Validity of the Ordinary Rite disputed by my friend

[lentang2]

GREETINGS ALL! I am a newby here. I need help.

I have a friend who calls himself a “Traditional Catholic”. He was raised Catholic by his parents (as I was), but left the church 30 years ago. He has recently ‘reverted’ back, but now insists on going to the Extraordinary Form Mass only. He recently told me something strange: The Ordinary Form of Mass is invalid. He is also talking about an “undisclosed 3rd secret of the Fatima Apparition”. When we talk about the mass forms (as one rite) he gets very angry and challenging. Based on charity and an open mind, I agreed to go with my friend to a lecture given by his Priest in a local city. I was suspicious after a while in the lecture because of the “uncharitable” way the Priest and others were speaking of (against) the Ordinary form.

Later, when I looked into the Priest’s credentials with the Archdiocese, I learned he is not a valid priest at this time…they said they are looking into him - but it sounded like they do not know what to do about it. He apparently runs his own small parish and does not report to or communicate with the Archdiosese. I also googled the priest’s name and found posts by him at a conspiracy website, which I thought was very odd. He said in the post he believes the government is poisoning us with 'black beams" from aircraft (whatever that means). Apparently he believes in a variety of these conspiracy theories, also including this Fatima issue (that the Vatican has hyjacked the real secret and is hiding it). Wow.

I love both mass forms (I was a alter boy in my youth and served many latin masses), but I can’t seem to calm my pal down on the subject. It is like he is in a ‘cult’ of some sort…I am very worried for my friend. What is going on with this new view of his? Any suggestions? GOD BLESS ALL POSTERS!

 

[Sam_Maloney]

I don’t think your friend has re-verted at all. He’s just joined a mystery cult long on conspiracy theories, a sort of romanized version of the Rosicrucians.

All I can advise is to point out that Jesus said the ‘gates of Hell would not prevail’, and in 2000 years, hell hasn’t. We’ve had some utter monsters in the Papacy, some terrible abuses of power and scandals.

But through it all, the Church has never taught heresy, and not one dogmatic teaching has ever been rescinded.

But if the wheels have at last come off and Hell has succeeded, then Jesus’ promise is broken, and he must not have been God after all.

 

[CassiusLonginus]

While there’s nothing wrong with going exclusively to the EF, there is something wrong with claiming that the OF isn’t valid, which is a different thing than claiming that under certain circumstances it may be invalid…

Anyway, have you asked him if he agrees that Benedict XVI is the pope? That’d be a good place to start. Sounds like a sede to me.

Also, about the 3rd secret of Fatima, I think a lot of people believe that it hasn’t been disclosed in its entirety (or even at all perhaps?), and they’re not ‘nutters’ either. Though I can’t cite anything specific right now, I’ve read well formed arguments for this assertion. Your friend probably also believes that the consecration of Russia hasn’t taken place…most, if not all trads would agree with that.

Good luck with your friend.

 

[patrick457]

GREETINGS ALL! I am a newby here. I need help.

I have a friend who calls himself a “Traditional Catholic”. He was raised Catholic by his parents (as I was), but left the church 30 years ago. He has recently ‘reverted’ back, but now insists on going to the Extraordinary Form Mass only. He recently told me something strange: The Ordinary Form of Mass is invalid. He is also talking about an “undisclosed 3rd secret of the Fatima Apparition”. When we talk about the mass forms (as one rite) he gets very angry and challenging. Based on charity and an open mind, I agreed to go with my friend to a lecture given by his Priest in a local city. I was suspicious after a while in the lecture because of the “uncharitable” way the Priest and others were speaking of (against) the Ordinary form.

Later, when I looked into the Priest’s credentials with the Archdiocese, I learned he is not a valid priest at this time…they said they are looking into him - but it sounded like they do not know what to do about it. He apparently runs his own small parish and does not report to or communicate with the Archdiosese. I also googled the priest’s name and found posts by him at a conspiracy website, which I thought was very odd. He said in the post he believes the government is poisoning us with 'black beams" from aircraft (whatever that means). Apparently he believes in a variety of these conspiracy theories, also including this Fatima issue (that the Vatican has hyjacked the real secret and is hiding it). Wow.

I love both mass forms (I was a alter boy in my youth and served many latin masses), but I can’t seem to calm my pal down on the subject. It is like he is in a ‘cult’ of some sort…I am very worried for my friend. What is going on with this new view of his? Any suggestions? GOD BLESS ALL POSTERS!

Uh oh. Better exercise some caution when speaking to your friend.

 

[bpbasilphx]

The wonderful thing about conspiracy theories is that any reasoned explanation that conspiracies don’t exist becomes proof that in fact they do; it just shows how effective they are.

This site has some good defenses of the Ordinary Form. Especially, it looks at the famous Ottaviani intervention, including what the cardinal said afterwards:

matt1618.freeyellow.com/novusordo.html

 

[SFD]

The wonderful thing about conspiracy theories is that any reasoned explanation that conspiracies don’t exist becomes proof that in fact they do; it just shows how effective they are.

This site has some good defenses of the Ordinary Form. Especially, it looks at the famous Ottaviani intervention, including what the cardinal said afterwards:

matt1618.freeyellow.com/novusordo.html

The two ensuing letters by Cardinal Ottaviani, after ‘the Ottaviani intervention’ have been a matter of public record for all to see. However, none of those who use this intervention as a way to smear the Pauline Rite Mass, ever let people in on the fact that Ottaviani subsequently wrote that no one could any longer be scandalized. The fact that people continue to publish his original attacks on the Pauline Rite Mass without letting anybody seeing his ensuing letters show deceit of the so-called Traditionalist movement. Maybe we can give the benefit of the doubt and say that many who do tout his original intervention do not know of his subsequent letters in which he affirmed the purity of the faith that was preserved in the Pauline Rite Mass; Nevertheless, these ensuing letters show that indeed that Cardinal Ottaviani did not end up holding the position of those who reject the Pauline Rite Mass. No doubt he was attached to the Tridentine Mass, and in fact now, for those who get indults, that is fine. But Cardinal Ottaviani in the end rejoiced over the fact that the Pauline Rite Mass was preserved and protected against the infiltration of errors and that the Supreme Magisterium upheld the purity and unity of the faith.

What a rash statement!

The “deceit of the so-called Traditionalist movement”?

These letters have been discussed many times…I notice the “mattfreeyellow” does not have them for us to see anyway.

Was Cardinal Ottaviani part of the original plan of deceit? Why did he say it was “a striking departure”?

SFD

 

[palmas85]

GREETINGS ALL! I am a newby here. I need help.

I have a friend who calls himself a “Traditional Catholic”. He was raised Catholic by his parents (as I was), but left the church 30 years ago. He has recently ‘reverted’ back, but now insists on going to the Extraordinary Form Mass only. He recently told me something strange: The Ordinary Form of Mass is invalid. He is also talking about an “undisclosed 3rd secret of the Fatima Apparition”. When we talk about the mass forms (as one rite) he gets very angry and challenging. Based on charity and an open mind, I agreed to go with my friend to a lecture given by his Priest in a local city. I was suspicious after a while in the lecture because of the “uncharitable” way the Priest and others were speaking of (against) the Ordinary form.

Later, when I looked into the Priest’s credentials with the Archdiocese, I learned he is not a valid priest at this time…they said they are looking into him - but it sounded like they do not know what to do about it. He apparently runs his own small parish and does not report to or communicate with the Archdiosese. I also googled the priest’s name and found posts by him at a conspiracy website, which I thought was very odd. He said in the post he believes the government is poisoning us with 'black beams" from aircraft (whatever that means). Apparently he believes in a variety of these conspiracy theories, also including this Fatima issue (that the Vatican has hyjacked the real secret and is hiding it). Wow.

I love both mass forms (I was a alter boy in my youth and served many latin masses), but I can’t seem to calm my pal down on the subject. It is like he is in a ‘cult’ of some sort…I am very worried for my friend. What is going on with this new view of his? Any suggestions? GOD BLESS ALL POSTERS!

I always get just a tad suspicious when people start dropping words like “uncharitable” into the mix when describing the way someone talks or acts. Way too vague and actually not real informative either.

Where is this remarkable activity taking place?. I know you can’t mention a parish or a name, but I don’t think a city would be out of line. That way we could check this story out for ourselves and see exactly what sort of stuff this “priest” is talking about.

Might be a good learning tool for all of us.

Of course since the Priest is posting in different places, maybe you could tell us the name of the website or provide a link.

 

[CassiusLonginus]

The wonderful thing about conspiracy theories is that any reasoned explanation that conspiracies don’t exist becomes proof that in fact they do; it just shows how effective they are.

This site has some good defenses of the Ordinary Form. Especially, it looks at the famous Ottaviani intervention, including what the cardinal said afterwards:

matt1618.freeyellow.com/novusordo.html

Tell me something…Did Ottaviani dictate these letters, did he write them, or did he simply sign them? Where are the letters?

Considering he was about blind, I’d like to know who penned them. Also, considering who his secretary was, in conjunction with his blindness (easy to have one thing read to him and then sign something else) and the fact that he supposedly did an about-face in regard to his position on the NOM though basically nothing had changed, I’m surprised that he would personally use the term ‘doctinal precision’ and do what you claim. Maybe that’s just me…

 

[Tina_in_Ashburn]

lentang2
This is what gives legitimate traditionalists a bad rap.

This subject is very emotional for both sides. Separate the emotion from the actual statements and judge each on its own merit.

Just because somebody is crazy or a sede vacantes or an illicit priest doesn’t mean they are wrong about everything. However, these circumstances are big red flags that should make you consider the source of statements. So you are right to be concerned.

There is nothing wrong with going to the EF. As you suspect, there is something wrong with stating the OF is invalid. Only the Magisterium can state conclusions like this. The laity, even the clergy, are well within their rights to ask questions with the incongruities we see. Even if we come to dire conclusions, it is folly to act on them without direction from the Church. And more importantly, we should never direct others to actions that fly in the face of Church teaching. That is sinful. The most important thing to remember is obedience, as many go to hell being ‘right’ about the wrong things. [Luther was right about one of his 95 theses, but look where his methods got him and the following generations]. Obedience covers many failures on our part and on that of ‘stupid’ authority. [The very thing that makes obedience sanctifying is obeying what we consider stupid. How many of us have “clueless”, “stupid” parents or bosses? This becomes a crux of our salvation.] The only time we are allowed disobedience is in avoiding sin. In the case of the Mass, we do not have clear directives from the Church that the OF is sinful to attend. [As another pointed out, any Mass can be done illicitly or invalidly.]

If the priest is acting without a bishop, this is very serious and he should be avoided. Forget that he also subscribes to crazy conspiratorial beliefs, although this may be a clue to an illogical thinking process. These cannot be proved/disproved and are highly emotional issues. Besides, I always say, “just because I’m paranoid doesn’t mean they aren’t after me”. LOL!

There is NO way to prove whether or not the secrets of Fatima have all been entirely revealed. When I have gotten into these discussions, they always boil down to sources quoted by the respective sides and who to believe. The arguments on both sides are based on hearsay and third parties. Fortunately, approved Marian apparitions are not required articles of Faith.

You most likely won’t get anywhere with your friend. My suggestion is to avoid confrontation and remain charitable. You won’t win caustic arguments. However I find these people interesting and I mentally file away the less crazy statements for future reference and parallels. Sometimes conclusions can be made, but with the application of logic and truth, you will come to different conclusions than they. You will find that these types pick and choose what to believe. They might believe the chair of Peter is empty, but then quote recent papal documents and statements to prove positions. Again, this is why you can’t win arguments with this type.

As far as the comments in this thread on Ottaviani, the Intervention remains one of the best and most succinct statements on the problems with the New Mass. The blind Ottaviani may have been tricked into signing a retraction by a henchman of Bugnini, the architect of the New Mass. However, even this retraction could be construed as a statement of obedience to the Pope, not necessarily a retraction for each and every item of contention. Many subsequent authors used the Intervention as a basis for further discussion and discovery on the problems of the New Mass.

Discussions on Ottaviani are beside the point here. I wanted to comment on your observations.

 

[Claire_from_DE]

GREETINGS ALL! I am a newby here. I need help.

I have a friend who calls himself a “Traditional Catholic”. He was raised Catholic by his parents (as I was), but left the church 30 years ago. He has recently ‘reverted’ back, but now insists on going to the Extraordinary Form Mass only. He recently told me something strange: The Ordinary Form of Mass is invalid. He is also talking about an “undisclosed 3rd secret of the Fatima Apparition”. When we talk about the mass forms (as one rite) he gets very angry and challenging. Based on charity and an open mind, I agreed to go with my friend to a lecture given by his Priest in a local city. I was suspicious after a while in the lecture because of the “uncharitable” way the Priest and others were speaking of (against) the Ordinary form.

Later, when I looked into the Priest’s credentials with the Archdiocese, I learned he is not a valid priest at this time…they said they are looking into him - but it sounded like they do not know what to do about it. He apparently runs his own small parish and does not report to or communicate with the Archdiosese. I also googled the priest’s name and found posts by him at a conspiracy website, which I thought was very odd. He said in the post he believes the government is poisoning us with 'black beams" from aircraft (whatever that means). Apparently he believes in a variety of these conspiracy theories, also including this Fatima issue (that the Vatican has hyjacked the real secret and is hiding it). Wow.

I love both mass forms (I was a alter boy in my youth and served many latin masses), but I can’t seem to calm my pal down on the subject. It is like he is in a ‘cult’ of some sort…I am very worried for my friend. What is going on with this new view of his? Any suggestions? GOD BLESS ALL POSTERS!

About the third Fatima secret, you could point out that it was to be given to the pope. There was no obligation for him to reveal anything about it to the general public.

The suggestion to ask your friend if he accepts Benedict XVI as the pope is a good one. If he denies this, he really can’t call himself Catholic. If he does accept the pope, you could then show him the result of your research on the priest, that he isn’t approved by the bishop.

You can pray for him. You may wish to invite him to go to the EF mass with you at a Catholic parish.

 

[palmas85]

I notice that our good friend Lentang, the OP has dropped from the radar on this one. I noticed that he proclaimed himself to be a newbie when he posted this and I suppose technically he may be one, even though his first posts date back about a year, and they are all remarkably alike.

I thought I had read some of his posts before and he is to put it mildly, very anti-traditionalist to a high degree indeed.

I think that given that fact this thread should be viewed critically as it clearly supports an agenda that he has laid down in the past…

Just an opinion

 

[bpbasilphx]

Tell me something…Did Ottaviani dictate these letters, did he write them, or did he simply sign them? Where are the letters?

**According to what I have read elsewhere, Ottaviani didn’t even write the original Intervention himself, but someone else wrote it and he merely signed it.

Since both the Intervention and later statements modifying it came over his signature, I can only assume that they reflected his opinions.

I’m not picking and choosing which among his writings are “genuine” and which are “forgeries,” just because some agree and others disagree with my own feelings.**

 

[jfoges]

the SSPX believes the OF is weak theologically, that it promotes confusion. They don’t howerver claim that it is invalid.

 

[lentang2]

By his lack of charity, I refer to the priest’s global comments criticizing all of present day catholicism, which I personally witnessed. This priest has built an observable society, placing himself at its head as the sole authority as to interpretation of true Catholic doctrine. He said, in a seminar I was present at, that the Novus Ordo was most likely invalid. I was there; this is not hearsay - I personally stood up and asked him the question as to his view of the Ordinary form of mass.

According to the Catholic Encyclopedia included in the Catholic Answers Faith Database, Charity is partially defined as “(3) Its specific act, i.e. the love of benevolence and friendship.” Also, “charity is that habit or power which disposes us to love God above all creatures for Himself, and to love ourselves and our neighbours for the sake of God.”

His comments run counter to love of present-day catholic doctrine; he conditions his flock to become suspicious of non-traditional catholic theology. This action promotes a block to neighborly love. These acts would therefore appear to be “uncharitable”, hence my original statement.

I am not trying to build a case of reverse anti-charity against this priest. I am just giving you basic background information so you can perhaps advise me how to try to rescue my friend from what seems to be a salvationally-dangerous environment.

If you want to ‘verify my story’, than you miss the point of my post. In that case, just make this a ‘hypothetical’ and advise me if you can.

I will not be disclosing this priest’s name or location. That would be, well, uncharitable.

I always get just a tad suspicious when people start dropping words like “uncharitable” into the mix when describing the way someone talks or acts. Way too vague and actually not real informative either.

Where is this remarkable activity taking place?. I know you can’t mention a parish or a name, but I don’t think a city would be out of line. That way we could check this story out for ourselves and see exactly what sort of stuff this “priest” is talking about.

Might be a good learning tool for all of us.

Of course since the Priest is posting in different places, maybe you could tell us the name of the website or provide a link.

 

[ProVobis]

The wonderful thing about conspiracy theories is that any reasoned explanation that conspiracies don’t exist becomes proof that in fact they do; it just shows how effective they are.

This site has some good defenses of the Ordinary Form. Especially, it looks at the famous Ottaviani intervention, including what the cardinal said afterwards:

matt1618.freeyellow.com/novusordo.html

No disrespect intended against matt1618 but I’ve always wondered about the validity of this website and whose axe they were trying to grind. They certainly aren’t any authority on Church matters.

 

[bpbasilphx]

No disrespect intended against matt1618 but I’ve always wondered about the validity of this website and whose axe they were trying to grind. They certainly aren’t any authority on Church matters.

**And the traditionalists (some of whom are clearly schismatic) who wave around the Ottaviani intervention ARE authorities on Church matters?

Is this what you are saying?**

 

[CassiusLonginus]

Not to derail or anything, but…

So, you can authoritatively call people schismatics without specifically naming them, but we can’t refer to anonymous bishops who teach heresy as heretics?

Nice.

Ok, back to the issue at hand…

 

[palmas85]

By his lack of charity, I refer to the priest’s global comments criticizing all of present day catholicism, which I personally witnessed. This priest has built an observable society, placing himself at its head as the sole authority as to interpretation of true Catholic doctrine. He said, in a seminar I was present at, that the Novus Ordo was most likely invalid. I was there; this is not hearsay - I personally stood up and asked him the question as to his view of the Ordinary form of mass.

According to the Catholic Encyclopedia included in the Catholic Answers Faith Database, Charity is partially defined as “(3) Its specific act, i.e. the love of benevolence and friendship.” Also, “charity is that habit or power which disposes us to love God above all creatures for Himself, and to love ourselves and our neighbours for the sake of God.”

His comments run counter to love of present-day catholic doctrine; he conditions his flock to become suspicious of non-traditional catholic theology. This action promotes a block to neighborly love. These acts would therefore appear to be “uncharitable”, hence my original statement.

I am not trying to build a case of reverse anti-charity against this priest. I am just giving you basic background information so you can perhaps advise me how to try to rescue my friend from what seems to be a salvationally-dangerous environment.

If you want to ‘verify my story’, than you miss the point of my post. In that case, just make this a ‘hypothetical’ and advise me if you can.

I will not be disclosing this priest’s name or location. That would be, well, uncharitable.

Well then how about the website that he is posting on? That seems faitly innocent

 

[palmas85]

By his lack of charity, I refer to the priest’s global comments criticizing all of present day catholicism, which I personally witnessed. This priest has built an observable society, placing himself at its head as the sole authority as to interpretation of true Catholic doctrine. He said, in a seminar I was present at, that the Novus Ordo was most likely invalid. I was there; this is not hearsay - I personally stood up and asked him the question as to his view of the Ordinary form of mass.

According to the Catholic Encyclopedia included in the Catholic Answers Faith Database, Charity is partially defined as “(3) Its specific act, i.e. the love of benevolence and friendship.” Also, “charity is that habit or power which disposes us to love God above all creatures for Himself, and to love ourselves and our neighbours for the sake of God.”

His comments run counter to love of present-day catholic doctrine; he conditions his flock to become suspicious of non-traditional catholic theology. This action promotes a block to neighborly love. These acts would therefore appear to be “uncharitable”, hence my original statement.

I am not trying to build a case of reverse anti-charity against this priest. I am just giving you basic background information so you can perhaps advise me how to try to rescue my friend from what seems to be a salvationally-dangerous environment.

If you want to ‘verify my story’, than you miss the point of my post. In that case, just make this a ‘hypothetical’ and advise me if you can.

I will not be disclosing this priest’s name or location. That would be, well, uncharitable.

Actually, having read all of your prior posts, I;m pretty certain of the point of the thread. I just wanted to see if this Priest was as far out as you painted him and if there was any way to verify it.

You did not disappoint me. .

I don’t deal with hypotheticals.

 

[ProVobis]

No disrespect intended against matt1618 but I’ve always wondered about the validity of this website and whose axe they were trying to grind. They certainly aren’t any authority on Church matters.

**And the traditionalists (some of whom are clearly schismatic) who wave around the Ottaviani intervention ARE authorities on Church matters?

Is this what you are saying?**

No. In fact I believe the traditionalists, of which I don’t claim to be one of, are prohibited in using a particular site as reference so they don’t have much to wave around. So where’s the level playing field here?

Feel free to use matt1618 as your source if CAF rules allow it, but I’m merely expressing an observation and opinion.

By the way, as long as we’re talking in generalities, many non-traditionalists are also clearly schismatic.