           So I re-iterate, the only way your complaints can have any traction is if the Church of the NO is no longer the Church of the EF. Which is what you are trying to say in a round about way but would not say it outright.

         • Yep, ok.

         • Thank you for proving me right.

     • The Novus Ordo Mass came into use in the USA when I was in my 20’s.
       I like to attend the Tridentine Mass which I understand is about 1500 years old, as well as the Melkite Mass ,which is even older, on occasion. I do not agree with some of the criticisms of the Novus Ordo but my impression is that the NO Mass is more reminiscent of the first Mass, the last supper, than is the TLM, whereas the TLM is more focused on Calvery.
       The Melkite Mass and readings offer more of a sense of the early Church.
       Attending all three to my mind is a good mix.

       I think most of the problem in the modern Church and with the clergy come from the breakdown of moral norms which some call the sexual revolution, which originated from various intellectual sources such as faulty philosophy and psychology, unfortunately being taken up by many Catholics both lay and cleric. The effect on the Mass is that priests with serious spiritual and psychological problems and beliefs can often offer less than devout Masses and give inaccurate and misleading sermons.

       Reply

       • “I like to attend the Tridentine Mass which I understand is about 1500 years old, as well as the Melkite Mass ,which is even older”.

         No, this is not correct.

         Father Adrian Fortescue in ‘The Mass: A Study of the Roman Liturgy’ (1912) offers eloquent testimony to the verifiable ancientry of the Traditional Latin Mass:

         “Our Mass goes back, without essential change, to the age when it first developed out of the oldest liturgy of all. It is still redolent of that liturgy, of the days when Caesar ruled the world and thought he could stamp out the faith of Christ, when our fathers met together before dawn and sang a hymn to Christ as to God. The final result of our enquiry is that, in spite of unsolved problems, in spite of later changes, there is not in Christendom another rite so venerable as ours. “(p. 213)

         Father Fortescue was right.

         Even Patriarch Alexei II of the Russian Orthodox Church, no friend to Catholics, welcomed the motu proprio ‘Summorum Pontificum’ by congratulating Benedict XVI for having recaptured for Catholic use the oldest rite in Christendom, East or West.

         Reply

     • Precisely. I wonder if those who are totally against the NO would concede that. Probably not as some have made an idol out of the Latin Mass.

       Reply

     • Jesus could also have been envisioning the abuses of the future in 1913 rather than just looking at the current age…

       Reply

4. Wonderful article. The source and summit of our faith is the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass which makes possible our reception of our dear Lord in Holy Communion. Minimizing
   the Divine Sacrifice is a modernist trick. Lest we forget, we Catholics have been given the Chaplet by the Sacred Heart which unites us to all the Masses being said throughout the world when we pray it.

   Reply

   • We Catholics have been given the rosary as well.

     Reply

     • True….the point was that we cannot forget the Divine Sacrifice if we say
       (over and over) …”for the sake of his sorrowful PASSION..” Modernists
       would prefer that we altogether forget Christ’s suffering for our sins

       Reply

5. Pope St Pius V bound Catholics of the Roman Rite to the traditional Mass. He excercised the power of Keys of the Kingdom in issuing the Bull, Quo Primum in 1570. This is our permanent guarantee that it is safe and valid.

   Paul VI never issued the Novus Ordo Missae with any binding force upon Roman Rite Catholics.

   The Novus Ordo has no Offertory, the sacramental form of the Consecration of the Chalice have been grossly mutilated, and all clear mention that the Mass is the renewal of the Sacrifice of Calvary has been suppressed. It has a completely horizontal outlook, and forms those who attend it accordingly.

   It is hardly surprising that when the author of this article started attending the Mass of the Roman Rite – the received and approved rite of Mass for the Latin Church – that her and her family noticed an immediate change of outlook from worldliness to the things of God. Lex Orandi, lex credendi.

   Reply

   • “…and also raises a postive [sic] doubt regarding the Priest having the intention to do what the Church does.”

     I agree with almost everything except this particular point. A priest, when offering Holy Mass, has to have the “intention to do what the church does.” However, lack of formation does not negate this. Even if a priest does not believe in the Eucharist, if he is validly ordained and if the proper form is taken, he uses proper matter, and intends to “do what the church does” then it’s valid. Even if what he THINKS the church intends is something different, it doesn’t matter. Otherwise, how can we be certain about any sacrament?

     The only other minor quibble I have, and it is minor, is that St. Pius V’s binding of Catholics can be undone by the exercise of the Keys of the Kingdom by his successors. I don’t have the Bull with which Pope Paul VI issued to promulgate the Novus Ordo handy, but he did issue a bull, Missale Romanum. It is with bulls and the like that the keys are exercised. That said, as Pope Benedict XVI said with Summorum Pontificum, the traditional rite was never abrogated or officially suppressed…

     Reply

     • Thanks for your comment Jafin, and my spelling mistake.

       Paul VI didn’t make it binding anywhere in the document. He only said let it be published.

       Before Vatican II, Catholics were taught that to fulfil one’s Sunday obligation, i.e. to have been at Mass and worshipped God, one had to be present for the Offertory, the Consecration and the Priest’s Communion.

       The Novus Ordo does not have an Offertory. The “Blessed are you Lord, God of all creation” talks about the offering of mere bread and wine, which “WE have to offer”. There is no propitiatory sacrifice mentioned anywhere. There is no mention of the ministerial Priesthood offering the Sacrifice as the Church teaches. You can easily look them up side by side.

       The intention to do what the Church does is expressed by the Rite itself, not whether the Priest is “good” or “bad”.

       Since the new mass positively suppresses Catholic theology, and is a parallel to a Protestant Lord’s Supper service, then the intention to do what the Church does appears to be defective. An Anglican Lord’s Supper has the words “This is My Body/Blood”, but the surrounding rite does not express the theology of the Catholic Mass, so the intention to do what the Church does is doubtful. So it is with the Novus Ordo.

       The Liturgy is one of the organs of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium. Therefore, the liturgy cannot fail to teach the Faith. I maintain that whatever went wrong – whether doubts about Paul VI himself, whether it was promulgated as law for the Church or a combination of both, relegate the Novus Ordo to something new, foreign and a danger to the Faith. The Church does not and cannot do this.

       I’ve been studying this for years, but I don’t expect anyone to let the case rest on that. Don’t take my word for it. Examine the issue objectively from both sides – the for and against – and see what turns up.

       The best critical analysis of the new mass I have read is “Work of Human Hands” by Fr Cekada. Yes, many will balk at that name, but the book does not cover his opinions on the papacy. It takes a thorough look at the new mass itself and is worth a read. It has been positively reviewed by Catholics on all sides.

       Reply

       • He’s still a sedevacantist. I’d stick with the works of the Saints the late, great Michael Davies.

         Reply

         • That doesn’t change the documented facts he presents. They are there for all to see, and Fr Cekada puts them all together in his book. It does not touch the sede issue at all.

           Michael Davies contributed a lot of good material on these subjects, but he also has his own shortcomings, as John Daly presented in his book about him.

           http://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=13171.0

         • Isn’t he a sedevacantist too?

         • Yes, but Daly is more “moderate” than Fr Cekada. He’s not dogmatic about it. I think he holds that opinon as the best way to square up the holes in explaining the Church crisis, but does not condemn those who think otherwise.

           The ones who have given up trying to defend Vatican II and the new mass can often provide a harder and more thorough crtitque of the situation in the Church, even if one does not become a sedevacantist.

         • Mike, doesn’t Daly question +Lefebvre’s episcopal consecration? Fr. Cekada defends it. Wouldn’t that be strange?

         • No, Daly makes a very strong case in favour of +Lefebvre’s Orders – far stronger than Michael Davies in fact. There is no doubt at all in Daly’s mind, and he explains why.

           In his book, “Michael Davies – An Evaluation”, John Daly takes Michael Davies’ own arguments apart.

           He then strings them out as far as possible in the opposite direction to make it as bad as one can get – and then builds the case back up again with proper Catholic theology in what ends up being a watertight case in favour of +Lefebvre.

           That chapter is not easy reading though, and not for the feint-hearted. If you begin the chapter, make sure you finish it!

         • Many thanks, Mike. I’m looking for the book today.

         • Margaret, you smell out sedevacantists as if they were mosquitoes to be sprayed. I remember when you were peddling the Siscoe & Salza book months before it was published .. .

           Leave sedevacantists alone. They are our brother Catholics who hold an incorrect theological position on a particular question. They aren’t schismatics or heretics.

         • If I remember right, a schismatic is one who refuses submission to the Roman Pontiff or the bishops in communion with him.

           Some of the sedevacantists have their own “pope”, won’t associate with other Catholics. I know 2 fellows who were NO Catholics and they both became sedevacantists. Also, I was engaged to one of them. God used a SSPX priest to help me break off the engagement (plus my parents didn’t like him), otherwise I would be in a bad marriage and not communicating with you now.

         • Well, I am glad you escaped! That of course would make you extra wary. I was quite attracted by the sedevacantist thesis myself a couple of years back, but pulled away from it for the reason that as the decades go by, it ipso facto becomes a less sustainable position. But I cannot bring myself to view sedevacantists as worms and the worst enemy of Traditionalists a la ‘The Remnant’, which I believe is still fighting 1970s inter-Trad wars.

         • I’m glad I escaped too!

           This is the way I see it:

           If one believes in the full Message of Fatima, then ipso facto they should believe that there MUST be a valid, legitimate Pope on the throne of Peter to order and make in union with all the bishops of the world the Collegial Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

           When St. John Fisher was martyred, the Apostolic Succession was broken in England and was not restored for 100+ years. That’s why Anglicans do not have a valid priesthood as per Pope Leo XIII in Apostolicae Curae.

           Pope Francis is not perfect (I’m trying to be charitable here), but until a Council or group of bishops declares that he has severed himself from the Church and that the faithful no longer owe him allegiance, he’s still the Pope.

           Btw, you have until June 14 5:22 am to give me my birthday present. 😉 Good night!

         • “When St. John Fisher was martyred, the Apostolic Succession was broken in England and was not restored for 100+ years.”

           No, this is not correct.

           Fisher (I am very proud to say that he was the President of my Cambridge College in the 1490s) was beheaded in the reign of Henry VIII. After Mary I’s death in 1559 (the last Catholic Tudor monarch), the Anglican Settlement was imposed by Elizabeth I and it was at this point, with the introduction of a protestant episcopal rite of consecration lacking Catholic form, matter and intention, that the Apostolic Succession was lost. And it has never been regained.

           Catholic emancipation came in the 19th Century. The Catholic Bishops eventually decided not to restore the old Catholic dioceses but created new ones from scratch.

         • I know of some nutjob sedes. The noisy ones, the obnoxious ones, the loud ones. But I also know many who simply and quietly take refuge in an SSPX chapel here and there who are the salt of the Earth, and are as charitable as the day is long to all who are of the household of Faith.

         • Why accept Bergoglio when we have a pope who did not completely
           abdicate?

         • You are right about schism.

           Sedes aren’t schismatic in refusing obedience to the Pope; they just think the guy in Rome isn’t one. 🙂

           The ones who go and get their own “pope” think that they are the whole Church, which is why the “extreme” sedes are dangerous, but the “moderate” ones are not, because they understand that the Church is the household of the Faithful, even if they think some are “mistaken” about who the pope is at the moment.

         • “Leave sedevacantists alone.”

           The Remnant wouldn’t just block you for that. They’d have a SWAT team kicking your door down in ten minutes.

         • Sedevacantists come in a range of degrees. Some say that the post-concilior popes are definitely not true popes and others, like the SSPV, simply say that there is a serious doubt as to whether they could be true popes. I personally enjoy watching the SSPV channel on Youtube, ‘What Catholics Believe’ (WCB), and have found their analysis of the situation in the Church very sound and Catholic. They can be described as an SSPX (as that’s where their priests are originally from) but without any compromises.

         • I watch some of the Fr Jenkins videos too. They are very good.

           The Remnant have put a lot of stock in the Salza/Siscoe book, True or False Pope.

           I have seen online discussions about it and the book has many, many faults and errors in it and in the way it was researched. Misattributing quotes to men who were not popes, citing ex-pirates (!) who went on to write anti-Catholic propaganda, and quoting books that were condemned and on the Index. Stuff like that.

           Now that I’ve posted this, a silent red flashing light will have gone of somewhere on someone’s desk, and they’ll be here within the hour to pounce on me.

         • I was banned from the Remnant, pretty much for saying just that.

         • I was a couple of times. Eventually I got sick of making up new disquss identities and haven’t been back.

         • Yep, exactly the same with me.

         • I guess neither you or Ann Barnhardt will be getting anything published there in the foreseeable future then?

         • I had a couple of articles published there, and then grew very tired of it. It’s too small town America for my taste.

         • I remember something about preferring bangers and mash!

         • 🙂 That usually appears at some point!

         • I was banned from the Remnant also….I told their moderator he knew nothing about art. He was praising Moslem contributions in art which
           really is practically nil compared to the magnificent paintings, architecture and sculptures of Western Europe.

         • The so-called moderation of the Remnant site is a joke. The “moderator” takes a full part in discussions and will not brook ANY nay-saying, criticism or disagreement.

           One gets the impression that Michael Matt has finally taken leave of his senses, or some of them, and truly believes that his tin foil hat is protection against the death rays beamed at him by passing satellites. There are occasionally good articles on the Remnant, but it’s become as much a political rag as it is a Catholic source. I think Mr Matt has lost the plot.

         • They are our brothers in Christ as every human being is but they can be a danger to a person’s faith due their rejection of every Pope since Vatican II as invalid . I know you have many arguments to justify their views and I too am sympathetic but to a point. Extremism whether to the left or the right is going to mislead as they themselves have lost their ability to be reasonable.

         • This is certainly true of about half of them, yes.

         • The difference between those who think the Chair of St Peter is vacant and those who think it is occupied is this: The former believe the Church cannot poison her children, and the latter do.

           Both agree that something has gone wrong in the Church, and the safe path is to try to hold fast to tradition, as St Paul commanded.

         • “The former believe the Church cannot poison her children, and the latter do.”

           Not so.

           The Church per se can never poison Her children but *Churchmen* can and have done so over the centuries.

           Remember: One Apostle betrayed Him, one denied Him, the rest fled, and only *one* out of 12 was at the foot of the Cross with Our Lady. 1 ÷ 12 = 0.08333. NOT good.

         • St Peter denied Him before Our Lord bestowed the Papacy. Judas is on his own. The rest was before Pentecost and the founding of the Church.

           Is there any other time in history where the Church, in her official capacity, lead souls to heresy, apostasy and damnation? It’s never happened.

           This is the picture one has to paint of the Church to keep a certain opinion about the modern popes. That the Church is treacherous, fickle, dangerous and useless. She can love you one day, and knife you the next. Hardly the spotless Bride!

         • Again, you have to distinguish between the *Church* and *Churchmen*.

           Our Lord made St. Peter the visible head of the Church in Matthew 16 – before the denial of St. Peter and His Passion.

           Re your last sentence: It goes against what St. Paul wrote in Ephesians 5 re the Church.

         • Hello again Margaret.

           Session 4 of the Vatican Council in 1870 teaches that the Papacy was promised to Peter in Matthew 16, but it was not until after the Resurrection that it was conferred upon him in john 21.

           http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum20.htm#Contents

           St Peter was not yet the pope when he denied Christ.

           Regarding Ephesians 5, my point exactly about the Church.

           “The Bride of Christ cannot be made false to her Spouse: she is incorrupt and modest. She knows but one dwelling, she guards the sanctity of the nuptial chamber chastely and modestly” St. Cyprian, cited by Pope Pius XI in Mortalium Animos

           The Pope is the visible head of the Church. The Church cannot lead souls into error. The Novus Ordo leads souls into error. Therefore the Novus Ordo cannot have come from the Church. So from whence did it come?

           What distinction do you mean between the Church and Churchmen?

         • The *Church* cannot err but *Churchmen* can err (including the Pope when he is NOT speaking ex cathedra).

           The Novus Ordo was crafted by 6 Protestant ministers under the direction of A. Bugnini (I forget if he was a priest or bishop at that point) who was officially a Catholic under the direction of Pope Paul VI. (He wasn’t found out to be a Freemason until about the mid-70s).

           A. Bugnini was a *Churchman*. He was NOT the Church.

         • Paul VI approved the whole thing. What was he? A ham sandwich?

         • Bugnini was ordained a Priest in the old rite, but consecrated a Bishop in the new rite in 1972 if my memory serves me correctly. Perhaps his own innovations came back to short-change him. I don’t know.

         • Indeed. One was called a “Devil” by Jesus himself. As bad as the whole crop of them seem to be these days, we don’t have the words of Christ describing any of them at THAT.

           {Yet}.

         • I’ve just read the above link in your post. I had not heard of John Daly – is what he says important? Having recently completed Michael Davies’ “Cranmer’s Godly Order” which documents all the changes to the Mass inaugurated in England during the Reformation, his exposition of the Protestant changes to the Mass helps me to understand the impact of the words in the NO. I think Davies does a fine job. The central issue then as now was ambiguity concerning the meaning of the words . I love the TLM because the wording is explicit and comprehensive. The NO lacks that. That to me is the great danger for Mass attendees. The Protestants were convinced they were all saved by “faith” (how they defined it) alone so they got rid of all mention of “sacrifice” in the Mass as they said Jesus’ sacrifice is over, finished. Catholics know our salvation is not guaranteed by Jesus’ crucifixion. “The Sacrifice” must be continuous – renewed 24/7 – until the last sheep is home. For that reason I prefer the TLM. References to “spiritual food” and “spiritual drink” are a bit too depersonalising of Jesus for me. Catholics are at risk today more than ever!

         • It’s the conclusions that Davies comes to regarding the nature of the Church Herself that Daly takes issue with. Also some poor scholarship and shoddy methods that Davies employs. Much of Michae Davies material is good, but, according to Daly, he has a very distorted view of the Church.

           If you like reading, Daly’s book is worth it. It’s available online as a pdf or in print. It’s pretty thorough. The crisis is deep and wide. Condfusion abounds everywhere. Daly gives another angle on understanding it. You may or may not agree with him. Keep in mind, he is harder to the “right” than Michael Davies.

         • I had not come across this work, Mike. Thank you.

         • Cekada’s book on the Mass is one of the great refutations of the Novus Ordo. His sedevacantism is entirely irrelevant.

         • Caveat lector all the same. Btw, how long will you be in Shanghai?

         • No, no caveat lector is required at all. By your estimation, one should never read Tertullian or even Origen.

           China – for as long as it takes me to find an equity investor for a business here and get it producing on a sustainable basis.

         • Actually, I’m wary of both of them. Tertullian was excommunicated by Pope St. Victor I and started his own sect. Origen was excommunicated but repented of his heretical views (e.g. that hell was not eternal) and was reconciled to the Church on his deathbed.

           Cf. Elementary Patrology by Fr. A. Dirksen, (1950s)

     • I’m not saying it is invalid. I’m not saying it is valid. I take the middle line, which is that, going by what the Church has always taught, it is doubtful. I simply don’t know. The Church can’t approve a rite that leads to the destruction of Faith.

       Aside from the issue of validity, which is basically “am I going to receive the Sacrament?” is the issue of fulfilling our obligation to worship God in the way He has provided.

       This new rite suppresses many eternal and revealed truths that God gave to His Church, the most important being the Mass as the renewal of Calvary. Can a rite which suppresses this most essential truth, along with a host of others, be pleasing to God?

       Acts 20:28 says Our Lord purchased the Church with His Blood; this Church is entrusted to teach the very truths that the Novus Ordo deliberately suppresses and omits. The Blood that was shed on the cross is trampled under the dead, cold feet of the Novus Ordo.

       John 4:24 says “God is a spirit; and they that adore him, must adore him in spirit and in truth“.

       How does one fit the Novus Ordo into this?

       Reply

       • You can’t fit it in. Here are the aims of the Novus Ordo:

         “It is not simply a question of restoring a valuable masterpiece, in some cases it will be necessary to provide new structures for entire rites … it will truly be a new creation.” – Annibale Bugnini, May 7 1967, La Documentation Catholique, no. 1493

         “An ecumenically-oriented sacramental theology for the celebration of the Mass emerged … it leads us … out of the dead end of the post-Tridentine theories of sacrifice, and corresponds to the agreements signalled by many of last year’s interfaith documents.” – Fr. Lengeling, Consilium member.

         Evidence of the intended doctrinal changes comes from an irrefutable witness, Bugnini’s assistant, Father Carlo Braga (‘Proprium de Sanctis’, Ephemerides Liturgicae 84 (1970), 419):

         “Revising the pre-existing text becomes more delicate when faced with a need to update content or language, and when all this affects not only form, but also doctrinal reality. This (revision) is called for in light of the new view of human values, considered in relation to and as a way to supernatural goods … In other cases, ecumenical requirements dictated appropriate revisions in language. Expressions recalling positions or struggles of the past are no longer in harmony with the Church’s new positions. An entirely new foundation of Eucharistic theology has superseded devotional points of view or a particular way of venerating and invoking the Saints. Retouching the text, moreover, was deemed necessary to bring to light new values and new perspectives.”

         (Not entirely new, Father Braga! The “foundation” of which you speak was known to the Church ever since its creators – Luther, Cranmer, Bucer et al – invented it.)

         If anyone is inclined to dismiss the importance of the changes to the prayers in the Mass and their effect, they need to read the words of Monsignor A.G. Martimort, another of Consilium’s experts:

         “The content of these prayers is the most important of the liturgical loci theologici (theological sources). The reason is that they interpret the shared faith of the assembly.” (‘The Church at Prayer’, vol. 1).

         Compare the words of Father Braga when he said in 1970 that the New Missal will indeed “have a transforming effect on catechesis” (Il Nuovo Messale Romano, Ephemerides Liturgicae 84) with those of Pope Pius XII who wrote in his encyclical, Mediator Dei, that the entire liturgy “bears public witness to the faith of the Church.”

         I think anyone who claims that “triumphalist” or “restorationist” Catholics who want the True Mass, the Mass which sanctified and sustained so many Saints and Martyrs, are motivated by aesthetics (“bells and smells”) or nostalgia, really do need to revise their extremely shallow opinion. It is about doctrine and about who owns the Church – Christ and His (growing) army of true Catholic faithful; or a bunch of revolutionary heretics?

         The undeniable truth is that, from the time Bugnini’s Mass was brought out, the objections were doctrinal. The expression ‘lex orandi, lex credendi’ (the law of prayer is the law of believing) was at the heart of the many critiques that followed. This issue wasn’t a novelty either. The doctrinal importance of the liturgy has been keenly felt by the Church and Her enemies since the time of Cranmer and Luther.

         Reply

         • These men you quote are my enemies. I think they’re all dead. May God have mercy upon their souls.

         • They were the enemies of all Catholics.

         • Three quarters of the way reading through “Work of Human Hands” I remember pausing and putting the book down. The same thought occured to me: These men, these fabricators of this new mass, are my worst enemies in the world.

         • I’ve not read the book but I have listened to the Youtube chapter summaries by Fr Cekada. Makes one’s blood boil knowing what these cockle sowers did and the lie most of us have lived. I’ve listened to some of Fr Hesse’s commentaries about the NO, however, many of his points are regarding the previous translations of the NO missal so I wonder what he would have said after the revision of B16th?

         • The WHH book by Fr Cekada is great. It covers the same things as the videos but in more depth, with more footnotes and references.

           Fr Hesse raised the same points that a certain Patrick Henry Omlor raised back in 1968 regarding the validity of “for you and for all men” instead of “for you and for many”. It’s a fascinating topic. I wonder what he would have said now though, since it’s been “corrected”. Its unheard of for the Church to make such a blunder as they did with the “pro multis” thing, making vernacular masses probably invalid for 45 years or so, and then to correct it.

         • ” It is about who owns the Church – Christ …..”

           Excellent post. Many thanks.

       • Well, we agree that the Novus Ordo, at least as far as it currently exists is likely not pleasing to God. Valid? Yes. Good? I don’t see how it is.
         And as for this statement?
         “The Church can’t approve a rite that leads to the destruction of Faith.”
         I’m still trying to figure this one out, exactly. It seems obvious the Novus Ordo does contribute to loss of faith, but it also seems clear that the Church DID approve this rite. Unless you go by the sedevacantist position which has WAY too many problems (that, at this moment, I’m not inclined to go into) so I’m not going to begin to take that approach.

         Reply

         • That’s the crossroad isn’t it?

           No one wants to be a sedevacantist. They are the worst.

           But then, the alternative view entails the regrettable admission: the Church can poison her children and lead souls to hell.

           She can’t force the poison on you, absolutely not, but she can, from time to time, sneak a little bit into your soul here and there, and lead you subtly and slowly into heresy, apostasy and damnation. She can produce a rite of Mass that is not good. Probably not pleasing to God. Probably/potentially doubtful in its validity.

           This is Holy Mother Church, the Mystical Body of Christ, His Spotless Bride, commissioned to “teach all nations” with infallible certainty, a mission from which she can never defect….mostly.

           That’s the non-sedevacantist position in a nutshell.

           Catholics, be they sede or non-sede, didn’t pick this fight. This came from the top. Everyone is trying to scramble around picking up the pieces in the aftermath.

         • Excuse me chiming in, but I believe we can choose our Parish, choose the Priest. If we know for certain the Priest is orthodox, and we can see where he is coming from in the way he offers the Mass, and in his homily, then that’s as good as it is going to get right now. Dont you think?

         • Not at all. You are most welcome to chime in.

           Well, I did think that too, once. Finding “good” priests to feel safe with the sacraments.

           It seemed a rather clunky way of being certain of the validity of the Sacraments though. Does the Church expect me to go around forming private judgements about priests? The answer turned out to be “Not at all”.

           Looking further into the matter, I asked the best question I could think of: “What does the Church teach?”

           Pope Leo XIII in his Bull, Apostolicae Curae, on the invalidity of Anglican Orders, gives the answer:

           “When a person who has correctly and seriously used the requisite matter and form to effect and confer a sacrament, he is presumed for that very reason to have intended to do (intendisse) what the Church does. On this principle rests the doctrine that a Sacrament is truly conferred by the ministry of one who is a heretic or unbaptised, provided the Catholic rite be employed.” Apostolicae Curae, 33.

           http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_le13ac.htm

           So, the novus ordo denies and suppresses the Divinely revealed, Catholic truths that the Church will affirm and teach until the end of the world. It then offers this new, synthetic rite as a purported act of worship back to the Blessed Trinity, Who gave the Church these truths in the first place.

           The effect this has upon the faithful is disastrous. It causes an erosion, distortion and elimination in the souls of the Faithful of that Divine and Catholic Faith which the Catholic Church professes by virtue of the Great Commission.

           So there is now an enormous doubt regarding the question of whether the Novus Ordo is a Catholic rite. Circling back to the last sentence I quoted from Apostolicae Curae, this is absolutely crucial in knowing whether or not the priest has the intention to do what the Church does. And this intention, as i’m sure you know, is necessary for a valid sacrament.

           So to think with the Church, it needs to be proven that the novus ordo is a Catholic rite, which in light of the above, almost certainly is not.

           In summary, no Catholic rite, no correct intention of the minister, no valid sacrament.

         • I think we can be sure the NO is valid as the essential words of consecration take place and therefore Christ is present in His Real Presence as the victim of sacrifice, and therefore present in His death, resurrection and ascension, but generally all that is not taught by Priests in homilies, and it’s not taught in sacramental preparation programs because of the age of the children, and it’s not taught in Catholic Schools. That’s a problem for us because the Doctrines of the Catholic faith are interconnected and the Mass is the Source and Summit.

         • Well, back to Leo XIII again.

           In Apostolicae Curae, he says that after a hundred years of Anglicans having a completely invalid form for their “holy orders”, they corrected it to make it say what it is supposed to say to be valid.

           But here’s the rub: They kept the same surrounding Anglican Rite, which has non-Catholic theology, because it suppresses and omits all Catholic theology on the priesthood.

           So, Pope Leo XIII said that even though they salvaged the sacramental form for the ordination after a century, the surrounding rite, (i.e the same deficient Anglican ceremony which points away from the Church’s teaching) was still non-Catholic. This causes a defect of intention in the minister conferring the “sacrament”, and so he infallibly declared it to be “absolutely null and utterly void”.

           So, he said, the surrounding rite did not express the Catholic Faith, and so the intention to do what the Church does is defective, and the sacrament is invalid, even when the form is right.

           You should read it!

           http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_le13ac.htm

         • This is what I learned..long ago. I think you are correct.

         • Your point about the NO not being a Catholic rite reminds me of an occasion in my youth (Lord forgive my ignorance at the time in committing a sin against the faith) A friend and I wanted to go on a retreat but we were unable to find a Catholic one nearby and so opted to attend an Anglican retreat. It was a silent one, thankfully, but at the end there was a service and I recall the debate between my friend and I about whether we should attend. We decided to do so as we reasoned that it would be impolite not to go and so off we went. I can vividly remember being absolutely stunned to discover that the ‘service’ was identical in every way to the Mass I had been attending all my life. I could not believe it and asked myself why Anglicans would say the Catholic Mass? My friend even went forward to receive ‘communion’ although I did not (thank God that I had enough ‘sensus catholicus’ to know that I could not do this at least!). As I was journeying to the traditional Catholic faith, I still attended a NO Mass with a very devout Priest. At a parish event, I spoke to another parishioner I had not met before. During our conversation, she let slip that she sometimes attended the Anglican Church because it was nearer her home and, by way of justification she said ‘it’s just the same’. Of course, I corrected her very solemnly but I remembered the incident from my you and realised that even with the latin and other elements (benediction, rosary etc) which this devout priest introduced and which myself and other parishioners thought so Catholic, there was, in fact, no difference in the Mass offered by this priest and the schismatic and heretical sect down the road from her. I could no longer maintain the delusion that a ‘good priest’ made any difference whatsoever. I no longer attend the NO, nor, by the grace of God, will I ever do so again. As to its validity, I leave that to those with superior knowledge to mine. I do know, without a shadow of doubt, that it is a danger to Divine and Catholic faith to all but the most devout souls!

         • That is quite a story! I think your result is spot on as well. We are the laity. We just hold to tradition, as St Paul commanded.

           One can study these issues in as much depth as he wishes, or opt out. we don’t have to be theologians and canon lawyers. That’s the hierarchy’s job.

           But at the minimum, we simply do what Catholics always did, believe what they always believed, and worship God how they always have worshipped Him.

         • Excellent post.

         • I’ll come and address this tomorrow.

         • When the priest has the intention of making present the sacrifice of Christ
           and his body and blood soul and divinity and uses the traditional words of
           consecration a Mass is valid. One doesn’t need to be a sede to say that
           Bergoglio is not the pope because Pope Benedict didn’t completely resign
           …he is therefore still pope.

         • That’s a whole other can of worms!

           “Men are neither bound nor able to read hearts”. St Robert Bellarmine

           According to Pope Leo XIII, the way we know that the minister of a Sacrament has the intention to do what the Church does is by the surrounding ceremony that points to the reality of the Sacrament.

           The Church only judges externals, and so must we.

           A rite of Mass with no Offertory, a mutilated form of the consecration of the wine, and the suppression of every mention of the Mass as a propitiatory Sacrifice (as well as several other Catholic points of doctrine) does not make manifest the intention to do what the Church does.

           The minister doesn’t have to intend what the Church intends, but what the Church does.

         • If a properly ordained priest offers the Holy Sactifice of the Mass and uses the prescribed words of consecration we can know that the Mass is valid.
           That is the external by which we judge.
           This debate has been going on for fifty years…even Archbishop called the NO valid.

         • He said it could be valid. There’s quite a difference.

           That’s another issue while we’re at it.

           Paragraph 22 of the Ottaviani Intervention in 1969 talks about the Novus Ordo rite potentially being either valid or invalid – depending upon the Priest using it. Search in vain for any theologian saying this before 1969. One of the theologians who wrote the Intervention was Michel Louis Guérard des Lauriers, who interestingly later became a sedevacantist.

           As far as I understand it, this is the first time in the history of sacramental theology that this idea has ever appeared. The idea that a good internal intention can fix an externally bad rite (such as the Novus Ordo).

           It’s easy to understand why this idea had never been proposed prior to 1969. There had never before been a synthetic new rite – created from scratch – which suppressed essential Catholic theology. No theologian had had to deal with this strange new problem before this point.

           Prior to the Ottaviani Intervention in 1969, Leo XIII’s teaching in Apostolicae Curae was standard. If the minister uses proper form and matter in a Catholic rite, then for that reason we know he has the right intention. That’s it.

           If something is amiss in this above formula, then we do not know of the intention is present. The Church does not read hearts, and neither do we (if we want to think with the Church).

           With all respect and charity, the point you make in your post is a little fuzzy, and as much as I hate to say anything bad about +Lefebvre, or the Society, this is something which has crept in to the SSPX thinking. It’s novel.

         • The point was that if all the requirements for a valid Mass are present then the Mass is valid. We do not judge validity by the externals …the prayers
           or even the actions of the priest or the condition of his soul. That being said the NO may be a danger to true belief and if that is so for a person or their children they ought not attend but find a TLM ,if possible, to fulfill the Sunday obligation.

         • Umm, Leo XIII tells us what the requirements are to know if a Sacrament is valid – and they are all external. We certainly do judge validity by externals. There’s nothing else to go by.

           The Church does not judge the interior of the soul, because the Church is the Mystical Body of Christ, an extension of the Incarnation over time, and is therefore external and visible.

           Here’s Leo XIII telling us what is necessary to know when a Sacrament is valid:

           “When a person who has correctly and seriously used the requisite matter and form to effect and confer a sacrament, he is presumed for that very reason to have intended to do (intendisse) what the Church does. On this principle rests the doctrine that a Sacrament is truly conferred by the ministry of one who is a heretic or unbaptised, provided the Catholic rite be employed.” Apostolicae Curae, 33.

           http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_le13ac.htm

         • That’s an odd translation . He has to be referring to a properly ordained Catholic priest not just any person. ….and how can a priest be unbaptized?
           I think Pope Leo when referring to the Catholic rite means not only the prescribed matter and form but the words of consecration (Catholic rite).
           You do not find the NO to be Catholic enough and from there conclude it
           is not valid. That’s not what Pope Leo is saying.

         • He’s talking about the Sacraments in general in that section. A Jew or an atheist can perform a valid Baptism in an emergency if the use proper form and matter.
           If the surrounding rite detracts from the Faith, then it can give the form of the sacrament a different meaning, and cause a defect of intention. This would apply to the Anglican Lord’s Supper/Holy Communion service. They have the same words that the Church’s has for consecration (same form) but it is invalid.

           It’s not about me and what I think. (Ooohh, precious me and my fussy preferences for things that are “Catholic enough”.)

           Don’t try to make it about that. We have a rite of Mass which denies, suppresses and distorts the Catholic Faith from beginning to end. It is a completely new theology. To paraphrase the Ottaviani Intervention – a “striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as defined by the Council of Trent”.

           The theology is not Catholic, so it cannot properly be called a Catholic rite, and therefore, according to Pope Leo, it causes a defect of intention, even were the words of the form NOT mutilated.

           I stay away from declaring it valid or invalid. I leave it at doubtful.

         • According to St. Pius V, the form of the sacrament of the Eucharist is “This is my body” and “This is my blood, the blood of the new and eternal covenant, the mystery of faith, which will be poured out for you and for many, for the forgiveness of sins.” According to Pope Leo, as long as those words are said with proper matter then the consecration is valid. We also understand from church teaching that proper intention is needed, the intention to “do what the Church does.” All of the prayers surrounding the consecration during the other parts of the Mass (like fruit of the vine and work of human hands), while important, do not effect the validity of the sacrament. Is it damaging to the faith? Yeah, I would argue the Novus Ordo indeed can be damaging to faith. But valid? Those externals of which you speak are not those of which Pope Leo spoke.

           Now, what actually could be considered doubtful is the consecration of the wine… the formula has removed the Mysterium Fidei (which Pope Innocent III, I think it was, said we believe was received from Our Lord directly) which is potentially problematic, and which I have not found a good source directly addressing.

         • Yes, that’s right Jafin. Innocent III did indeed teach this about the Mysterium Fidei. It signifies the Priest’s and/or the Church’s Faith in transubstiantiation. St Thomas Aquinas also said that the entire long form of the chalice is essential for validity, which includes the Mysterium Fidei. Pius V taught in the De Defectibus that this entire form must be used at Mass, “otherwise the Sacrament does not take place”. We haven’t even touched the “for you and for all men” that was used for 45 years prior to 2011. This is a huge issue. I think I once recommended Patrick Henry Omlor’s material, in which he makes a compelling case for this change being invalid. He raised this issue back in 1968 and it was never satisfactorily refuted.

           The Mysterium Fidei was removed from the Novus consecration of the Chalice, and now refers to a future or past event in the four acclamations. “Christ will come again” “When we eat this bread” and the others. It no longer refers to transubstiantion.

           Further, it makes the Form become an historical narrative, and not the Priest acting in persona Christi right there and then as a consecratory formula. Sacramental theologians teach that if the words of consecration are spoken as a narrative, the sacrament does not take place. I can provide quotes later.

           The removal of the Offertory is one of the biggest blows against the Novus Ordo, because it changes the context of the words of the consecration. It gives the impetus to the following part of the new rite to become a narrative.

         • I have found TLM priests who are infected with Modernism and fail to preach the gospel correctly and with authority. Most of them have cleansed their speech from traditional Catholic terms such as “mortal sin, Heaven,
           Hell, reparation, propiation ” etc. and we never, ever hear about “transubstantiation”. They also follow that awful practice of beginning a
           sermon with secular references to supposedly get our attention.

         • That’s very bad, and its a shame to hear that.

           But….if they are validly ordained, then the Mass is certainly valid when they use the traditional Roman Rite.

           That’s really all there is to it.

         • Are the ordinations valid? just asking, because there are so many changes to baptism, exorcism, etc.

         • Novus Ordo Baptism is completely valid, because even though the rite is slightly different, it does not take away from the Church’s teaching. It doesn’t cause a defect of intention in the minister.

           Now, this next thing is something that has caused me a lot of distress and upset. I don’t know if the new rites of Holy Orders that Paul VI made up in 1968 are valid or not. The reason is because of Leo XIII’s Apostolicae Curae, which declares the Anglican rites of “orders” completely invalid, can be applied to the Novus Ordo rite of holy orders, both to the Priesthood and the Episcopacy. The exact, same pattern of deletion that the Anglicans did to the rite of Holy Orders in which they suppressed all mention of the sacrificing Priesthood were deleted from the Novus rite as well. So, we will have to wait for the Church to make a final decision, but for now, in the current turmoil, it doesn’t look good as far as I can see.

           I know its not possible for everyone, but I go to the SSPX, mainly because they have preserved all the traditional rites of holy orders, so I am certain their Sacraments are good. I don’t have that certainty with the novel rites of 1968. Like the NOvus Ordo Mass, I don’t make a hard call either way. I simply say, I don’t know if they’re valid or not.

           If we stay with Tradition, we can be sure we are safe. If we adopt novelties we take risks.

         • “The same pattern of deletion that the Anglicans did to the rite of Holy Orders ,in which they suppressed all mention of the sacrificing Priesthood, were deleted from the Novus Ordo ordination rite as well.”

           The Protestant ‘observers’ at Vatican II were very influential in the writing of the NO. Can there be any doubt the NO rite of ordination came from them as a way to legitimize their own rite of ordination?

         • Why else would they change the rites of Holy Orders, which Pius XII specifically laid down and defined as recently as 1947 in Sacramentum Ordinis?

         • None whatsoever.

           As Dr. Smith, one Lutheran member of the Consilium (the body headed by Bugnini to create the new rite) publicly boasted, “We have finished the work that Martin Luther began”.

         • Ooh…that’s scary.

           Save Your people, O Lord, and bless Your inheritance. Grant victory to Your Church over enemies, and protect Your people by Your Cross.

           Troparion of the Holy Cross, Tone 1 (used almost every Friday as well as the four feasts of the Holy Cross)

         • SSPX are outside the Church of Rome and the tell-tell sign of protest-ant sects are when they splinter-ff into other sects..i.e. ‘The Resistance’..they’ll NEVER be happy no matter what and 50 years from now, there will still be a ‘resistance’.

           Church Militant/Michael Voris calls it correctly.

           It doesn’t matter how irregular their situation is..they are in protest of the Church’s authority and judgment concerning Vatican II.

         • You’re welcome to the revolution against the Church and the new mass. Abandon tradition and adopt novelty. Go right ahead. Keep listening to Michael Voris. You’ve made him your authority by your own private judgement.

         • I attend the TLM so…. and so does everyone at Church Militant. That USED to be good enough for being a traditionalist. But since more and more Catholics have access to it, you basement dwellers have started hating and making new rules for what constitutes being a ‘traditionalist’.

           And from your posts above and below or wherever you’ve TOTALLY made yourself your own private authority. If you had any sense of humility and allegiance to Rome you’d be FSSP..not SSPX.

           Once again another grumpy rad-trad from the schismatic SSPX like all other sects outside of Rome think THEIR little group is Jesus’ favorite and the best.

           Don’t worry Mikey, soon your our favorite Pope (sarcasm) will normalize you guys and you won’t be special anymore, lol..

         • I said to someone else, that I didn;t pick this fight. I didn;t launch an all out attack upon the Church. I’m a nobody, like you.

           Why should I accept an FSSP priest who, even though he is ordained in the old rite and probably means well, the Bishop who ordained him was consecrated in the new rite, which contradicts Sacramentum Ordinis, without any explanation or reference to it.

           St Paul says to “hold fast to tradition”. No one can bind me to accept a new rite, especially a new rite of Holy Orders.

           I didn’t ask for this situation. Wolves have attacked the Church. The Shepherds (or hirelings) have run away in fear. I am responding as a sheep, a member of the laity. Don’t try to put me in the role of the aggressor. Thet bluff won’t hold. I am acting in self defence.

         • So, the mask slips, you show yourself and the insults start. Just a vomiter of Voris-isms. But no engagement with the arguments made here on this thread.

         • Calm down or get it. Your tone isn’t appropriate for this combox.

         • Calm down or get out. Your tone isn’t appropriate for this combox.

         • I did..that was from last night. Me and Mike are ok. Thanks for checking in : )

         • “[The SSPX] are in protest of the Church’s authority and judgment concerning Vatican II.”

           And they’re right. The Declaration on Religious Liberty is in opposition to settled doctrine and is heresy. It is Vatican II which is outside the Church of Rome. Voris talks too much and knows too little.

         • Cowardly sycophants cling to the biggest power they can see. They don’t care what faith it professes. Unfortunatlely for them, the hierarchical authority is underwritten by the unity of the Faith as the foundation.

           This might work in a Communist dictatorship, who erases the past (creating a pseudo-foundation for their power) and re-writes it to suit their agenda, but it doesn’t work in the Church. The Church rests upon the visible foundation of the Faith first, and only then the authority of the heirarchy upon which it is built. Nick has it backwards, and doesn’t understand the Divine constitution of the Chuch. He doesn’t read the previous Councils which taught this, and MV hasn’t made a video about it.

           The current power block in Rome has no visible unity of the Catholic Faith as its foundation, so it is an artificial edifice stading upon nothing at all. Without the foundation of Faith, there is no Divine authority as the edifice. That’s how the Church works.

         • Catholics don’t align themselves with one voice above others. You end up in a personality cult if you do. Read pre Vatican II encyclicals, Councils and approved theologians. Read widely. Ask hard questions.

           The answer to the crisis is more complex than just listening to Michael Voris, who has his own deep scars from the past that he is dealing with.

         • Alright, I get it..Michael Voris clearly believes you guys to be schismatic while still being a devout TLM Catholic and it bothers you that I side with him, oh well.

         • It bothers me that you don’t understand the visible nature of the Church, but still proceed to accuse Catholics of schism.

           The Church has two visible bonds of unity.

           Firstly, the bond of Faith as the foundation. Catholics must profess the true Faith to be considered members of the Church. Unless this bond of Faith is present, the second bond cannot exist.

           The second bond is Social Charity, which rests upon the foundation of Faith. This is the peaceful union with all the members of the Mystical Body of Christ, and the submission to the lawful pastors of the Church.

           You propose an invisible Church, in which those who claim to be the pastors, but do not have the visible bond of Faith deserve the submission of the Faithful.

           Catholics do not submit to heretics. They don’t submit to the Anglican clergy for example, because the Anglicans do not profess the Faith.

           Go and do some reading!

         • I didn’t propose anything Mike and you’ve completely circumvented my very rational point about the SSPX protesting Rome, questioning her judgement and authority and directly disobeying the Holy Father then Pope John Paul II when three bishops were consecrated.

         • Four, not three. You get even basic facts like these wrong.

         • Oh, I was off by one so that means consecrating bishops without papal approval is ok..good grief give me a break.

         • No, give us a break from your regurgitation of Michael Voris’ latest videos and your obvious ignorance. You have let slip the mask Nick. I’ve nothing further to say to you.

         • It shows that you don’t even have a basic handle on the issues that you militantly oppose. You have not much reading for yourself. A Michael Voris video gets you all fired up, but you don’t appear to know what you’re talking about.

           You are a fairly recent convert, so you are still on the learning curve on how to be Catholic. There’s nothing wrong with being a recent convert. That’s actually really great to hear. But Catholics don’t just latch on to one personality, even though he speaks clearly and boldly on issues. Evangelicals latch on to their favourite preacher, because that’s all they’ve got. We learn meekness and humility in imitation of Our Lord. I am not claiming any moral superiority here. This is the goal, and I’m a work in progress too.

           We ground ourselves on, and align ourselves with Tradition. That’s the sure path. That’s the safe way. The world is a minefield.

           By adhering to what our forefathers in the Faith handed on to us, and handing it on to the next intact, we keep the Faith. We don’t accept, approve, defend or adopt any novelty. Never.

           I hope this helps.

         • Amen. Thank you Mike : )

         • I’m very happy you came by here Nick. The Church Militant commbox is more heavily editied and regulated than Stalinist Russia.

           You don’t get to hear any ideas hashed out there. Nothing is challenged, and if anyone dares put a foot wrong, they are immediately blocked and deleted. So they creat this bubble where everyone is on the one page, and one gets the impression that this is the only way to understand things.

           Mr Skojec and the mods here will allow a much wider discussion, which is what Catholics are looking for as this terrible crisis rages on and souls fall into hell.

         • Hi Mike, please forgive my 37 year old convert hotheadedness from last night. Could you please read the info at the link provided and tell me, if so, why it’s wrong about Quo Primum? As a convert from atheism, 9 years strong now, I’m only 6 months into becoming a more traditionalist-minded Catholic, and I keep up with The Remnant, CM, 1P5, Lifesite, Regina Magazine, and a few others for my Catholic news. In my many debates with Protestants as a new convert, Church and especially papal authority were important for to anchor my faith and arguments to. So forgive me for being very confused about what the truth is concerning almost anything anymore in the Church especially within traditional circles where allegiances are tight and everyone is SURE they’re right and the others wrong. As a convert, what Michael Voris says about the SSPX makes sense to me as I understand it, because one of the most important things I learned as a new Catholic was to be loyal and obedient to Rome, not because I want to believe him (MV). I heavily sympathize with the SSPX, but I believe the FSSP exist for a reason and that was certain members of the SSPX left because the consecration of bishops, regardless of how necessary, was done without permission. I really don’t want to defend the Novus Ordo..believe me. I’m just trying to be a good son of the Church and know how to discern or know when something the Church produces from papal mandate or authority or whatever is to be followed obediently or at least accepted and when it isn’t. Do we not have to ever carry the cross and stay faithfully silent and obedient or do we in fact have a mandate to rebuke, rebel and resist? Or is there grace to be found in both? If the entire Mass outside of the words of consecration are man-made and thus subject to change and edit via Church and papal authority, and if there are other liturgies around the world that are nothing like the TLM or NO and are still valid and licit, then how can one still question the legitimacy of the NO Mass? We know it sucks because of the abuse to it but for millions of Catholics, they attend it with the intent of receiving our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament. How do we square that while remaining charitable to their sacramental and spiritual needs as faithful Catholics? Thanks : )

           http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/QUOPIUS.HTM

         • I’ll get back to you!

         • Jafin has made a new comment above. Take a read of that. I have given Mike’s comments much thought. It was interesting to read what Jafin had to say.

           There is lots to learn, about so many things. Keep to this, ‘I’m just trying to be a good son of the Church’.

           I’m a convert from atheism too. I was going to ask if you were a convert. We have much to learn and time moves fast. Particularly as parents. I hope you might take a look at the links I gave you above.

           I’d like to give you another couple of links:
           http://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2015/12/christmas-gift-ideas-from-nlm-authors.html#.WTMwzFJL2Rs (This post has many links of interest from books for children to books on the liturgy. Do take a look!)
           https://catholicconferences.bandcamp.com/album/forming-catholic-children-frs-beck-themann-sspx
           https://www.amazon.com/Divine-Intimacy-Father-Gabriel-Magdalen/dp/1905574436/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1478937850&sr=1-1&keywords=divine+intimacy

           And, in your reading and research, place first a life of prayer.

           God bless you and your family!

         • Thank you Sharyn! : )

         • I formally stand corrected. My apologies. .

           https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2017/05/for-record-rome-has-given-sspx-right-to.html?m=1

         • helps me too!

         • Four bishops. Fellay, Williamson, de Gallaretta and Tissier de Mallerais. You don’t even seem to know the basics. Go and do some homework.

           Like The Great Stalin said, there is enough information in this thread alone to give you a huge insight into the reasons why the SSPX and others rightly resist the Novus Ordo and a host of other modern errors and contradictions.

         • Oh jeez, I’m off by one so that makes consecrating bishops without papal approval ok..good grief give me a break.

           I did do some homework..turns out Quo Primum doesn’t mean jack up against papal authority..duh.

           Outside the words of consecration taken directly from Sacred Scripture, the rest of the Mass, regardless of form is man-made.

           I’m not trying to defend the Novus Ordo so much as I am trying to get you to have more charity, sympathy, empathy, whatever and acknowledge that good fruit has come from the laity of the Novus Ordo, that the facts of the tradition you rightly defend aren’t exactly what you think they are perhaps, and that the culture around and within the Church shares much of the blame. don’t forget, the plans to change the Mass took place while the TLM was going on everywhere. You don’t blame the gun you blame the shooter. Imagine a Latin low-Mass with the NO readings in the vernacular, perhaps chanted, vernacular responsorial psalms in the vernacular, the Mass of the faithful with fewer prayers but still in Latin, no female altar servers, everyone still kneels at the rail for Communion, and that’s pretty much what Vatican II had in mind for better or for worse.

           What if the Mass never changed but society still did? What a scandal that would be. A Latin Mass with scandal and corruption abounding. Some of the priests who sexually abused children were Latin Mass priests from the 50’s and 60’s.

           You’re lucky to have a scapegoat in the form of Vatican II and the Novus Ordo. Satan was going to have his way either way according to Leo XIII.

           http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/QUOPIUS.HTM

         • My issue is not with the laity. I think you are mistaken in that you think (or have been conditioned to think) that because I point out the horrible defects of the novelties, that I’m the bad guy, that I’m the aggressor. I’m not. I’m a nobody, like you and all the laity.

           What if all the thing s you said happened. I don’t know. What if??

           What has happened is that the Church has been attacked on a diabolical scale that has no precedent in history.

           The laity are the victims of this. We did not start it, but we have to recoignise the situation and get to safety. For me, the best way I can figure that out is with the SSPX. With you, it’s the FSSP, for others, a nice Novus Ordo.

           Stop trying to pin this crisis on my head. One more time: I didn’t start it, and it distresses me as much as it does you.

         • Ok, will do. Peace.

         • And to you!

         • Hi Nick, hope you don’t mind if I share a couple of links with you:

           http://reginaprophetarum.org/audio/20150104-What-Is-In-a-Name.mp3
           http://www.reginaprophetarum.org/#/missions/1

           God bless!

         • Nick, Voris never believed the SSPX were in schism until his site’s main financial backer insisted he take that line – and so he did. Voris has no integrity and is a complete fraud. I mentioned elsewhere that you are confused. Do some extra study as Mike suggests and you won’t find yourself writing this garbage.

         • prove it with source material.

         • Do the work yourself. You won’t, of course. You haven’t offered a single argument against the citations given even in this thread, so offering you others won’t help you.

         • http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/QUOPIUS.HTM

         • If you’re going to make an accusation against another Catholic at least back it up like a gentleman…comrade. Prove your accusation against Michael Voris please with real source material. Thank you.

         • The SSPX object only to the uncatholic things promulgated by Vatican II. The declaration on religious liberty is a novelty, as is its decrees on ecumenism. Read Mortalium Animos from a couple of decades before and reconcile the ecumenical effort. I’m sorry, but they’re more Catholic than the pope in a lot of this.

           Oh, and I’d like to note that not once have I ever even set foot in an SSPX chapel nor do I intend to until the situation is regularized. That said, they should be regularized tomorrow… with no conditions attached.

         • I reckon you should! There’s no sin in attending a Catholic rite of Mass, offered by Priests ordained in the Catholic Rite, by Bishops consecrated in the Catholic rite. They have kept traditon in all it’s integrity. The FSSP does have a break in their lineage unfortunately, due to the ordaining Bishops being consecrated in the Novus Ordo. No one can bind you to anything less than all the rites of the Sacraments as they have been handed down. The Church doesn’t ever demand this of her children.

           After Leo XIII published the Bull Apostolicae Curae, which declared the Anglican Orders completely invalid, the Catholic Bishops of England wrote the “Vindication of the Bull, Apostolicae Curae”

           Probably the most important point they made, in regards to changing the rites of sacraments was the following. Mark it well in your mind:

           “In adhering rigidly to the rite handed down to us, we can always feel secure; whereas, if we omit or change anything, we may perhaps be abandoning just that element which is essential. And this sound method is that which the Catholic Church has always followed.”

           This is why the SSPX are the safer place to take refuge. They have “adhered rigidly to the rite handed down”.

           The men who claim that you cannot go there are the very ones who dabble in novelty – both sacraments and in theology, and teach all kinds of heresy. We don’t listen to them when they “teach”, because we will lose the Faith, so why give a hoot when they tell you where you can go for Mass and sacraments? They cannot deprive you, by any ecclesial or Divine law from all the goods of the Church in their integrity.

         • So, you keep making this broad statement that essentially amounts to “Now, I’m not totally sure, but I’m pretty sure, and by pretty sure I mean I’m totally sure that Novus Ordo ordinations aren’t valid.”

           There are a plenitude of faults in your arguments. I’ve allowed this discussion to go on for awhile to discuss the issue, but you’re closely approaching assertions of heterodox positions (specifically sedevacantism) which is clearly against our comment policy and exists for the good of souls. Go take a look at it (under the About tab at the top of all pages at 1P5.)

           Now to the substance of your arguments. You seem to base it primarily on Pope Leo XIII’s bull regarding the invalidity of Anglican Orders. You seem to be unaware that the new form of consecration is fundamentally the same (with minor differences between all of these) as the Rite of Consecration of the CATHOLIC Coptic and Maronite rites used from time immemorial. If that form is invalid then St. Jerome, St. Athanasius, St. John Chrysostom, and St. Justin Martyr are all pious lay people. This particular form can be dated around the early to mid 3rd century, with the Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus also called the Diataxis of the Holy Apostles.

           For more information on this, I recommend you check this article from the SSPX: http://archives.sspx.org/miscellaneous/sedevacantism/validity_of_episcopal_consecrations.pdf
           Defect of matter and intention are also dealt with in the article. The author does leave open the possibility that some episcopal consecrations and priestly ordinations could be invalid because of intention or serious deviation from the promulgated text but, as you have mentioned before, Pope Leo XIII has said that we can know this by means of the external form.

           In addition to what this would mean for these Eastern Rites, the stunning lack of true bishops would mean that, for all intents and purposes, the hierarchy of the Church would have ceased to exist. Sure, there are the bishops of the Eastern Rites,(your premise calls at least some of those into question as already stated) and there are some bishops ordained in the Traditional Roman Rite, but all of those bishops are in their 80’s or 90’s or even older, and no longer possess jurisdiction (all are retired and none are in the Curia.) As such, the visible hierarchy is gone. In addition, this means that the pope was never validly consecrated, even if his priestly ordination was valid, and therefore cannot be bishop of Rome and consequently pope. You can’t even hide behind the idea of Benedict still being pope because he would have only ever been ordained a priest. This means that, at the very best, the last pope died on April 2nd, 2005… if you even hold that he was pope. This means that the church has lost its visibility and Christ lied when he said “the gates of hell shall not prevail against the Church.” Because what other than the diabolical could cause such massive confusion and such destruction of the Church? The Church would have lost the power of governance, of teaching, of sanctifying… all things that a bishop does. This is opposed to Our Lord’s solemn promise to us. That makes Him untrustworthy. And if He is untrustworthy then he is not Our Savior, and if he’s not our savior then Christianity is a lie. That is where sedevacantism leaves us.

           And what you are preaching IS sedevacantism, albeit under a veneer of civility and intellectual inquiry. Sedevacantism is a schismatic ideology founded upon various heresies, primarily ultramontanism. As a Catholic publication of faithful, orthodox, traditional Catholics, we can’t allow such to be asserted or otherwise advocated for. We allow discussion of these topics because right now is a very confusing time in the Church, but you’ve gone beyond that.

           So… I’m not going to ban you, yet. But I can’t allow this sort of discussion to continue. As of June 3rd, 2017 at 3:13PM, if I see more advocacy of sedevacantism or those principles leading to it from you, you will no longer be welcome here at 1P5. I cannot in good conscience allow souls to be led astray into despair. I hope you understand, but don’t care if you don’t.

           All that said… thanks for at least being civil.

         • Ok. Not a problem.
           Regardless of the explanation for the crisis, the novel changes are bad, so I’ll avoid all of them.
           However, the Mystical Body has and is being attacked, so the nature and source of this attack needs to be talked about.
           Regarding ultramontanism, it’s a broad brush. It is the correct response to Gallicanism, which is a heresy regarding the papacy being like an optional extra. Ultramontanism asserts the worldwide authority of the pope.
           I can understand why a Gallican and anti-ultramontane view has come back since Vatican II!

         • Something I forget to add in my previous post… I’m not saying the new rite and using classical rites from Eastern antiquity was a good idea… it destroys the Western Liturgical tradition, it eliminates one lung of the Church (interesting to note with he who sits on the papal throne missing a lung.) So, yes, the novel changes ARE bad. We agree there.

           Regarding ultramontanism… historically, yes, it’s been a good thing and is the Catholic understanding. It led to the doctrine of papal infallibility among other things. However, there’s an extreme ultramontanism that exists today, derived I believe from a misunderstanding of Vatican I, that says that the pope is not only infallible, but impeccable, at least are regards his orthodoxy. And sedevacantism, generally speaking, assumes that the popes since 1958 aren’t real popes because they’re clearly heretics and popes can’t be heretics… which is not the teaching of the church, definitively, and comes from the ultramontane idea that popes are infallible in all word and thought.

           And I am no Gallican. Not by any stretch of the imagination. I tentatively hold that the best form of governance is a Catholic confessional monarchy… though other forms of Catholic confessional states are good too.

         • I think it is certain that heretics are not Catholics.

           Regarding Catholic confessional state, which Francis thinks are a bad idea, there is an interesting thing.

           After the Council, Paul VI sent Cardinal Billot around to the remaining countries that were still Catholic confessional states, and made them alter their constitutions to get rid of their official recognition of Our Lord Jesus Christ as King. (Sorry, I meant Blessed Paul VI)

         • I don’t know how far I can go with this. The new rite of episcopal consecration is synthetic. The form is not identical to eastern rites. It has bits and pieces from here and there. Some new, some old. Some from the installation ceremonies of metropolitans, which is not a sacrament. It doesn’t meet the criteria that Pius XII said the form had to have, ie the unequivocal mention of both the grace of the Holy Ghost, and the power of the Order. I don’t get why it’s so bad to point this out.
           “In adhering rigidly to the rite handed down to us, we can always feel secure; whereas, if we omit or change anything, we may perhaps be abandoning just that element which is essential. And this sound method is that which the Catholic Church has always followed.” – English Catholic Bishops’ Vindication of the Bull, Apostolicae Curae.

           This sound method, always followed by the Church was abandoned in 1968. That is an undeniable fact.

         • You can’t go any farther than this, and if this was posted anywhere other than in reply to me, it would be too far. Sorry, but as a mod I have to draw a line.

           Look at the article I posted. Look at the comparisons, side by side toward the end, of the 1968, Hippolytus, Coptic, and Maronite rites. The form (while changed from Roman tradition) and matter are still wholly valid or, as I said, the Eastern rites do not have Apostolic Succession… or even priests, and haven’t for at least 1700 years.

           You’re basing your findings on 2 very specific sources. Pius XII was clearly not talking about the Eastern rites. Introducing an Eastern form into the Roman Rite, while completely, utterly, mind-numbingly stupid, gets around Pius XII’s Sacramentum Ordinis. As regards Apostolicae Curae, well, here’s a quote:

           But the words which until
           recently were commonly held by Anglicans to constitute
           the proper form of priestly Ordination–namely, “Receive the
           Holy Ghost,” certainly do not in the least definitely express
           the Sacred Order of Priesthood, or its grace and power….
           This form had indeed afterwards added to it the words “for
           the office and work of a priest,” etc.;–but this rather shows
           that the Anglicans themselves perceived the first form was
           defective and inadequate. But even if this addition could
           give to the form its due signification, it was introduced too
           late, as a century had already elapsed since the adoption of
           the Edwardine Ordinal, for, as the hierarchy had become
           extinct, there remained no power of ordaining.

           He shies away from saying it explicitly, but, as I read it, he seems to indicate that the existing form could be valid because it contains the necessary theology.

           This sound method, always followed by the Church was abandoned in 1968. That is an undeniable fact.
           We agree here.

         • Right Jafin.

           Leo also goes on to say that even if the “corrected” form that the Anglicans re-inserted would hypothetically be valid in a Catholic rite, the surrounding ceremonies of the rite still do not affirm Catholic doctrine, and so there is a defect of intention, even when that “better Anglican form was used.

           So on one hand they cut the “pipeline” and had invalid ordinations for a century; on the other hand, even when they made a form which could hypothetically be valid if it were in a Catholic rite, the Anglican rite itself is still sacramentally invalid because of the defective intention the minister using that rite.

         • All true.

         • In this world, one can be betrayed by many things. The government. The boss. A spouse. A neighbour. A family. A business partner.

           For Catholics, there is one thing we can be certain will never betray us. That’s the Church.

           Articles published on a daily basis highlighting the state of the Vatican causes people to despair too, because by the story appears that it is the Church herself who is betraying her own children. When all else fails, we have the Church. If she too turns out to be just another traitor, what else can one do but despair?

           I would sincerely like to know your thoughts.

         • Must not despair – the devil wants that; his tools = confusion, fear, etc.
           True Holy Mother Church, the Bride of Christ, never poisons her children.
           ANY thing or person having the outward appearance of being of the Church, but is being used for poison, IS being used for that purpose by Satan. Its simple.

         • I did briefly think at one time that despair was the only answer, but I got off that train.

         • Good, Mike! (Me too)

         • There’s a distinction that I think most people are able to make between the Church and some (or most) of the men who are in charge. What’s worse? That the Church has a large of traitors in her ranks, or that She’s been slain by the devil? One fulfills biblical prophecy (ravenous wolves will come in among you), and runs in the face of the words of Our Very Lord. The truth is there ARE wolves among us. There’s no harm in reporting that truth. But to declare there are almost no real bishops left (which you either have accepted or are on the verge of accepting yourself) and certainly very, VERY few with any jurisdiction… and to let that go uncontested… well… that’s another matter entirely.

         • Wolves are heretics. Heretics lose their jurisdiction. There is no harm in reporting that either, provided it’s true. Would you agree?

         • Even the intellect must wait on God. In the darkness of the night things can seem not to fit, but in the dawn clarity.

           Do not despair! When you see no way forward accept your limitations knowing you are but weak man. Lean closer and closer on God in prayer. Run to the feet of your Mother! A Catholic is not afraid to be a child.

           The Church will never, can never betray us or poison us! The night is not yet at it’s darkest. There is a long way to go. Pray for faith, hope, and charity. Seek the face of God!

           God bless you Mike! Will pray for you!

         • I’m with you, Jafin. My bishop is one of the Pope’s ‘yes’ men. If he ever allowed an SSPX presence in the archdiocese I’d be there in a heartbeat.

         • If the rumors are true about the possible Personal Prelature that’s being pondered, word is that the SSPX would not need the permission of the local ordinary to establish a presence.

         • Who do I bribe? 🙂

         • Probably the pope.

           Ask George Soros to donate to the cause. =P

         • You might like the chapter ‘The Restoration of Tradition’ in historian H. Sire’s “Phoenix From the Ashes;” I found it an intelligent & comprehensive explanation of the much maligned SSPX, & why/how things happened as they did. Other excellent chapters as well. (“the Destruction of the Priesthood,” “the Age of False Reason” etc.

         • Why would you consider the baptismal rite valid when there is no mention of original sin ? Isn’t it all about being cleansed from original sin and being
           born into the life of Christ…sanctifying grace. Now it is all about membership in the Church.
           It’s not for us to determine validity….so I assume validity….for the NO
           also…..even though it’s not Catholic enough for me either.

         • Several reasons.

           There’s no denial of Original Sin.

           Membership in the Church is one of the results of Baptism.

           There are readings from the scriptures that show the prefigurement of Baptism, as well as the reading from John 3 where Our Lord declares the absolute necessity of Baptism for all, which states clearly that it is necessary for Eternal Life.

           The exact ancient form “I baptise thee…” is given specifically by Our Lord, so it’s practically impossible to mess up.

           Also, the Church recognises the Baptisms of all protestant sects as long as they use the proper form and matter in their rites; even though they have a different understanding of Baptism and its effects, they have the intention to do what the Church does in this Sacrament simply by performing it properly. That is the Church’s mind on the issue for the Sacrament of Baptism, because the Form is given specifically by Christ.

         • Good reasons….I just wanted to know your thoughts. As I said I opt
           for validity because it’s not for me to decide these things …even for
           the disaster out NO .
           I suppose it’s inconsistent not to accept Bergoglio as pope except for
           the fact that Benedict did not fully abdicate.
           .

         • The Novus Ordo is more complex unfortunately.

           Re Benedict vs Bergoglio, I don’t think it matters at this stage…

         • No thanks!

           The Church Fathers too say exactly what Scripture tells us: flee those who would give you innovations, have nothing to do with them, do not follow them.

           This is indeed a Divine Command. Ignored by all Novus Ordo-ites.

         • Sorry, Mike ….I deleted those comments because I do not wish to criticize
           TLM priests. Let’s face it, we may all be slightly infected by Modernism.

         • You just want to feel special that’s all Mike. You should feel bad for those who have no choice but to attend a Novus Ordo parish and pray for them. Not suggest they’re not even receiving Holy Eucharist like they’re attending a Presbyterian church or something. Good grief…if baptism can be given and received so loosey goosey then yes, the Novus Ordo can be both valid and licit..while still being inferior to the TLM. …I can baptise my own children at birth, but that way according to the Church would be an inferior means of doing it compared to having them baptized at a church by a priest.

         • Yeah, that’s it. I want to be special. I want the same religion and Sacraments that everyone else in the Church received since Pentecost.

           You adopt novelties, and abandon tradition, contrary to St Paul’s command that we hold fast. Jump on to the unprecedented novelties which were introduced for the special needs of “modern man” in the 1960’s, and this proves that you don’t think you’re special.

         • I attend the TLM and love it.

           You’ve excommunicated yourself in your heart because through pride, you question the authority and judgment of Rome and the Papacy.

           God Bless those who’ve carried the Cross of Vatican II and the subsequent culture around it and have fought the good fight..and didn’t run away in protest.

         • If it was not for the “evil” +Lefebvre, those whom you think are the Church of Rome would have extinguished the TLM that you claim to love 45 years ago.

           So how about you think on that for a minute?

           They couldn’t kill it, so when they didn’t get their way, the set up their own controlled oppositon, using men who were bought and sold. They accepted the evil novelties for the price of a few bells and smells.

         • Umm, proof?

           …don’t hate on the FSSP bro, be nice.

         • Check out the history back to 1988. It was a compromise from the beginning. There are good men in the FSSP who are appalled at the Novus Ordo and think it’s a danger, yes a danger to one’s soul, but they are not allowed to warn the faithful, lest they be suspended. I know many of them who privately say this, but are silent in the pulpit.

           A friendlyt tip: Don’t assume anything about where I’ve been and who I know and what I’ve heard first hand…

         • Your little slip is showing. You’re supposed to attend the Holy Sacrifice of Mass because you love God, not because you love it. I’ve said this before about the SSPX: if you don’t have a master’s in church history, or have thoroughly studied the writings of one, withhold comment, because the Fox- news version of SSPX history is full of error.

         • …right..and I love the TLM more than the NO because of its overt love, worship and love for Christ Crucified. Please don’t try to test me or imply something I didn’t say. To even suggest that I don’t love God is absurd and rude. But to use your own point though..why fuss about the Latin Mass then..why not just go to the Novus Ordo if it’s about God and not what you like or prefer?

         • The point of the comments is to discuss, even debate, not long attacks with this sort of holier-than-thou attitude. When it comes down to it, I probably fundamentally agree more with you than I do with Mike, but he’s at least respectful. You’re just being an ass (pardon the language.) Chill out.

         • Like I said, its not a matter of taste. The NO is fake & heretical; the TLM is the Mass.
           No ‘fuss’ .

         • I understand how you feel. But I’m trying to come from a place of charity toward those millions of Catholics out there who know no other form of Mass or have no other access to other forms of Mass. They are trying to be obedient and devout Catholics and attend Mass every weekend and receive our Lord in Holy Communion. To suggest the only Catholics receiving real Holy Communion are TLM Catholics is scandalous. …Are those who attend the Divine Liturgy not receiving the Lord as well? Is the Divine Liturgy fake AND heretical?

         • Keep in mind that it wasn’t “the Church” that gave us the NO. But rather, men who hated the Church.

         • So it might has well have come from the Anglican “bishops” or something.

         • It ultimately came from the Mason, Anabale Bugnini.

         • I am in the process of understanding this non trivial question now, but did the church actually promulgate the Novus Ordo in the necessary way? Seems like a silly question and I am searching for the counter argument, but according to Fr. Kramer, Paul VI did not promulgate the new missal with his apostolic constitution. All that was done was approving the formula of the consecration for the new mass. According to Fr, this created a large controversy at the time because promulgation usually mentioned who is impacted, by what dates, and are in general very specific. Given the controversy that ensued upon release of the Apostolic Constitution (for the named reasons and claiming that it was non binding because of the insufficient promulgation) the Congragation for Sacred Liturgy intervened and made the official promulgation with the necessary formula. However, Fr’s claim was that CSL promulgation does not overrule Pius V in Quo Primum because only a pontiff could release the faithful from it, not a cardinal or archbishop prelate. Has anyone studied this? Any thoughts or articles that discuss?

         • It’s a two edged sword.

           If he didn’t promulgate it, then we don’t know if it’s safe or valid.

           If he did, and it is an evil rite (in that it lacks a due good – the affirmation of the Catholic Faith) which has caused millions to lose their faith and go to apostasy and damnation, then what does that say about his Papacy? Could a Pope, the Vicar of Christ, give such a deadly poison to the Church and the faithful?

           So on the first point, it has to be avoided, because it is not approved by Heaven, and on the second point, it has to be avoided because it would mean that Paul VI was not the Pope, and we don’t go to rites made up by non-popes. It is such a huge issue. Either way, I don’t see how Catholics who have studied these issues can attend it.

           We live in an extraordinary time of history!

         • “If he did, and it is an evil rite (in that it lacks a due good – the
           affirmation of the Catholic Faith) which has caused millions to lose
           their faith and go to apostasy and damnation, then what does that say
           about his Papacy? Could a Pope, the Vicar of Christ, give such a deadly
           poison to the Church and the faithful?”

           Aaaand there ya go..you’re a closet Sedevecantist. Awesome.

           Funny, you’re a SSPX follower but it was Pope St. Pius X who both introduced MORE participation from the laity by way of singing at Mass and re-introduced the modern ultramontanism we have today with regards to the papacy. No wonder you think it’s just SO IMPOSSIBLE for a pope (who’s also a real human being) to make such a decision.

           The pope is not a man-god or demi-god. He’s just a guy who became a priest, then a bishop and one day by the grace of the Holy Spirit and a few extra votes, found himself Supreme Pontiff.

           God willing, Cardinal Sarah will the next Holy Father and begin to fix a lot of this madness.

         • I want the crisis to end as much as you do. The Church is shattered into a million pieces. It’s distressing in the extreme. I’m not claiming sedevacantism above, I’m laying out both possibilities, not taking sides.

         • Are you hunting down my posts?

         • This has been my point in thinking as well. As a convert to the Church from atheism, the authority invested in the Church and especially with the Chair and Keys of St. Peter which I would invoke when debating protestants, seems to be irrelevant to many traditionalists (in which I would pretty much describe myself to a large degree..maybe a neo-trad), who insist that one pope can’t undo what another pope has done. But that same authority is explicitly mentioned in Sacred Scripture as being able to be both binned and loosened by Peter’s divine authority.

           The truth is, MANY holy vocations have come from those who’ve attended the Novus Ordo growing up and my wife is a very devout orthodox-conservative Catholic who grew up in the Novus Ordo Mass. I know of two myself.

           It’s the devout home-life of Catholic children that will lead to vocations, not just one hour a week at Holy Mass, regardless of what form.

           I also know of many homes-chooled Novus Ordo families that have produced vocations. It’s not just TLM families.

           Has the Novus Ordo and the culture around done more harm than good? YES! Has God pulled a greater good from this mess where for every one Catholic who enters the Church six leave..YES. Do many traditionalists use this theory invalidly just as many neo-Catholics use the St. Justin Martyr story to justify the Novus Ordo? Yes.

           The Novus Ordo WILL evolve into a more reverent Mass I assure you. We’ve hit a boiling point where every Catholic publication worth its salt is point out the problems since Vatican II. As a hundred years of Satan’s reign since Pope Leo XIII slowly wear off and we enter into a hundred years of Fatima, tides will begin turning for the better, which from the outside will look horrible because a great many will leave the Church when a strongly conservative pope takes over. The world will once again hate the Church but we will rejoice. Right now the world loves us because of Pope Francis and we suffer with our Cross.

         • You are a “neo-Trad” (what’s one of them?).
           Your wife is a “orthodox-conservative Catholic”.

           We just have Catholics here mate.

         • Lol.. Oh I agree Comrade. But as I’ve come to learn, people like to operate with labels these days. When I became more traditional in my Catholicism, I was surprised to learn that many trads don’t like or believe in the Divine Mercy devotion, the story behind it, and St. Faustina’s credibility and subsequent canonization. Same goes for JPII and the Luminous Mysteries, etc, etc.. there’s so many sub-cultures and groups under the banner ‘traditionalist’ I just thought I’d coin the term ‘neo-trad’ ; ) ….I’ve also come to learn that there’s a BIG difference between being ‘conservative’ and ‘traditional’ apparently. I literally had a SSPX guy tell me Cardinal Burke is either a orthodox liberal or a coward, lol.. So my wife, who’s with out a doubt closer to sainthood than myself, very devout and orthodox in her Catholicism, has grown up in and prefers the Novus Ordo so she technically can’t be a trad, so I call her a orthodox-conservative Catholic.

         • May I say it bluntly? If your wife prefers the Novus Ordo, your estimation of her as an “orthodox Catholic” is false. That doesn’t in any way impugn her intentions at all, nor her love of God. But you cannot be an orthodox Catholic and prefer an ecumenical – protestant rite that isn’t Catholic.

           I would estimate that 95% of Novus Ordo Church Catholics are not Catholic at all, either for that reason or for their acceptance and/or practice of any of the following: contraception, abortion, homosexual “marriage” and euthanasia.

         • Sorry but you’re wrong sir. She has no desire or experience with protestantism and cares none for ecumenism and there are many like her. What you’ve described is YOUR opinion and viewpoint from the outside looking in. Believe it or not, there are many many devout Catholics who’ve grown up in the Novus Ordo with wonderful experiences and don’t know or care about Anglicanism or protestantism etc, etc,. This is a common broad-brush fallacy that many trads proclaim. Not every Novus Ordo Mass is a clown Mass or something stupid..please compare your home parish to my part-time NO parish (St. Anthony of Padua in Wilmington, De)..nothing ecumenical there ; ) we also attend the only TLM in Delaware as well. We do our best in our small state to stay devout and raise our children devoutly.

           But if I may it bluntly as well..your opinion matters nil. You have no sacramental authority…you’re a guy in the comment section of a website.

           Your comments are what drive Novus Ordo Catholics away from coming to the TLM. Trust me..I hear this all the time..especially from women. People like you intimidate them..like they’re not good enough for you. So they stay at the Novus Ordo, carry the cross of perhaps dealing with a crappy liturgy, and carry on while trying not be judged by people like you.

         • Sure, you’re right about authority, but I am claiming none, so your comment is irrelevant. As to your final paragraph – it’s just blah blah. If you are not ready to come here to seriously read and learn (and I know that it does take some time to be ready for stronger meat than one will ever be used to with the Novus Ordo), it’s best to stay away until you are. That’s not a rejection, but good advice.

         • What does ANY of that mean? I think I just owned you and you have no real response.

           I’m a devout traditional Catholic family man in the real world, not hiding out in a SSPX chapel in someone’s basement. I know several priests and religious brothers and sisters who grew up in the Novus Ordo..the key to their formation was at home..not the form of the Mass. They went devoutly to Mass every week, but it was the devout family life at home which helped produce the good fruit. Plenty of people have come and gone prior to the Novus Ordo and not too many saints yet from that crowed bud.

           I love the TLM and that’s why we attend it. My wife prefers the Novus Ordo because of the multiple readings from Sacred Scripture and it being in English. She can also sing her ass off and so likes to sing at Mass, and so that’s why we also attend that as well. If you think that’s NOT Catholicism because it’s not Latin, then fine what ever. Call it the ‘Irishman’s Axe’ if you will. Catholicism in the 40’s and 50’s was an aboration and misleading..trouble was already brewing. Some Latin liturgies were merely ten minutes in length. How devout and reverent can Mass be at ten to fifteen minutes in length? But the Mass wasn’t always in Latin..and didn’t always look the way it does in the TLM. We didn’t always have the Rosary or the second part of the Hail Mary. We didn’t always have kneelers either…we borrowed that from the protestants after the revolt. Prior to Pius X most Catholics didn’t even receive Holy Communion but a handful of times at best throughout the year.

         • God bless you Nick. Don’t lose your peace.We will all laugh about this in Heaven.

         • “What does ANY of that mean? I think I just owned you and you have no real response.”

           Please do endure with that delusion if it makes you feel ok Matt!

           You’re confused – as things develop, I hope the remaining mists clear. You have enough material on this thread alone to judge the Novus Ordo correctly despite your family loyalties, which are touching of course.

         • This is one of the best threads I have ever participated in.

           It’s got it all!

         • Do stick around! I hope there’s much more to come.

         • I have to say you have the most reasoned argument regarding these issues. The Church needs more converts like you!

         • Thanks Kathy ; ) …I’m too traditional/rigid for the mainstream crowd and too middle-of-the-road or pragmatic for many traditionalists. I’m a new kind of superhero..the ‘neo-trad’ lol.. and sometimes I have too much of a sense of humor for either ; )

         • How can a rite which is basically a butchered-up, protestant joke on Catholics EVOLVE back into the TRUTH?
           I’m just not getting it. Why is everyone DETERMINED TO KEEP TRYING TO PRETEND the N.O. is a GOOD thing, even with knowledge of its origins, & CAN be, or even SHOULD be? “MADE” more reverent????? WHY???

         • Easy..it’s called, change it. lol.. Do you think the Apostles used the TLM to provide Mass when traveling? If I’m mistaken please correct me, but outside of the prayers of consecration taken from the Last Supper..isn’t the rest of the Mass man-made?

           http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/QUOPIUS.HTM

         • So are you saying the Novus Ordo is good or bad?

         • The Jews were God’s chosen, Christ was born amongst them, fulfilled the law, became the Lamb of God to take the place of the inadequate animal sacrifices, instituted the mass at the celebration of the Passover. Etc.

         • I’m not. It’s an evil thing, and I have no wish to defend it at all.

         • (I know – I didn’t meant you).

         • Just in case it wasn;t clear 😉

         • “The Novus Ordo WILL evolve into a more reverent Mass I assure you.”

           It’s tricky to predict exactly what will happen to a work of human hands.

           Good on you for stating your position in public!

     • If I understand Fr. Ripperger right, then “………..and it is minor, is that St. Pius V’s binding of Catholics can be undone
       by the exercise of the Keys of the Kingdom by his successors” — I dont think a newer Pope can “unbind” the ancient Mass which was codified by Pius V, and that was the reason for B16’s remark. I think the Pope’s ability to “loose” relates to disciplinary and not doctrinal matters. It’s really complicated and it’s an area I am trying to study more deeply because the way things are shaping up, understanding principles simply may help guide us as scattered as we all are.

       Reply

       • Paul VI never bound anyone – clergy or faithful – to his new mass. Pius V certainly did. That’s our safe guarantee. So without this binding, we don’t know if the new mass is approved by Heaven.

         Reply

       • Interesting. Quo Primum was doing nothing more than promulgating by this decree the principles concerning the unchangeability of the Sacred Liturgy laid down by the Council of Trent. I’ve heard many a discussion about Quo Primum as a document not being binding upon the Successors of Pius V; that’s a straw man: the content of the decree is what is binding.

         Reply

     • There is an interesting argument about the status and the force of law regarding the promulgation of the new rite. It is stated by Fr. Paul Kramer, in his book, “The Suicide of Altering the Faith in the Liturgy”, that Pope Paul’s VI Moto Proprio, Missale Romanum only published the new missal in 1969. That it was the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship that promulgated the use of the new missal in 1970. Therefore the argument considers that as Pope Paul VI did not abrogate the former infallible promulgation of Pope Pius V. And that a lesser dicastery than the pope in fact promulgated the use of Pope Paul’s published missal the former infallible decree still contains the force of law, because, it is said, in law a lower power cannot overturn the decrees of a higher power. This understanding may cast a doubt regarding the legitimacy of the Novus Ordo Mass. Its validity is not contested.
       The conclusion of the Moto Proprio does appear to give the force of law to certain changes but did not intend to receive a completely new fabricated rite. That came the year after.

       http://w2.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-vi_apc_19690403_missale-romanum.html

       Reply

       • This is VERY interesting… I’m going to have to look into this more.

         Reply

         • It is.

           I wonder if this is one of the things that prompted PVI’s “smoke of Satan in the sanctuary” statement, meaning, that things got out of hand and he felt he could not draw them back again.

           Regardless, it seems a moot point since the last three popes have not celebrated the old Mass since it was inaugurated {I don’t know about PVI and the short-termer JPI}.

         • Like all good arsonists, Paul VI was the first one on the scene yelling “Smoke! Fire!”

         • Wow, that is really funny…

           …or is it…true….!!!???

           It has always struck me that his later statements about the condition of the Church were so scathing.

         • He was the one at the helm. He drove the revolution The literal overnight disintegration of two thousand years Church edifice was all his fault. The he goes around being a sad-sack complaining about the state of the Church

         • Didn’t Pope Benedict celebrate a TLM in the Sistine Chapel in the last year or so of his papacy? I thought I heard some news back when it happened…

6. Thank you, beautiful words, so true!! God bless you and keep you and your family!

   Reply

7. Thank you for this essay. There are a number of things in it that are truly striking, that I had to share with my wife immediately while reading it. I think many of us can relate to your experience of our spiritual lives awakening when we started attending the TLM, and I do enjoy that you gave us a truly excellent and very valid way that we each can contribute to the triumph of Mary’s Immaculate Heart… by our worthy reception of the Blessed Sacrament!

   Reply

8. This is awesome. I converted to the Faith much in the same way as your husband, on a quest for the truth.

   Bless you for sharing your story and keep praying!

   Reply

9. The power of pray! Pope Francis does not genuflect at the Consecration of the Mass! People, don’t you see that the emperor has no clothes?!!

   Reply

   • I have noticed he rarely kneels and I think part of it may be that he has severe knee problems – but i’m not certain about this. I know when he was first elected some people commented about his expression and I thought the commentators said he had a neurologic condition that caused him to have a blank look during times of significant emotion, almost like a form of epilepsy or I guess “reverse epilepsy” in this case…

     Reply

     • He kneels to wash the feet of Mohammedans.

       Reply

   • Yes, I see it. Francis doesn’t kneel before the Blessed Sacrament either. Even if he had a knee problem, just making an attempt would send a powerful message. Yet on Holy Thursday, he can kneel to any human foot with no trouble at all.

     Reply

   • https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/6fa8a301590f1ccb18b572b2d59ba49e02ca5e73d5fe2bda55171d1f35c7a5c6.jpg

     Here he is kneeling to receive blessing from a protestant minister.

     Reply

     • See? He does believe in the Sacraments!

       Reply

10. An excellent article from Comrade Chamberlain.

    As the overt depredations by the AAC (Army of the Anti-Church) continue unchecked by anyone at all, including the Head of the CDF (the man most charged, after the Pope, with upholding Catholic doctrine) it must be clear even to non-Traditionalists that the Church is in a state of total chaos; doctrinal, liturgical, moral, spiritual.

    To be a “conservative” Catholic is now, more clearly than ever, actually to be a member of the Anti-Church – the alliance of ecumaniacal-protestant-progressive liberals whose hunger for total control and for revolution is all-consuming. If it used to be said that it is impossible to be a Catholic and either a socialist or a liberal, now we can add that it is impossible to be a Catholic and a conservative. “Conservative” Catholics have gone along with every stage of the Revolution and cannot be numbered on the side of the Church. In secular terms, one has to be a “revanchist” or a “restorationist”. There is no middle ground and there can be no middle ground.

    Mr. & Mrs. Chamberlain have understood that there is no holding the hands of both God and the devil. It can’t be done; but that’s exactly what the Novus Ordo Church seeks to do. In “opening the windows” of the Church to the world, John XXIII and all those who have followed have forgotten (or do not believe) that the devil really is the prince of this world – or at least of that part of it which is unredeemed by Grace. I believe that it is precisely this disastrous error in which resides the Great Apostasy spoken of so often by the mystics, stigmatists and Saints.

    We all have a choice. Come to Tradition and be Catholic, or remain with the Novus Ordo anti-Church and be protestant.

    Reply

    • Your critique of “conservative” Catholics applies equally to political conservatives, for what it is worth. Conservatives in the United States and Europe (to the extent they exist there) have generally played the the role of willing dupes, constantly ceding ground to the egalitarian Left while making it impossible for TRUE opposition to get organized.

      Reply

      • Agreed. Look at the odious John McCain, for instance.

        Reply

    • From a very first moment that I’ve heard, I’ve believed it immediately:
      “Satanas… per Mahumetum in Oriente, per Lutherum in Occidente, tantum incendium excitavit, quantum multis annis et magno labore restingui non poterit.” – St. Robert Bellarmin (Oratio in scholis habita)

      Reply

      • Yes, Protestantism and Islam are two of his greatest ‘maskirovkas’. There s a third, whose progeny infect our world today – Marxism.

        Reply

        • This is probably the third major ‘ism’.
          Actually all those ‘*isms’ are, often more than less, the tools invented by devil and accepted by his servants. They came never just accidentally. All these ‘*isms’ are ideologies. And ideologies are there to sow confusion in people, and to poison us spirit and intellect to keep us away from that only rightly way to the Heaven, – the true Catholic Faith in the Triune God.
          All these ideologies are very often used by atheists, the secularists, and even by non-secular world, with one final purpose,- against God and His people, thus against His Church.
          If we for example take the well known, in the secular world appreciated ideology ‘humanism’, we see that the real structure of it is nothing else than modern paganism. Namely, how can be even possible for them to love their neighbor as themselves, and even how to love yourself in a proper way, when you don’t love God in a proper way? Or you don’t love Him not at all? Or you hate Him instead? That’s the way the things can and should never works.
          Ideologies are the snares of the devil in which many have fallen into it.
          We should think here also on very popular ideology ‘liberalism’, which in combination with the theology, we can be sure, can have nothing good, let alone, that such weird, creepy, devilish ‘theologian-ism’ even can come from the true Spirit.

          Reply

11. The depth of knowledge and the breadth of experience of the commenters here never ceases to amaze and educate me. Thank you all for that.

    Reply

12. The author makes the point that “[Jesus] is given out by unconsecrated hands to standing recipients who self-communicate.” This last point is made as though it is self-evident, and indeed it should be so. Yet few, even priests, seem to grasp the fact that to receive Holy Communion does not refer refer to the mere act of taking physical hold of the consecrated Host. To “receive Holy Communion” means to ingest and digest the Sacred Species. Therefore, if I, as a lay man, take hold of the Host with one hand, and then proceed to transfer it to to my mouth with the other, then I self-communicate, which is unlawful. By the practice of what is erroneously labelled “Communion in the hand” and the grave liturgical abuse of Holy Communion being distributed by lay persons, (especially women), the ministerial priesthood has been greatly diminished and impoverished.

    Reply

13. A big Amen! Andrea Chamberlain–and others— are doing the job Pope Francis should be doing. Instead he has become a new Judas to Catholic teaching preferring involvement in secularism and geopolitics. Let us choose to follow the Way of Andrea and her family–not the way of Pope Francis.

    Reply

14. I would guess the Apostles took the first communion in the hand. The NO can be a very reverent and uplifting Mass. I am conservative and largely favor traditional Catholic Liturgy but as an altar boy for 8 years we often rattled off the Latin thoughtlessly. A Mass in the vernacular could still preserve Latin and greek features to preserve the universality(catholicity)of the Mass while still engaging those who want the vernacular because they cannot follow a trot in a missal. The Sanctus should especially be renewed in Latin and sung joyously at every Mass. A lecter could quietly speak the translation. There are many easy fixes to make the NO more reverent – it is the rock bands and dancing priests that make the whole thing miserable. Get those cretins behind us.

    Reply

    • Don’t forget, first Apostles were also by God Himself chosen priests.

      Reply

      • Maybe after Pentecost – up til then they were just confused country boys.

        Reply

        • They were already chosen by Jesus Himself. They were more of less confused, or unsure, or whatever, but still, they were the chosen ones already.

          Reply

          • So was Judas but he never made it to confirmation. Christ told them the Holy Spirit was coming to them – then they seemed to become actualized and started performing the sacraments. But have it your way – breaking unleavened bread like pizza and giving it out to hands somehow makes communion in the hand illicit.

          • I think the line of inquiry over who the apostles were is actually irrelevant here. Even priests try not to touch the consecrated species more than necessary because of the risk of profanation. Do we really think the apostles understood less about the True Presence in Eucharistic fragments than we do now?

            In his book, Dominus Est — It is the Lord!, Bishop Athanasius Schneider, himself a patristics scholar, examines early practices of the Church and finds no evidence for widespread acceptance of Communion in the Hand, even at The Last Supper:

            One can suppose that during the last supper Christ would have given the bread to each apostle directly in the mouth and not only to Judas Iscariot (see Jn 13:26-27). In fact there existed a traditional practice in the Middle East of Jesus time that continues even to our own day, by which the head of the house feeds his guests with his own hand, placing a symbolic piece of bread into the mouths of guests.

            Another Biblical consideration is furnished from the account of the call of the Prophet Ezekiel. He symbolically receives the Word of God directly into his mouth: “‘Open your mouth, and eat what I give you.’ And when I looked, behold, a hand was stretched out to me, and, lo, a written scroll was in it… So I opened my mouth, and he gave me the scroll to eat… Then I ate it; and it was in my mouth as sweet as honey” (Ez. 2:8-9; 3:2-3)

            In Holy Communion, we receive the Word-made-flesh – made food for us little ones, for us children. And so, when we approach Holy Communion, we can remind ourselves of this gesture of the Prophet Ezekiel or of the word of Psalm 81:11, which one finds in the Liturgy of the Hours on the solemnity of Corpus Christi: “Open your mouth, and I will fill it” (dilata os tuum, et implebo illud)

            Christ truly nourishes us with His Body and Blood in Holy Communion and, in the patristic era, this is likened to a mother’s nursing, as shown in these evocative words of St. John Chrysostom: “Now see how intimately Christ has been united to His spouse [the Church]; see with what food He satisfies us. He himself is our food and nourishment; and just as a woman nourishes her child with her own blood and milk, Christ also constantly nourishes with His own blood those to whom he has given birth [by Baptism].”

            The gesture of an adult who kneels and opens his mouth so as to be fed like a child corresponds in a felicitous and impressive manner to the admonitions of the Fathers of the Church concerning the attitude to have during Holy Communion, that is to say, cum amore ac timore (with love and fear).

            I’ve also heard the good bishop go more into his theory on the Apostles and the reception of the Eucharist, but I can’t find the video. I think it’s been taken off of YouTube. He does reflect on the grave consequence of Eucharistic reverence at some length here:

            https://youtu.be/LT0FGB24l8M?t=8m48s

          • More here on some exegesis of the Last Supper as relates to this: http://vmntblog.com/2015/02/bishop-schneider-on-communion-in-hand.html

            Also, I know it’s private revelation, but there’s an interesting corollary here in Anne Catherine Emmerich’s Dolorous Passion:

            Again he prayed and taught; his words came forth from his lips like fire and light, and entered into each of the Apostles, with the exception of Judas. He took the paten with the pieces of bread (I do not know whether he had placed it on the chalice) and said: ‘Take and eat; this is my Body which is given for you.’ He stretched forth his right hand as if to bless, and, whilst he did so, a brilliant light came from him, his words were luminous, the bread entered the mouths of the Apostles as a brilliant substance, and light seemed to penetrate and surround them all, Judas alone remaining dark. Jesus presented the bread first to Peter, next to John and then he made a sign to Judas to approach.6 Judas was thus the third who received the Adorable Sacrament, but the words of our Lord appeared to turn aside from the mouth of the traitor, and come back to their Divine Author. So perturbed was I in spirit at this sight, that my feelings cannot be described. Jesus said to him: ‘That which thou dost, do quickly.’ He then administered the Blessed Sacrament to the other Apostles, who approached two and two.

            Emmerich, Anna Catherine. The Dolorous Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ . . Kindle Edition.

          • I do not find any of that in the gospels.

          • Nor do you find communion in the hand there. But why let anything get in the way of your preconceived notions?

          • Says the kettle to the pot.

          • Your site is turning into a cess pool. Pity – your enmity for PF is destroying YOU.

          • Is that your way of saying, “I have no rebuttal to your argument that communion in the hand is not a wise or widespread historical practice”?

          • I am not really a fan of communion in the hand because I fear what Satanist or other weirdos might try to do with a consecrated host. However, for pious communicants, I see little concern. Do you not fear that you are becoming schismatic – falling for a ploy of the Father of Lies?

          • I made this video specifically to bring awareness to the unintentional but massive profanation of the Eucharist that happens at the huge papal Masses, but I hope you’ll watch it and see why the argument against Communion in the hand is so compelling for even pious communicants:

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wh4oaNrHJtQ

          • This site is a cesspool?? Wow. And why, plz, are you here?
            Find somewhere else.

          • If that’s your opinion, then you don’t need to frequent the site now do you?

          • How about “feed my lambs”?

          • I don’t know. How about it?

          • I suspect you do know that the official Catholic interpretation of the words of Christ, “feed my lambs” refers to preaching the gospel …revealing divine truth etc. Personally, I like to apply a secondary meaning to these words..
            that the priest should give Holy Communion on the tongue….literally to feed
            His lambs.

    • There is no fix for the novus ordo. It suppresses the Catholic theology on the Mass as the renewal of the Sacrifice of Calvary, which is one of the most precious truths God ever revealed. The novus ordo throws this truth in the garbage in order to please heretics. Rock bands and dancing priests are just rotten fruit of a rotten rite.

      I maintain that a reverent novus ordo is more deceptive than a “bad” one, because it dresses up what’s basically a Protestant Lord’s Supper service to make it look like something Catholic and “traditional”.

      Reply

      • You’re a mean one Mr. Grinch.
        Christ gave us the Consecration – it is still there in the New Mass.
        Peace be with you.

        Reply

        • I didn’t pick this fight pal. Don’t come at me with all that. I’m not Paul VI, thanks be to God. I didn’t bulldoze the Church into rubble and cause the greatest apostasy in the 2000 year history of the Church.

          The changes hit me as hard as anyone, and once I dusted myself off and realised the enemies of the Church wanted a fight, then I went and did some study on the nature of the crisis in the Church. I refuse to put up with their novus crap, and when someone comes along and tries to make out like I’m the bad guy, I will stand my ground.

          Peace be with you too!

          Reply

          • Christ never said a Latin Mass.

          • This will be probably be fruitless, but anyway…

            The words of Consecration are in the Anglican Rite too.

            “In the same night that he was betrayed, took Bread; and, when he had given thanks, he brake it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, Take, eat; this is my Body which is given for you: Do this in remembrance of me. Likewise after supper he took the Cup; and, when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of this; for this is my Blood of the New Testament, which is shed for you and for many for the remission of sins: Do this, as oft as ye shall drink it, in remembrance of me. Amen”

            https://www.churchofengland.org/prayer-worship/worship/book-of-common-prayer/the-lords-supper-or-holy-communion.aspx

            Does the Anglican minister have the intention to do what the Church does, even though he uses the same words of Consecration? No.

            If a Catholic Priest used the Anglican rite for the Lord’s Supper, with the words of consecration, would the Sacrament be valid? No.

            Why? Because the surrounding rite points away from the Faith of the Church, and suppresses what it is supposed to affirm. Therefore, it manifests a defect of intention in the minister, even though the form is right.

            So, the Novus Ordo suppresses the same Catholic theology that the Anglicans suppress. Now do the math. Does a priest using the Novus Ordo manifest the right intention to do what the Church does?

          • Let me say in charity that the venomous tone of your posts and your self-righteous certainty are tools that mendacious fellows as PF can use to their advantage.

          • I am speaking plainly about the greatest and most deadly attack upon the Church since the day She was founded 2000 years ago. The attack is vicious, nasty, ruthless and cold. The subject is not pleasant. There’s no “nice” way to talk about this.

            I don’t care what Francis thinks. He is currently the one leading the revolution and attack against the Church. I care about you though, even though you might think I’m not very nice!

          • Freemen, spoken like a true son of the Novus Ordo. If you have no arguments to make, STFU.

          • Thanks – God bless you.

          • A pleasure.

          • FreemenRtrue says…”I detest the hypocrisy and Modernism of PF”…but somehow he sees this as neither “venomous” nor self-righteous…when speaking of a Pope.

            So just how are your posts so soothing and other-worldly when you one one hand bash Pope Francis but on the other hand bash laymen posting on this thread?

          • That’s such a silly argument I’m not even going to answer it. If you want to study the issue, check it out. Or don’t.

          • You people give ammo to Modernists like PF. Your rigidity approaches arrogance. What Liturgy do you think St. Paul took to the Greeks?

          • Whatever rite he used, it did not suppress the idea of the Mass as the renewal of Calvary.

          • Readers, spot the Bergoglian jargon! Another idiot has fallen for it! “Rigidity”! “Arrogance”!

          • I detest the hypocrisy and Modernism of PF but I find critics as Maureen Mullarkey or those at Crisis to be much more germane than you folks. You might want to check out Fr. Chad’s video again.

          • Then go and join them chum! Each to his own. Here, you might actually LEARN something. You surely won’t there.

          • Really stupid Stalin.

          • You appear to be , yes.

          • No, he’s not stupid, & really, why ARE you here?

          • This one is a case. A “true believer” as they say, but I can’t determine what indeed they do believe…

          • Nor can they.

          • You forgot “Its a fad.”

          • ooops, sorry!

          • I’ve never read a Traditionalist defense of the Latin Mass the was based on an assertion that Christ prayed the Mass in Latin, but we actually do not know with any certainty that He DIDN’T. Between the Resurrection and the Ascension, Christ did and said many things. I have no reason to categorically deny that He spoke Latin. Many people all over the world even today are multilingual, and we do assume in biblical studies that He spoke at least Aramaic and Hebrew and likely Greek as well as the latter was very possibly the administrative language of the region. Why not Latin also?

            Neither do I consider it absurd that He may have presented the Mass to the Apostles and others in Greek and/or Latin. What language did He and Pilate converse in? Greek possibly, or possibly Latin?

            Don’t make assumptions without proof.

          • Forgive my impertinence – I merely assumed it would have been described in ACTs.

          • Forgiven! {No need, actually.}

            St John {Jn 21:25} reminds us that Jesus did many things not described in John’s writings, and the Book of Acts is merely a sketch of the work and words of the early Church with a vast amount of information left out, so even IF Our Blessed Lord did pray the Mass in any other language than Aramaic or Hebrew, we have no reason to think it would necessarily have been cited in detail. Indeed, we don’t even have much at all of the post-Resurrection lives the Apostles.

            So, one can’t know if the Lord DID, but certainly can’t say for sure that He DIDN’T pray the Mass in Latin. I personally think it is an intriguing thought, though not a doctrinally necessary one at all.

            We do know for certain and sure that Latin is still the language of the Church and should be emphasized more, not less, if the teachings of the Church {pre- and post-Vatican 2} are to be adhered to.

    • I would guess the Apostles took the first communion in the hand. Of course they did. They were bishops and consecrated priests.

      Reply

    • It makes me sick to hear talk of ‘making the NO more reverent.’

      WHAT’S THE POINT??
      It was designed to be heretical garbage, it IS heretical garbage;

      so the purpose of that IS??

      Reply

      • Spot on, C2.

        Reply

      • They want to prove that their religion is as good as God’s.

        Reply

      • Has anyone ever kindly mentioned borderline personality disorder to you?

        Reply

        • Honestly, you should stick to the relevant points of your position. Some are quite worthy of discussion.

          Your bitterness toward those who present opposing or somewhat differing views displays the very “personality disorder” you decry.

          Reply

          • You err grossly – I have no bitterness and do not try to force my views on others. You misapprehend my remarks. I worry that OnePeter Five is devolving into a weapon that people as PF can use against the orthodoxy of the magisterium. We have a very reverent New Mass at our parish and it distresses me that so many claim, or would like to claim, that it is not a valid Mass. Our Church is in great crisis but it seems to me that the reactions of some are only making matters worse. C2 kept telling me what to think and to go away and I objected – perhaps a little harshly – but certainly with less antipathy than her. God bless you.

          • I can accept that. I do not deny the validity of the NO mass. But I have yet to see one that reflects the majesty and mystery, not to mention the theology, of the TLM. I’m not saying they aren’t there, but i haven’t seen one, even on TV. So as TGS has said, “validity” is the base bare minimum of what a Mass should be, and if that, validity, is the ‘standard”, we need a higher standard. I can’t fault that line of thinking.

            I am glad you have a good parish. Certainly I cannot see the TLM taking over the world anytime soon, so I think the repair at least at first is going to have to come to the NO, and I know there are prelates who seek to do that.

            Some question whether that is even possible.

            I take the position that if god can be born of a virgin, He can fix the NO Mass by either repair or replacement… 😉

          • I think you would very much appreciate our Mass. No singers on the altar – all of them up in the choir. It is a beautiful old church built by Irish RR families from over 100 years ago. Organist and choir are superb. Sometimes the Mass is so beautiful it nearly brings me to tears. Contrary to the Modernist style of recent decades, our church seems to have a Legacy of bringing the best and most beautiful prayerful service to the celebration f the Eucharist. The dancing priests, awful rock bands and multicultural(rain dances) abuse of the liturgy are a separate story – people seeking emotion – going wild – Fr Rutler has something to say at Crisis.

          • What diocese are you located in?

          • We allow a great deal of latitude for discussion in our comment boxes. This in no way means that the views of the commentariat represent our editorial positions.

            It is our stance, as a publication, that the Novus Ordo is valid and licit in principle (exceptions clearly exist through defects in form and intent), but that it is inferior to the TLM and the other ancient liturgies of the Church as an act of worship, as an oblation of sacrifice, and as a pedagogical tool to instruct and inspire the faithful.

            Beyond that, if people want to hash out what they believe here in the comments in pursuit of a fuller understanding of the truth of the matter, that hardly makes this a weapon that will ever benefit Christ’s enemies within the Church. From what I’ve been told, they certainly don’t see us as useful to their cause in any way.

15. The debate over whether the Novus Ordo can be made more reverent or not is entirely irrelevant. All one is discussing is how much filth to wash off the pig.

    Look, the only discussion worth having is whether the Novus Ordo is Catholic or not. That does not involve a discussion of whence it came (via Paul VI or whoever) but it does involve answering the question, “Does it reflect authentic Catholic teaching on the Holy Eucharist – yes or no?”

    The answer is “no”, therefore it is unfit to be used in any Catholic church or chapel, however mean. Why? Let’s go back to the General Instruction that delivered it to us in 1969.

    The Instruction was meant to be the theological blueprint of the Novus Ordo. On 30 August 1968, Bugnini had stated that “the General Instruction is a full theological, pastoral, catechetical, and rubrical exposition, that it is an introduction to the understanding and celebration of the (New) Mass.”

    Such was the uproar caused by doctrinal objections to the New Missal and General Instruction, notably those objections included in the ‘Ottaviani Intervention’, that publication of the Missal was delayed for five months. To save the project, a bit of nifty footwork was required with the wording of the General Instruction. An altered Instruction was produced with the intention of putting a “Tridentine” gloss on things.

    Hardly surprisingly, the language used in the revised General Instruction’s definition of the Mass glows with the ambiguity and double speak, the familiar stamp of the Modernists. The Catholic terms Mass and Eucharistic Sacrifice are presented alongside the Protestant terms Lord’s Supper and memorial of the Lord respectively. Christ’s substantial, corporeal presence is equated with His presence in the congregation and in the Scripture readings. And just for good measure, it’s the “people of God” who celebrate, having been called together. The revised Instruction does not clearly state that the Mass is a sacrifice of propitiation, offered to God for the sins of the living and the dead. Also, wherever the word sacrifice appears in the Instruction, the word meal is never far away. So Catholics are now left to choose to believe that the Mass is either:

    * A propitiatory sacrifice, the re-presentation of the sacrifice of Calvary, offered by an ordained priest, in which Our Lord is made present, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity through transubstantiation;
    * An assembly of the people, with a presider, celebrating the memorial of the Lord’s Supper, during which Our Lord is present in the congregation, and the readings, as well as in the bread and wine (sic).

    Realistically, no amount of reform of the reform of the reform is going to protect Catholics from random spectacles of sacrilege. I know there are good priests with the very best of intentions, but does anyone believe that true reverence at Mass and in Church can ever become the universal norm with the Novus Ordo? The Novus Ordo reforms are programmed to facilitate a laissez faire policy, precisely because of a lack of rubrics.

    Before Children’s Masses, Clown Masses, Beer Tent Masses, Beach Masses, Rugby World Cup Masses, Heavy Rock Masses, Hindu Masses, Voodoo Masses, Masonic Masses or Sodomite Masses were ever known, the doctrinal threat to Catholics’ faith was highlighted by those who refused to go along with the revolution. The evidence was available, written down for all to see, or least for those who cared to look. Problems with the Novus Ordo don’t begin with clowns or with balloons. They begin with the General Instruction presented in 1969.

    In a 1975 statement, Father Emil Joseph Lengeling, a member of the Consilium’s Study Group 18, gave the following rather revealing commentary on the 1970 Instruction:

    “In the 1969 General Instruction for the (new) Missal, an ecumenically-oriented sacramental theology of the celebration of Mass emerged – a theology already self-evident in the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy and in Pope Paul VI’s instruction on the Eucharist. Despite the new 1970 edition forced by reactionary attacks – but which voided the worst, thanks to the cleverness of the revisers – it takes us out of the dead end of the post-Tridentine theories of sacrifice and corresponds to the agreement marked out in many of last year’s inter-confessional documents.” (Tradition und Fortschritt in der Liturgie (1975), 218-219).

    The following words of Pope Leo XIII could have been written with the twentieth century destroyers of the true Catholic Mass in mind. “They knew only too well the intimate bond which unites faith with worship, ‘the law of belief with the law of prayer,’ and so, under the pretext of restoring it to its primitive form, they corrupted the order of the liturgy in many respects to adapt it to the errors of the Innovators.” (Apostolicae Curae, 13 September 1896).

    That the Novus Ordo is imbued with a protestant and ecumenical spirit is undeniable. Both were condemned time after time by Pope after Pope up to Vatican II. Were they all wrong? For those who support the Novus Ordo, the only honest answer has to be “yes”.

    Reply

    • Excellent summary, TGS. I am a “closet traditionalist” in my Novus Ordo parish. I do all that I can to show due reverence to the Hidden Jesus–I kneel during the processional and recessional, I bow to the priest, I take the Eucharist on my knees and on the tongue, and I keep my silence before the Mass beings. But it always feels, as you put it, like putting ribbons on a pig. Increasingly, I find myself getting angry DURING the Mass. In other words, the Mass itself is becoming a “near occasion of sin” for me. How can this be?

      Perhaps I am just in an optimistic mood at the moment, but I do not think this situation is sustainable. The Heresiarchs of the conciliar church are looking at the same data sets we are. The KNOW they are losing ground. They KNOW the that there is a real and growing danger of formal schism. I do not believe most of them want these things.

      Because they are modernists who have lost their sense of the spiritual, they fail to understand the deep connections between liturgy and the life of the Faith. One can easily imagine them, in their arrogance and ignorance, agreeing to a reform of the liturgy in a more traditional direction, even if they see it as merely an act of appeasement. “We will throw these tiresome traditionalists a bone,” they might say, “but we will still remain in control of the magesterium and the hierarchy.”

      The wiser among them–the true Freemasons and Satanists–will understand the consequences of such an action, but in a sense these people are victims of their own success. They have lobotomized the Church to such an extent that many if not most of their fellow cardinals see everything in terms of earthly politics. It is this group–the lukewarm and ill-educated middle–that we must somehow win over to our side with regard to liturgical reform, even if they fail to understand the cosmic significance of such reform.

      Reply

      • The various axes of evil are sorting their differences out, if any, and infurling the black standard openly. On our side, all is disarray. But we shall win.

        Reply

      • I feel the same about NO, Fatimist; I haven’t been able to bring mysel to attend a couple masses people have had said for deceased family. I do feel bad, as if I should ask for the grace to bear it, but its just too overwhelming. I’m not trying to be superior or obnoxious, nor in any way am I being Christ-like, but I think if His anger at the moneychangers in the temple & hope that maybe its legitimate to feel so outright revolted…

        Reply

16. Any wonder as to why the Church is losing attendants. Attend Mass today and feels like attending a Protestant or foreign religious service. :((( One of the greatest losses or tragedies are the lack of proper teaching / training at seminaries and now we see the fruits of it with this current pope…… :(((

    Reply

17. I think PF would delightfully point to many posts on this board as justification for his Modernism. Pray you do not become an unwitting tool of the Father of Lies.

    Reply

    • Pray you wake up.

      Reply

      • I merely caution that you empower your enemy – why be so hateful?

        Reply

        • As always, you snowflake types can’t take even a little direct talking. Wake up matey, the Church is falling apart, burning down and being swept away all at the same time and you are still wittering on about being nice. God help us.

          Reply

          • You are full of $hite Stalin – I am hardly a snowflake or a ‘nice’ sheep. Fr. Rutler just published a good reflection on Pentecost and I did learn a number of things. Your arrogance befits your namesake.

          • Thanks so much. Now bugger off, there’s a good chap.

          • The gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
            Have a little faith.
            We’ve had bad popes before.
            Chesterton noted 4-5 times it seemed the Catholic Church would disappear and each time it was renewed.
            Your nasty attitude is completely unnecessary.

          • Can you please a bad pope? I’m not sure what you mean.

    • It is our fault.

      Reply

18. I’m not trying to distract from this liturgical discussion, but has anyone besides me wondered if a pope abdicating is actually ever a licit event? It appears to be a done deal to the world, of course, but could it be possible that in God’s eyes Benedict XVI is actually still the true pope as long as he lives???

    Reply

    • The question is : Can a Pope abdicate part of the papacy as Pope Benedict claimed. It certainly is in opposition to the intentions of Christ who appointed a single head for his Church. Many believe he could not legitimately do so…..ergo
      Bergoglio is not pope and Benedict is still Pope. By doing so Benedict saved us from becoming sedevancanists and saved the papacy as well. Think about it.

      Reply

      • If you hold that theory, and Benedict dies tomorrow (I’m not wishing that) then you will fall into the dreaded den of….the Sedevacantists!

        I emailed Ann Barnhardt this question, and she said that if Benedict dies, and Bergoglio lives for another decade, then she will be a sedevacantist, but not with the other sedevacantists.

        She said that if Bergoglio dies, and even if they elected the most traditional candidate in the entire hierarchy, she would count him as an antipope while Benedict lived. Then she would have to wait until both Benedict and the next antipope died before she would recognise another pope. It’s completely logical, if Benedict is the Pope. I don’t think Benedict is the pope however…

        Reply

        • Do you believe that Christ established the Papcy in two parts…one spiritual
          and one administrative? If so you are embracing a novelty and we all know
          to beware of novelties.
          My hope is that Benedict out lives Bergoglio and so far he has been doing a good job of it.

          Reply

          • No, He did not. However, the Church was usurped by real enemies long before Benedict.

19. Andrea, thank you for this article.I am so touched by your experiences. God answers prayer when we ask sincerely. Your journey is a kind of miracle I think. And your insight about the Heart of the Church is so poignant. If you have not read The Way of Divine Love (available through TAN books) I think you would appreciate it since it echoes Padre Pio’s conversations with Christ. In Our Lord’s conversations with Sister Josefa Menendez He says at one point about His Presence in the Eucharist with great sadness:
    “Love is not loved.”
    For me that book was the open door into the Heart of Jesus much like your experience with Padre Pio’s letters.. He became real to me with such force that I would sneak off before the rest of the house was awake to the Church to make Holy Hours; and Eucharistic Adoration has become so so important to me all these years since. You mention feeling isolated, part of an underground. I don’t know one true Catholic who doesn’t feel that way. But we are not alone. This blog and others like it are such a gift. Anyway, thank you again. God bless!
    ‘

    Reply

20. I have read that there are those who reject the ’62 Missal w/ as much vehemence as those who reject the Mass of Pope Paul VI. IIRC SSPX uses the ’62 Missal as, of course, does the FSSP.

    The Great Stalin and Mike, et al:

    I’d appreciate your take on this:

    http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=18&catname=6

    Reply

    • Hi Rod, I have had this question in my mind for years. My father used to talk about this sometimes when I was little – which Missal was the last truly “safe” one? He’d converted from Anglicanism in 1946 and I know he hated the changes to the Triduum made by Bugnini under Pius XII.

      I never bothered resolving the question for myself until very recently, when a Portuguese Traditionalist friend gave me a list of links to those Holy week changes and I could see for myself just how extensive was Bugnini’s first effort at wreckovation.

      I attend SSPX Masses. The SSPX uses the 1962 Missal and I wouldn’t dream of kicking up any fuss about it. But I can say that as Pope Sophronius I will be re-introducing the edition of the Missal PRIOR to Pius XII’s changes, which I believe now to have been very ill-advised and clearly provided Bugnini with the practice he needed for the destruction of the entire Roman Rite under Paul VI.

      The only question is, what is the year of that earlier edition? I have been told various dates, but am not sure at all which one is correct. 1920 has been mentioned a couple of times, but I would like to have it confirmed.

      Reply

      • That’s just it. I don’t know the date, either, but the argument, so it goes, is that tho the changes between the ’62 and previous and subsequent Masses are DIFFERENT changes, they are nonetheless, changes, and at the core of the issue for the argument against change based on the order of Pope Pius V, is that no change to the Mass may occur.

        So in that light, so the argument goes, the ’62 Missal Mass of the SSPX or FSSP, that is, the so-called “Extraordinary Form” is just as “invalid” as is the 1970 Mass of PVI. At stake in that argument is not the specific changes per se, but rather the existence of change at all, which changes in the case of the ’62 Missal version, are not inconsequential from the earlier version if the chart I linked is accurate. But in keeping with the argument, no specific number of changes is the trigger for invalidity…ONE change would suffice if Pius V’s order is to be denied.

        Thus there are those reject the ’62 with as much vehemence as those who reject the NO.

        I am no liturgical scholar. At some point I have to trust the Church for decisions that are beyond my ken. And in the case of the Mass, something so central to the faith. though I myself am very uneasy about some of the things that exist in the NO, I must even accept it as valid simply on the basis that if it isn’t, it is a crime so monstrous, so hideous, so utterly diabolical, that I cannot conceive of God allowing it to be foisted on billions who have no option but to accept it, no way to know the difference, and no choice to have any other. In short, if the NO is not at least valid, then it would seem plausible that the promises of Christ about the Church are arguably void, that She is not only mutable, but far from being pure, is the most base deceiver on earth at any time, anywhere. For an invalid Mass means far more than just an inconsequential “Sunday Service”. It is the withdrawal of the Bread of Life from the mouths of the little ones, billions of them and would call into question every single work of the Church beyond the Mass itself, for the Mass forms the foundation of the faith. For if the Mass is not valid, then there is confection of Bread and Wine, no legitimate adoration, only idol worship of wheat dough and fermented grape juice, no manna from heaven, no life for anyone at all who receives it. Period. Extra ecclesiam nulla salus is not only abrogated, but it becomes a diabolical impossibility except for the very few who have…….which Mass? The ’62 version? Why…even that one is with some logical argument…dubious and thus possibly invalid itself.

        Now, as for “reforming” the NO, that is something I believe some number at high levels in the Church want to do and I think if they were fence sitters, this pontificate is probably solidifying them in their desire. Just exactly HOW they can do this I really have no idea. I SEE the problems identified by those who reject the NO; the nature of the changes and the subsequent irreverence associated with the Mass.

        But to say that the NO Mass is not valid, well, personally, I just cannot go there.

        Reply

        • I think you may possibly have gone a little astray in your thinking here. The question of invalidity due to one Pope (Pius XII) flagrantly disregarding the solemn pronouncement of another (Pius V) in a liturgical question wouldn’t invalidate the Sacrament. Pius XII, a most serious shepherd,
          would no doubt have taken the view that the Mass itself (Offertory, Canon, Prefaces etc.) was left unchanged by Bugnini’s Triduum changes, therefore Quo Primum retained its full force.

          The difference with the later changes is clear: though regrettable, the Triduum changes left the Mass itself untouched; whereas the carnival of drunkards under Paul VI dumped the Mass in its entirety and replaced it with something altogether not Catholic. In the latter case, the question of validity is not one primarily of authority, but is doctrinal, as Mike in particular has demonstrated in a number of admirable posts.

          Reply

          • I don’t go quite as far as you do, but I agree with much of what you are saying.

            You said: “But validity is the very, very least quality of any Catholic Mass, a quality which shouldn’t even be a topic for thought or discussion. There should be so much more” and then the rest.

            I agree 100%. It is immensely troubling to me that common expressions of the NO are so apt to give one the impression it is very different from the ’62 Mass…because in some ways it IS very different!

            I was received into the Church in a NO parish. Over time, as I dove into the doctrines of the Church, I fell more and more in love with the truths God has granted her and the Bible which I had been reading over and over all my life came alive in ways it never had before.

            Then I visited a TLM. It became obvious after just a little time and study of the missal itself, that this IS something different…and more in sync with the teachings of the faith as they are made clear in documents before V2 and some after as well.

            I mean no disrespect to the NO when I say this, but we came to the Church from Lutheranism and found the NO Mass structure and presentation to be LESS reverent, LESS respectful and LESS, dare I say it…”Catholic” in tone than the Lutheran service, not to mention the kneelers hadn’t been vandalized in the Lutheran church! Add the flatout sacrilegious and at times doctrinally-debased OCP “music” and we were more than occasionally horrified. I mean, HORRIFIED. One of my sons-in-law says the Mass is the most “uncool” thing on earth {thank God!}, and to try to make it “cool”, especially “passe ’60’s bell-bottoms cool” a la the NO is to do it and the faithful a terrific spiritual disservice. Hard for me to argue with that.

            My wife, herself born into and raised Baptist, was hardly prepped by her past for kneeling and responding “Et cum spiritu tuo”, says that going from the TLM to the NO is “almost like going to a new religion”. Yeah, it’s like that. Now, add the contraceptive culture, religious universalism and slovenly attire, none of which I admit MUST be part of the NO culture…but are at least in the developed West, and we see real Trouble.

            But hand holding? Please. I’d take the kiss of peace Frenchmen style over the hand-holding…

            But see…there I go.

            It’s just so darn hard to separate the excesses from the important stuff, almost like they are necessary components. And yes, I’ve gone to NO masses I was told would be “so reverent” and reflect how the “NO should be”. I was…underwhelmed.

            And this from a guy who 6 years ago would have laughed you plumb off the bar stool had you suggested he’d be attending a Latin Mass parish today! It took a year of constant badgering from a friend of mine just to get me to darken the door!

            May God purify and clarify the message of the Catholic Church

          • Amen to all that, Rod. May God give you and your family great blessings always. I admire your posts very much and the journey that you have all been through.

          • Thank you. I’ve learned a LOT from you and others here.

            The center and core, the very essence of our faith is “Jesus Christ and him Crucified”.

            I have utterly no problem finding that truth in the TLM.

          • Jesus Christ and him Crucified – “I have utterly no problem finding that truth in the TLM.”

            And that is why Traditionalism exists, because so many people intuit that that truth, the sole truth which saves, has fled the Novus Ordo, the Novus Ordo Church and those who lead it.

        • I wonder: does the fact that there are 2 parts, Mass of the Catechumens & Mass of the Faithful come into play?
          Or, the obliteration of the Canon?Just throwing those loose thoughts to you guys because I wonder about all that all the time but certainly don’t have the knowledge.

          Reply

          • The new mass has two parts too. The Liturgy of the Word, and The Liturgy of the Eucharist.

            The first part makes Christ present among the gathered assembly through the hearing of Scripture, and the second part makes Christ present among the gathered assembly through the breaking of bread.

            The designers of the novus held strange theological opinions regarding the various “presences” of Christ. He is present in four ways in their mind, and these four ways are all real and equal. The new mass was crafted to reflect this idea.

            1. In the “presider”.
            2. In the gathered assembly.
            3. In the “table of God’s Word”,i.e the reading of the Bible.
            4. In the breaking of the bread / memorial of the Lord.

            The novus ordo “inflates the currency” of the first three, and de-emphasises the fourth. It was not an accident.

          • Yep. ????

    • I haven’t looked into that too much Rod. I don’t have much I can offer on that, so I’ll leave it to TGS. It still expresses the Faith of the Church and the renewal of the Sacrifice of Calvary.

      Perhaps one day a future Pope may revert to the old Holy Week ceremony. An SSPX priest told me that he hoped it would.

      Reply

      • To me it is THE issue.

        All of this gets to one other thing that often gets left behind in these discussions. It, too is a troubling issue for me when I contemplate the possibility of establishment of a false or invalid Mass by the Church.

        Assuming we actually believe in a visible Church and are not asserting the heresy of Calvin in his “invisible” Church, and assuming we actually believe that visible Church has real authority, then another issue rears its head, and that is the issue of acceptance of that authority in matters not to our personal liking.

        Authority, real authority, is meaningless EXCEPT in disagreement.

        See, if all of us agree and are in peace and harmony about a position, whether a doctrinal one, or a political one, or a domestic one, then authority need not even be referenced and neither does it come into play in the day-to-day working out of that position. It’s a theoretical only, not a real thing. But we know from the teaching of the Church that church authority is real, not just theoretical. So, being real, it must find expression in real events which for meaningful authority involves real conflict and real disagreement.

        It is only when there is a DISAGREEMENT that authority has meaning, “teeth” if you will. This point by the way has been at the core of the transformation of my marriage and workings-out of my particular domestic Church, for the issue for the domestic Church is identical as that for the Catholic Church. It is popular for self-professing “conservative” women of whatever stripe to proclaim their husbands to be “the head of the household” but then in particular issues at home, deny that authority. And it is popular for men to either shirk or abuse that authority {in modelling of the leadership of the Church?}. For my particular domestic Church, this reality of Church teaching has changed both the way my wife and the way i approach our marriage, and while it has been a challenge, it also has been a blessing, as acceptance and administration of rightful authority ALWAYS is.

        Authority only has meaning in disagreement.

        So as I ponder the doctrines and authority of the Church I am left with the following:

        1} The Catholic Church is visible.
        2} The Catholic Church has authority.
        3} The Catholic Church has exercised that authority in the establishment of a “New” Mass.

        Thus, I can:

        A} Reject that authority, deny the validity of that decision on the Church’s part, and go and select my own Mass as valid and authoritative, but as we have seen, that selection, the one besides the NO open to most of us {’62 Missal}, is potentially, no actually, fraught with very similar challenges to its validity that the NO Mass is. In fact, in essence, I don’t think there is any difference between the two in terms of the potential for invalidity. If i reject the NO, I must reject the ’62 version as well, or I am just playing games. for it is not the specific details of the wordings that exclusively matter, but the existence of change, ANY change that is at stake, and both of them exhibit change from prior Masses.

        Or, I can:

        B} Accept the authority of the Church, accept the validity of the NO Mass, and praise God that by His grace I can worship according to the older version in the ’62 form, hoping for a day when common sense and discipline will return to the leadership of the Church who will then put in order the chaos that I think we ALL agree has penetrated the common expressions of the NO Mass.

        This is the position I have taken. No, it does not satisfy all of my concerns about the Mass of PVI, but it does satisfy my need to accept the authority of the Catholic Church, especially on matters as grave as the validity of a Mass.

        And we haven’t even discussed the “validity” of each and every modern expression of the 23 other Rites in the Church or the Anglican Ordinariate, which their adherents and critics say have their own issues.

        In the end, I didn’t leave Protestantism with all of its inherent chaos and denial of authority to start that game all over again in the Catholic Church.

        None of this should mean or imply that I am saying we cannot OBSERVE and comment on those things that are real; for example, the differences in language that exist between the various Mass forms, or as far as that goes, the words and action of the Pope himself. We can observe, compare and comment on those things that appear or simply are in conflict. Thus I cannot take the position of Cdl Müller that AL for example fits neatly in past Church teaching, because it manifestly doesn’t. That’s not a “judgment”, that’s an observation of language and application of simple meaning of words to their use in sentences… Neither can I take the position that the NO Mass exhibits no challenges to past commands of a past Pope nor possesses no troubling wording. Those challenges exist, and can’t be denied. I await a satisfying explanation.

        But as far as denying the validity thereof, no, I can’t do it. For me, it is valid. Just as the Pope is valid. Troubling to be sure, but valid.

        Reply

        • The difference between protestants and us regarding the use of private judgement is that protestants use it to determine doctrine. But that’s the job of the Catholic Church – to determine doctrine. Doctrine means “a teaching”. The Church is the Divinely-appointed teacher.

          With Catholics, the doctrines are already there. The Church proposes them for us as universal abstracts. We form our intellect by submitting to the general principles and apply them to everything that presents itself to us, all day, every day.

          Some would jump on this and say, “Hey! That’s using private judgement!” They are completely correct. This is why God gave us the intellect, so we could be formed by His truth, and apply it to our lives.

          Private judgement is a good and noble thing when we use it in the way it is intended. Don’t sweat that and think you’re back at protestantism.

          Reply

    • >reject the ’62 Missal w/ as much vehemence

      And probably for no good reason.

      Reply

21. Guys, it’s over. Move on.

    Reply

22. All I can ask is does God really care about the order of the Mass? Isn’t the depth of faith the key to the Kingdom? Whether the Host is taken in the hand or mouth, isn’t it still the Host? I just go to Mass every day and pray for world peace and loved ones. I will continue to do so no matter what the FORM is or whether it is in a church or elsewhere. I just want to do God’s Will.

    Reply

    • You have a good heart. Yes God did give us very exacting forms; Christ fulfilled the law & neither ended, changed nor abolished anything in our worship.

      Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.