Was the New Mass ever promulgated?

[itsjustdave1988]

RSisco,

The argument seemed to be from SSPX’s former U.S. District Superior, the Rev. François Laisney. “Father Laisney, like many others, claims that Paul VI’s legislation did not impose an obligation. Rather, Paul VI merely “presented” or “permitted” the New Mass.”

I’ll read your article, but perhaps you can read Fr. Cekada’s. I disagree with his sedavacantis views, but he demolished Laisney’s argument. See here: catholicrestoration.org/library/nom_illegal.htm

 

[Munda_cor_meum]

ByzCath:

Again, I said that those who say that the Mass of the Church is invalid are in error.

The Mass is obedient to the teachings of the Church, it could not be otherwise unless you think the Church has gone into error itself.

Yes there are abuses in the Mass, I have not claimed otherwise. But the Trads here are not pointing out those abuses, they are making claims that it is invalid and was not promulgated. That is what makes them in error or schismatics, especially when they support schismatic groups like the SSPX and/or pray for schism as one of them has said he does in another thread.

I for one cannot go so far as to say that the Mass of Paul VI is invalid. If you believe, though, that this Mass was “promulgated” you are mistaken.

In Missale Romanum, Paul VI does in fact, say:

what we have decreed will go into force on the following November 30 of next year

Now, a reasonable person could conclude, as you apparently have, that this is the “promulgation” of the new rite. If you read the document, though, you’ll find that Pope Paul VI only decrees that three new Eucharistic prayers are to be printed in this book. He also decrees what are to be the words of consecration that are to appear in all four Eucharistic prayers.

A new rite is not part of the decree.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Munda cor meum:

I for one cannot go so far as to say that the Mass of Paul VI is invalid. If you believe, though, that this Mass was “promulgated” you are mistaken.

In Missale Romanum, Paul VI does in fact, say:

Now, a reasonable person could conclude, as you apparently have, that this is the “promulgation” of the new rite. If you read the document, though, you’ll find that Pope Paul VI only decrees that three new Eucharistic prayers are to be printed in this book. He also decrees what are to be the words of consecration that are to appear in all four Eucharistic prayers.

A new rite is not part of the decree.

Munda cor meum,

How would a reasonable person interpret the following Instruction approved and publised in the *Acta Apostolicae Sedis *by Pope Paul VI?

From the Holy Father’s Instruction Constitutione Apostolica (20 October 1969), AAS 61 (1969) 749–753:

“The foregoing documents decreed that, from 30 November of this year, the First Sunday of Advent, the new rite and the new text be used” …

"The individual conferences of bishops shall also establish the day from which (except for mentioned cases in paragraphs 19-20) it shall become obligatory to employ the [Pauline] Order of Mass. This date, however, shall not be deferred beyond 28 November 1971.” …
**
“The individual conferences of bishops shall decree the day from which use of the texts of the new Roman Missal (except for mentioned cases in paragraphs 19-20) shall be prescribed.” …

“On 18 October 1969 the Supreme Pontiff, Pope Paul VI, approved this Instruction, ordered it to become public law, so that it be faithfully observed by all those to whom it applies”

When interpreting law within the Catholic Church, one cannot thrust their own meanings on to it, but defer to the will of the lawmaker. Even the tacit will of a superior is binding according to Catholic theology, right? Yet, far from tacit or ambiguious, the above Instruction from Paul VI seems clear that the will of Paul VI was to promulgate a “new rite” and to make that new “Order of Mass” “obligatory” by a certain date.

Can you tell me why any other conclusion is even remotely reasonable? How many editio typica of the Missale Romanum are there? Either before or after Vatican II, could one disregard the *editio typica *and simply use which ever version they fancied? C’mon, let us reason together, shall we?

 

[RSiscoe]

Dave,

I’m just curious if you read the article I linked to in post #32 and what your thoughts are.

 

[Munda_cor_meum]

bear06:

Can you quote where Byz did said this?

Sorry if I was not more clear. I was not accusing Byz of this. If that is what anyone got from it I am sincerely sorry. Perhaps it was a mistake, but I was expressing a general frustration on my part not directed at anyone in particular. That being said, I have seen many arguments summarily dismissed as a “Lefebvretist schismatic” attitude when discussing liturgical abuse.

bear06:

Once again, we go back to the “if we just say it enough, people will believe it” card.

Well, I am not saying it, Cardinal Ratzinger is. He said:

Amongst a number of modern liturgists there is unfortunately a tendency to develop the ideas of the Council in one direction only. In acting thus, they end up reversing the intentions of the Council. The role of the priest is reduced, by some, to that of a mere functionary. The fact that the Body of Christ as a whole is the subject of the liturgy is often deformed to the point where the local community becomes the self-sufficient subject of the liturgy and itself distributes the liturgy’s various roles. There also exists a dangerous tendency to minimalize the sacrificial character of the Mass, causing the mystery and the sacred to disappear, on the pretext, a pretext that claims to be absolute, that in this way they make things better understood. Finally, one observes the tendency to fragment the liturgy and to highlight in a unilateral way its communitarian character, giving the assembly itself the power to regulate the celebration.

I have also seen it firsthand in my local, ahem, Catholic Church. Perhaps you are one of the lucky ones whose parish is faithful to the spirit of Vatican II. I however, have not found a “valid” Novus Ordo celebration. - Before anyone starts bashing, I deliberately put the word valid in quotes. By it, I mean a liturgy that is faithful to the missal of Paul VI.

bear06:

Why don’t you list specifics so we can have a true debate rather than just saying that we’re mean for calling people schismatics?

A bit off topic, but a good point. How about these common practices contrary to those promoted by Vatican II:

1. Communion on the Hand
2. Exclusive use of vernacular language
3. Altar Girls
4. Eucharistic ministers
5. Removal of kneelers, holy water fonts and Crucifixes

bear06:

I’ve never called any of you a schismatic but I will say that you use the same arguing tactics that they do!

Again, my comment was not directed at anyone in particular.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

RSiscoe:

Dave,

I’m just curious if you read the article I linked to in post #32 and what your thoughts are.

Yes, I have. It seems there’s no substantial difference in this article to that of Fr. Laisney’s argument, which was thoroughly destroyed by Fr. Cekada in the article I linked to.

Furthermore, the author of the article you provided seems rather animated, giving almost an emotional plea. It’s rather polemical in tone versus a scholastic argument. I prefer the later. Fr. Cekada, althought I disagree with his “Pauline Mass is evil” premise, at least gives a very scholastic rebuttal to the Laisney argument. It seems to me rather indisputable that Paul VI intended to and did in fact promulgate and oblige the Latin Church to the *editio typica *of the Missale Romanum rather than to allow the church to pick and choose which of the many editions they fancied best.

The article you posted seems like quibbling, and yet they aren’t very good at it, as they never look to the corpus of Paul VI’s instructions on the matter, and evaluate the law in that context.

For example, the author of the article states: “Paul VI does not impose an obligation to follow his Ordo Missae!”

Can you explain to me how this is in any way congruent to the Instruction Constitutione Apostolica (20 October 1969), AAS 61 (1969) 749–753, which I provided excerpts from above?

 

[RSiscoe]

itsjustdave1988:

Yes, I have. It seems there’s no substantial difference in this article to that of Fr. Laisney’s argument, which was thoroughly destroyed by Fr. Cekada in the article I linked to… I prefer the later. Fr. Cekada, althought I disagree with his “Pauline Mass is evil” premise, at least gives a very scholastic rebuttal to the Laisney argument… It seems to me rather indisputable that Paul VI intended to and did"

When did Fr. Cekada die? I didn’t hear about that. I also find it interesting that you are promoting an article written by a sedevacantist.

Dave:

Can you explain to me how this is in any way congruent to the Instruction Constitutione Apostolica (20 October 1969), AAS 61 (1969) 749–753, which I provided excerpts from above?

No, I have never looked into it. I have always assumed the new mass was promulgated, and have never really looked into the arguments of those who say it was not. I have read a few articles (such as the ones I have poste here), but never looked into it too deeply. The reason I would even consider that the Mass was NOT promulgated is because, as I have said, I believe we are living in a day of deception, and Rome itself is the main culpret, in my opinion. Sorry if that sounds harsh, but who in their right mind would deny it? I believe that the “enemies within” who Pope Pius X warned us about have risen to the highest ranks of the Church (and brought their friends with them) and are running the show. John Paul II, in my opinin, is virtually incapasitated, and not able to govern. The fact that Cardinal Kasper is in the position he is (and remains there), should be a wake up call to everyone.

That is why I have no problem with a person attending Mass at a Church “not in union with the local Bishop”. As St. Thomas said: “in the case of necessity, there is no law”. I personally believe we are in such a time. I know of only one Priest in my entire diocese who can be trusted. In fact, those are the exact words that a Fathers of Mercy Priest told me personally. He said “the only priest in this entire diocese who I trust is …” and he named the priest that had just finished saying our Indult Mass, and who is in his late 80’s. According to that Fathers of Mercy priest (who was a good priest), he is the only one that can be trusted in the entire diocese. On the other hand, I could name many heretic priests, some of who I have had long discussions with, who are in perfect standing with the “local Bishop” even though they are Catholics only in name, and are leading their flock into perdition. I had an hour long discussion with one of them. He was the worst I have ever spoken with. He even tried to convince me that Jesus was a “party animal” and “a sinner”. He explicitly told me that this is what he tells the young people at his Church. and this priest is the spiritual director to our local ArchBishop! Such is the state of the Church today.

Everyone must handle this situation the best way they know how. Some people may mistakenly believe they have an obligation to attend mass offered by a liberal priest - but not me. “A liberal Catholic is the Churches worst enemy” (Pope Pius IX), so we should avoid these priests as the sheep avoids the wolf.

There is a saying in the church. It goes like this: " A holy priest will have a fervant parish. A fervant priest will have a good parish. A good priest will have a luke warm parish. And a luke warm priest will have a bad parish." Generally speaking, the parish is always, spiritually, one level lower than the priest. Well, what about today when most priests are liberals? Remember what Pope Pius IX said about a liberal Catholic? If the Priests are liberals, what will become of the parish? Just look at how many Catholics go to confession and you will see wht happens to them. They become so luke warm that they loose the sense of sin.

 

[bear06]

I have also seen it firsthand in my local, ahem, Catholic Church. Perhaps you are one of the lucky ones whose parish is faithful to the spirit of Vatican II. I however, have not found a “valid” Novus Ordo celebration. - Before anyone starts bashing, I deliberately put the word valid in quotes. By it, I mean a liturgy that is faithful to the missal of Paul VI.

You might want to use licit/illicit to avoid any future confusion.

A

bit off topic, but a good point. How about these common practices contrary to those promoted by Vatican II:

1. Communion on the Hand
2. Exclusive use of vernacular language
3. Altar Girls
4. Eucharistic ministers
5. Removal of kneelers, holy water fonts and Crucifixes

Again, my comment was not directed at anyone in particular

I agree that some of these are contrary to Vatican II but some of these are disciplines which the Pope has the jurisdiction over. Once again, read Pastor Aeternus ewtn.com/library/councils/v1.htm#6 I don’t care for a few of these either but our liking or not liking them don’t mean that they are opposed to Vatican II. Thankfully, we are not bound to participate in the ones I don’t like!

 

[itsjustdave1988]

When did Fr. Cekada die?

I dunno if he did or not. I didn’t mean “late Fr. Cekada” but meant I prefer the latter argument of Fr. Cekada. I just goofed and put one to little “t’s” in the word.

I also find it interesting that you are promoting an article written by a sedevacantist.

Fr. Cekada’s argument against Fr. Lainsey’s position is well formed and compelling. His understanding of the infallibility of universal Church law is correct as well. His view that the “Pauline Mass is evil” is ridiculous. I challenge anybody to show me what exactly in my Daily Roman Missal is evil. Lefebvre and sedavacantist apologists fail miserably when pressed on this, because all they can do is show how their older edition of the Missal is, in their opinion, holier, more Catholic, meatier.

In my view, it is the catechetical equivalent to the Summa when compared to the Baltimore Catechism. The Summa is definitely meatier, but the Baltimore Catechism is not therefore “evil” because of it.

Just because St. Paul gave the Corinthians “milk” instead of “solid food” doesn’t mean that what St. Paul gave was “evil.” Nor is there “evil” inherent in the editio typica of the Missale Romanum.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

RSiscoe,

As St. Thomas said: “in the case of necessity, there is no law”.

Oh, C’mon RSiscoe, you know very well that to use this quote in the context of the SSPX, sedavacantists, or any other “independent” churches claiming to the the true “remnant” of Catholicism is ridiculous.

St. Thomas is discussing dispensation from law in cases of sudden peril. He is not allowing for rejection or dissention from lawful authorities. Apart from sudden peril which is in need of instant remedy, one must obey the letter of the law or consult higher authority.

Here’s the context of St. Thomas’ teaching:

“it must be noted, that if the observance of the law according to the letter does not involve any sudden risk needing instant remedy, it is not competent for everyone to expound what is useful and what is not useful to the state: those alone can do this who are in authority, and who, on account of such like cases, have the power to dispense from the laws.*** If, however, the peril be so sudden as not to allow of the delay involved by referring the matter to authority, the mere necessity brings with it a dispensation, since necessity knows no law***.” (*Summa Theologica, *IIa, 96, 6)

So, what do you think St. Thomas would say regarding attending a Mass celebrated illicitly by unincardinated priest in disobedience to the diocesene bishop and Roman Pontiff?

I think St. Thomas would have quoted from St. Ignatius of Antioch, “Do nothing apart from the bishop” (Ltr to the Philidelphians), and:

CHAP, IV.–SOME WICKEDLY ACT INDEPENDENTLY OF THE BISHOP.

It is fitting, then, not only to be called Christians, but to be so in reality: as some indeed give one the title of bishop, but do all things without him. Now such persons seem to me to be not possessed of a good conscience, seeing they are not stedfastly gathered together according to the commandment. (Letter to the Magnesians)

Where’s the “sudden” element in the peril involved? There’s none!! The Holy Sacraments convey grace *ex opere operato *so long as the matter, form, and intent are valid and the recipient receives with proper dispensation. The orthodoxy of the minister has nothing to do with it. There’s no danger to the recipient in receiving valid sacraments from even the most sinful of priests. There’s no doubt of law here that requires instant remedy.

If traditionalists have a doubt of law, they ought to send a *dubium *to the Roman Pontiff to resolve the doubt. They may not persist in doubt, as this would be what St. Thomas called the sin of “affected ignorance.” There’s certainly time to consult higher authority, yet Lefebvrist apologists don’t actually have a “doubt of law,” although they pretend to. They instead and in fact have a “dissent of law,” in which the moral casuistry called *Probabilism *does not apply, yet they continue to misuse *Probabilism *just the same, in the meantime leading many ill-informed Catholics into sin.

In the same article of the Summa, St. Thomas emphasizes the obligation to “follow the intention of the lawgiver” and to do what the "the lawgiver intended … For if it be a matter of doubt, he must either act according to the letter of the law, or consult those in power." (ibid).

 

[itsjustdave1988]

The Holy Sacraments convey grace *ex opere operato *so long as the matter, form, and intent are valid and the recipient receives with proper dispensation.

Errrr… sorry, that should be “proper disposition” not “dispensation.” http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon11.gif

 

[RSiscoe]

Dave:

So, what do you think St. Thomas would say regarding attending a Mass celebrated illicitly by unincardinated priest in disobedience to the diocesene bishop and Roman Pontiff?

Do you mean like Saint Athanasius? A Bishop who had been excommunicated by the Pope and spent 17 years in exile from his diocese, while a Bishop, who he considered to be Arian, was the lawful Bishop? Is that what you mean?

If so, I think St. Thomas would say: “in the time of necessity there is no law”. Athanasius lived during a very difficult time. The hierarchy was infested with the heresy of Arianism (today it is infested with liberalism, which is worse), and therefore he did things that normally would not have been allowed. Let’s face it: St. Athanasius gave every appearance of being a schismatic. Don’t deny it.

Dave:

Where’s the “sudden” element in the peril involved? There’s none! The Holy Sacraments convey grace *ex opere operato *

so long as the matter, form, and intent are valid and the recipient receives with proper dispensation. The orthodoxy of the minister has nothing to do with it. There’s no danger to the recipient in receiving valid sacraments from even the most sinful of priests. There’s no doubt of law here that requires instant remedy.

I think you miss the point. The sacraments may indeed by valid, just like those administered by the Arians in Athanasius’ day. (on the other hand, they may not be valid today. Did you know that some priest baptize invalidly today, and some churches use invalid matter for communion? But that is another discussion.) Assuming the sacraments are valid, there is still a problem. For one, the same problem that was occurring in the days of Athanasius - heresy! Actually liberalism which is “the root of all heresy”.

Another problem is “lex orandi, lex credendi” - the law of prayer determines the law of belief. The prayers of the Novus Ordo Mass are totally watered down, not to mention the error at the consecration: Jesus DID NOT say for you and for all; he said for you and for many. Why the mistranslation? And the service itself has employed most of the changes the heretics of the 16th century employed - mass facing the people; all prayers said in a loud tone, and in the vernacular; communion under both kinds; communion in the hand, the altar was replaced by a table, etc, etc, etc. Where the heretics of the 16th century right after all? And was the council of Trent wrong when it condemned many of those changes?

The New Mass is virtually identical to the episcopal service I grew up with. In fact, when my sister went to a Novus Ordo Mass a few years ago, she said: “That was just like church when we grew up. I followed right along.” Of course she did, because the New Mass is more Protestant than Catholic. I guarantee should would not have “followed right along” at a Traditional Mass because that is totally different.

Now, think about this: What did Pope Leo XIII say about the episcopal (Anglican) service.? What did he say when he condemned it? Listen to what he said:

“They knew only too well the intimate bond which unites faith with worship, ‘the law of belief with the law of prayer’(lex orandi, lex credendi), 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).

Now, the Episcopal service, which the Pope was talking about, is virtually identical to the new mass. That’s why my sister said that when she attended the Novus Ordo “it was just like church when we were kids”. She was right, it was just like church when we were kids – virtually indentical.

continue…

 

[RSiscoe]

So, the problem with the Novus Ordo is more than just validity. It may be valid, and it may not, depending on the church. I do not deny that it is valid when the proper form, matter, and intend are used. But the proper form, matter, and intent are not always used. I remember listening to Mother Angelica one day. A person called in and said: “Mother, last Sunday at Mass, the priest consecrated a cake for communion: was that valid? Mother Angelica said, with disgust in her voice “honey you got nothin”. Some churches use invalid matter for communion, so you never know for sure if the mass is valid or not. The Novus Ordo Mass had turned into a mess.

To me it is no surprise that the new Mass is such a mess. What else should we expect when the intent of the “reform” was to please the [Protestant] “reformers”? In 1965, the Vatican Newspaper, L’Osservatore Romano quoted Anibale Bugnini, the principle architect of the new mass (and Freemason, according the Malachi Martin), as saying: *“We must strip from our Catholic prayers and from the Catholic liturgy everything that could constitute the slightest stumbling block or displeasure for our separated brethren, that is, for the Protestants” (L’Osservatore Romano, March 16, 1965). *When the Mass is “reformed” with the intent of pleasing heretics, what do you expect the result to be? An othodox Mass, or a heretics one?

Above I listed a few of the things the heretics of the 16th century did in order to destroy the Mass - I say in order to destroy the Mass, because Luther himself said that was his intention:

*“When we have overthrown the Mass” said Luther,” we shall have overthrown the whole Papacy with it. For it is upon the Mass, as upon a rock, that the Papacy rests - with its bishoprics, its colleges, its altars, its ministers, and its doctrines. All these cannot fail to fall once their sacrilegious and abominable Mass crumbles to the dust” (Martin Luther, Against Henry King of England, Werke, Vol 10, pg 220). *

Now, let’s look at a few of these changes made by the so called reformers of the 16th century, which parallel the “reformers” of the 20the century:

1.) The reformers changed the liturgical language from Latin to the vernacular, just like we find in the average Novus Ordo church today. Against this, the Council of Trent declared:

**“If anyone says that the Mass ought to be celebrated in the vernacular only… let him be anathema” (Council of Trent, Session XXII Canon 7). **

2.) The reformers employed the practice of communion in the hand, and communion under both kinds, just like in the Novus Ordo today. Regarding this, the Council of Trent declared:

“If anyone denies that Christ, the fountain and author of all graces, is received whole and entire under the one species of bread… let him be anathema” (Session 21 Canon 3).

“If anyone says that the Holy Catholic Church was not moved by just cause and reasons to give Communion under the form of bread only to laymen, and even to clerics when not consecrating, or that she has erred in this, let him be anathema” (Session XXI Canon 2)

continue…

 

[RSiscoe]

3.) Luther rejected the notion that the Mass was a sacrifice, claiming that the Divine Liturgy was nothing but a meal (sound familiar). Therefore, he removed any mention of sacrifice from the liturgy, replacing it with such terms as “Eucharist”, or “supper of the Lord”. *“We must state in the first place” said Luther, “that our intention has never been to abolish divine worship, but merely to purge the form which is used of all additions which have sullied it. I am speaking of that abominable Canon which is a confluence of slimy lagoons; they have made of the mass a sacrifice; they have added to it offertories. The mass is not a sacrifice, it is not the act of a sacrificing high priest. Let us regard it as a sacrament, or a testament. Let us call it a blessing, or Eucharist, or any title we like, provided it is not sullied by the term sacrifice, or re-enactment. With the Canon we discarded all that implies an Oblation…”. *Cardinal Ottaviani said that the Novus Ordo mass had intentionally removed mention of sacrifice and oblation. Against these changes made by the reformers, the council of Trent declared:

4.) The reformers had the Priest, or minister, face the people during the service, just like the Novus Ordo, thus fulfilling the prophecy of Jeremias: “they have turned their backs to me, and not their face” (Jeremias 2:27). They also began to have all prayers said aloud, rather than certain prayers said silently, just like in the Novus Ordo. Against this, the Council of Trent said:

“If anyone says that the rite of the Roman Church, according to which a part of the canon and the words of consecration are pronounced in a low tone, is to be condemned; or that the Mass ought to be celebrated in the vernacular only… let him be anathema” (Session XXII Canon 9).

5.) The reformers replaced the altar with a table, just like in the Novus Ordo. Cranmer gave the reason for this: “The form of the table shall more move the simple from the superstitious opinions of the Popish mass… For the use of an altar is to make sacrifice upon it; the use of a table is to serve for men to eat upon”(Thomas Cranmer works Vol II).

6.) Since Latin was no longer the language used, they replaced the sacred Gregorian chant with profane folk music, just like most Novus Ordo Churches today. In the Decrees of the Council of Trent we read:

“They shall also banish from the churches all such music which, whether by the organ or in the singing, contains things that are lascivious or impure…”

7.) They also removed the crucifixes and statues from their churches, and the celebrant ceased wearing the Sacred Vestments, just like in the Novus Ordo (with some exceptions).

Against this the Council of Trent declared:

“If anyone says that in the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs that the Catholic Church makes use of in the celebration of Masses are incentives to impiety, rather than offices of piety, let him be anathema” (Session XXII Canon 7).

continue…

 

[RSiscoe]

Regarding the removal of statues, St. Robert Bellarmine said: *“when we enter ornate and clean Basilicas, adorned with crosses, sacred images, altars, and burning lamps, we most easily conceive devotion. But on the other hand, when we enter the temples of the heretics, where there is nothing except a chair for preaching and a wooden table for making a meal, we feel ourselves to be entering a profane hall and not the house of God.” *What we he say about the stripped out Novus Ordo Churches today?

The “gradual changes” made in the Novus Ordo correspond perfectly to those the heretics of the 16th century employed in order to destroy the Mass. The reason for the gradual change was given by Luther: “*In order to achieve this aim [destruction of the Mass] successfully and safely it will be necessary to preserve some of the ceremonies of the ancient mass so as not to scandalize the weak minded". *

Who will deny that the liturgical of the Novus Ordo corresponds to that of Luther? Not the Vatican. On October 13, 1967, L’Osservatore Romano (The Vatican Newspaper), wrote: “Liturgical reform has taken a notable step forward on the path of ecumenism. It has come closer to the liturgical reforms of the Lutheran Church”. Luther’s slogan: “destroy the Mass, destroy the Church”.

“I see many excommunicated ecclesiastics who do not seem to be concerned about it or even aware of it. Yet, they are excommunicated… I saw that those things which pertained to Protestantism gradually gained the upper hand… Most Priests contributed to the destruction of the Church” (Anna Catherine Emmerich).

So, is it any surprise that the New Mass is such a mess? And is it any surprise that Cardinal Ottaviani, who held the position of Cardinal Ratzinger under three Popes, said the following about the New Mass:

“It is evident that the Novus Ordo has no intention of presenting the Faith as taught by the Council of Trent, to which, nonetheless, the Catholic conscience is bound forever. With the promulgation of the Novus Ordo, the loyal Catholic is thus faced with a most tragic alternative” (Ottaviani Intervention).

“My tabernacle is laid waste… my children are gone out from me… Because the pastors have done foolishly, and have not sought the Lord: therefore have they not understood, and all their flock is scattered” (Jeremias 10:20-21).

Dr. Smith, a Lutheran who was one of the six Protestant ministers that assisted with designing the new Mass, boasted publicly: “We have finished the work that Martin Luther began”. According to this Lutheran minister, the Novus Ordo “finished the work Luther has begun”. What did Luther say about the Mass?

*I believe and confess that the popish Mass is an invention and ordinance of man, a sacrifice of Antichrist… and that it is a stinking and infected sepulchre, which hideth and covereth the merit of the blood of Christ; **and therefore ought the Mass to be abolished”. … ***“When we have overthrown the Mass” said Luther,” we shall have overthrown the whole Papacy with it. For it is upon the Mass, as upon a rock, that the Papacy rests - with its bishoprics, its colleges, its altars, its ministers, and its doctrines. All these cannot fail to fall once their sacrilegious and abominable Mass crumbles to the dust” (Martin Luther, Against Henry King of England, Werke, Vol 10, pg 220). And the new mass finished the work he began?

continue…

 

[RSiscoe]

The problem with the Novus Ordo is more than just validity. It was written under the spirit of false ecumenism, in order to be “less offensive” to the Protestants (according to the Vatican newspaper quoted above). If Athanasius, and his followers were justified in staying away from their local Church because some priests taught heresy, how much more so when, when the Mass itself has been changed into a protestantised liturgy? “The law of prayer determines the law of belief.

There are isues with the new mass that make many wonder if it is even valid, since the form of consecration has been changed – pro multis, purposefully mistranslated as “for all”. I am certainly not qualified to determine if this invalidates it or not, but it is worth pointing out that the Novus Ordo in Latin does not say “for all”. It has the correct wording. It is the vernacular languages that have purposefully mistranslated and changed the meaning. It is also worth pointing out that when Leo XIII declared the Anglican service to be invalid, he did so based partly on the “lex orandi, lex credendi”. Like I said, the new mass may be valid, but then again, it may not be. It is a fact that the Church father’s have taught that at some point (today?) the mass will cease to be valid. This was also predicted in the book of Daniel.

In 1861, Cardinal Manning, having studied the Fathers of the Church on the subject of Antichrist, stated the following:

“The Holy Fathers who have written upon the subject of antichrist, and of the prophecies of Daniel, without exception, as far as I know – and they are the Fathers of both the East and of the West, the Greek and Latin Church – all of them unanimously say that in the latter end of the world, during the reign of antichrist, the Holy Sacrifice of the altar will cease”. In the work on the end of the world, ascribed to St. Hippolytus, after a long description of the afflictions of the last days, we read as follows:

‘The Church shall lament with a great lamentation, for there shall be offered no more oblation nor worship acceptable to God. The sacred buildings of the churches shall be as hovels [stripped]; and the precious Body and Blood of Christ shall not be manifest in those days; the True Liturgy shall become extinct… Such is the universal testimony of the Fathers of the early centuries.’”

St. Alphonsus, who is one of only 33 Doctors of the Church, confirms the above quote of Cardinal Manning: “The devil has always attempted, by means of heretics, to deprive the world of the Mass, making them precursors of the antichrist, who before anything else, will try to abolish and will actually abolish the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, as a punishment for the sins of men, according to the prediction of Daniel, ‘And strength was given him against the continual sacrifice (Dan 8:12)’.” (St. Alphonsus, The Dignities and Duties of The Priest, London: Benzinger Bros., p. 212)

“they shall defile the sanctuary… and shall take away the continual sacrifice, and they shall place there the abomination of desolation. And such as deal wickedly against the covenant shall deceitfully dissemble” (Daniel 11: 31-32)

"I saw again the new and odd-looking Church which they were trying to build. There was nothing holy about it… nor did they receive the body of Our Lord, but only bread. Those who were in error, through no fault of their own, and who piously and ardently longed for the Body of Jesus were spiritually consoled, but not by their communion. Then my guide (Jesus) said: ‘THIS IS BABEL.’ [The Mass in many languages]" (Ann-Catherine Emmerich, circa 1820).

Those are a few of the reasons I personally do not attend the Novus Ordo Mass.

 

[TNT]

RSiscoe:

…** the Holy Sacrifice of the altar will cease”. In the work on the end of the world, ascribed to St. Hippolytus, after a long description of the afflictions of the last days, we read as follows:**

‘The Church shall lament with a great lamentation, for there shall be offered no more oblation nor worship acceptable to God. …“they shall defile the sanctuary… and shall take away the continual sacrifice, and they shall place there the abomination of desolation. And such as deal wickedly against the covenant shall deceitfully dissemble” (Daniel 11: 31-32)

If this is so, does it mean that the TLM will also disappear? That is, Absolutely no Sacrifice of the Mass?
Or, is it to mean it will be unavailable and unsought by most?
Or, does it mean that the “continual” will cease, and only occur intermittently in relation to “from the rising even to the setting of the sun”?

 

[bear06]

Do you mean like Saint Athanasius? A Bishop who had been excommunicated by the Pope and spent 17 years in exile from his diocese, while a Bishop, who he considered to be Arian, was the lawful Bishop?

It’s going to take me days to paw through this lengthy post but I’ll start by saying that this is just plain historically inaccurate. Yet another myth perpetuated by rad-Trads authors.​

envoymagazine.com/backissues/4.6/lefebvre.htm

Pope Liberius
Probably the most common claim I came across within SSPX circles was the claim that Pope Liberius (reigned A.D. 352-366) was a heretic, sympathetic to Arianism, who falsely excommunicated St. Athanasius. For this reason, the SSPX claims, Pope Liberius became the first pope in the history of the Church not be recognized as a saint. Of course, by analogy the SSPX considers Archbishop Lefebvre a modern St. Athanasius and Pope John Paul II a modern Pope Liberius.

Their argument is that if it happened once, it can happen again. And yet, as our Lord showed me in a rather amusing fashion, such claims have little basis in Catholic Tradition.

Convinced the SSPX claims pertaining to this situation were true, I was reading my copy of Henri Denzinger’s Sources of Catholic Dogma one day when I noticed that Denzinger listed Pope Liberius as “St. Liberius.” To say I was surprised would be an understatement — ironically enough, the SSPX had sold me the particular edition of Denzinger I was reading, since they held all subsequent editions as suspect. Yet this portion of Denzinger clearly did not accord with what was being preached from our local SSPX pulpit. So I simply dismissed this listing as a probable typesetting error and continued reading.

A mere ten pages later, I came across a papal epistle authored by Pope St. Anastasius subtitled “The Orthodoxy of Pope Liberius.” In it, Pope St. Anastasius clearly states: “The heretical African faction [of the Arian heresy] was not able by any deception to introduce its baseness because, as we believe, our God provided that that holy and untarnished faith be not contaminated through any vicious blasphemy of slanderous men — that faith which had been discussed and defended at the meeting of the synod of Nicea by the holy men and bishops now placed in the resting place of the saints” (see art. 93 of the thirtieth edition).

So far, so good; God had clearly preserved the Church from Arianism through the actions and prayer of holy men. But who were these holy men, and how does this relate to Pope Liberius? I wondered. To my surprise, Pope St. Anastasius answered the question in the subsequent paragraph this way: “For this faith those who were then esteemed as holy bishops gladly endured exile, that is . . . Liberius, bishop of the Roman Church.”

I was stunned by this pope’s answer, for clearly there was a contradiction here: Was I to believe Archbishop Lefebvre and his followers as the authentic teaching from Catholic Tradition? Or was I to believe the teaching of Anastasius in his papal epistle Dat mihi plurimum — the claim of one who was a saint, a pope, and a writer much closer to the time the Arian heresy took place? When my local SSPX priest failed to provide an adequate solution for this quandary, I could only accept the claim of Pope St. Anastasius as the authentic voice of Catholic Tradition.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

RSiscoe,

Do you mean like Saint Athanasius? A Bishop who had been excommunicated by the Pope and spent 17 years in exile from his diocese, while a Bishop, who he considered to be Arian, was the lawful Bishop? Is that what you mean?

sigh

The Lefebvrists have worn out the highly unconvincing Athanasius comparison, but since you seem duped by it, I’ll tell you why it’s so unconvincing.

It is historically doubtful if Pope Liberius*** ever*** excommunicated St. Athanasius, but if he did sign a decree of excommunication (as of yet, proof is lacking), than it is even more doubtful that he did so voluntarily given the extant historical evidence. Thus, St Athanasius was never excommunicated. On the contrary, St. Athanasius and Pope Liberius were in agreement on the orthodoxy of the Nicene Council, which is why Pope Liberius was also exiled. Thus, St. Athanasius was never a non-incardinated priest, and your comparison falls apart. See more here: CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Pope Liberius

Lefebvrism has no comparison to the persecution endured by BOTH Pope Liberius and St. Athanasius from the **Roman Emporer **because of their steadfast faithfulness to the Nicene Council. They both held that the judgement of the Ecumenical Council was the final word on the matter. In fact, those that hold fast to Ecumencial Council of Vatican II have more similarity to that position than do Lefebvrists.

Pope John Paul II excommunicated Lefebvre and the illicitly ordained bishops of his movement voluntarily, after giving them warning after warning. In essence, Lefebvre’s disobedience demanded the just censure voluntarily decreed by the lawful Vicar of Christ, Pope John Paul II.

This is from Pope John Paul II sent to Msgr Lefebvre just weeks prior to his schismatic consecration of Bishops:

In the letter you sent me you appear to reject all that was agreed on in the previous conversations, since you clearly manifest your intention to “provide the means yourself to continue your work,” particularly by proceeding shortly and without apostolic mandate to one or several episcopal ordinations, and this in flagrant contradiction not only with the norms of Canon Law, but also with the Protocol signed on May 5th and the directions relevant to this problem contained in the letter which Cardinal Ratzinger wrote to you on my instructions on May 30th.(Letter to Lefebvre by Pope John Paul II, June 9, 1988)

Lefebvre was clearly forewarned by the Pope that he lacked the necessary pontifical mandate to proceed with his episcopal consecrations. Despite this forewarning by the Pope, on June 15, 1988, Lefebvre held a press conference announcing his intentions to consecrate four bishops on 30 Jun 1988.

Having been forewarned by both Cardinal Ratzinger and the Pope that the mandate necessary to proceed with the episcopal consecrations was lacking, and in light of this press conference announcing the four candidates, on behalf of the Congregation for Bishops, Cardinal Gantin issued the following monition on June 17, 1988:

Since on June 15th, 1988 you stated that you intended to ordain four priests to the episcopate without having obtained the mandate of the Supreme Pontiff as required by canon 1013 of the Code of Canon Law, I myself convey to you this public canonical warning, confirming that if you should carry out your intention as stated above, you yourself and also the bishops ordained by you shall incur ipso facto excommunication latae sententiae reserved to the Apostolic See in accordance with canon 1382.
Despite the above clear warnings, Lefebvre proceeded with the consecrations. Tell me, why did he not deserve the excommunication? Wasn’t he in fact ASKING to be excommunicated by ignoring the AUTHORITY of the Pope? How can any objective person believe Lefebvre’s excommunication was not valid? To do so would be to deny the Pope’s power to judge, to excommunicatd, to legislate, thereby denying the authority of the Pope.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Assuming the sacraments are valid, there is still a problem. For one, the same problem that was occurring in the days of Athanasius - heresy! Actually liberalism which is “the root of all heresy”.

Please demonstrate what heresy was taugth by either Pope Paul VI, Pope John Paul I, and/or Pope John Paul II, each of which affirmed the orthodoxy of Vatican II and considerd the Pauline Mass as the normative Mass of the Latin Rite.

Tell me, how long until sedavacantist and Lefebvrists start looking at each other in the light that all orthodox Catholics see them: as an insigificant fringe movement who have resurrected the Donatist heresy all over again and are slowly but surely loosing any pretense of credibility with each new Roman Pontiff to affirm the orthodoxy of Vatican II and the Pauline Mass.

The folks at Campos figured it out, as have many SSPX priests who have entered into full communion with the Roman Pontiff. It’s baffling why the rest continue in the Novus Donatism.