SSPX or Orthodox
(10-18-2009, 02:46 PM)devotedknuckles Wrote: Walty allot to respond to ill try
To get all the points
First
The NO certainly is not catholic. Its protestant  through and through.
Is it valid? Well sometimes I suppose. Again as has been said better then myself here the orthodox masses r valid but not catholic. Hell black masses r valid but certainly r not catholic.
Walty its a very hard edged pill to swallow but the smoke of satan has done so much demolishin on the True faith by the imposition of a non catholic mass I sympathjize with u in having a hard time comming to grips with how how so very deep the destruction and revolution has been. But alas Tradition was not destroyed and the True mass the mass of all times like ST athanasius stands against the world. Walty the NO is no good lad! Avoid it like the plague. And I mean it. I don't know why God would allow what happened to happen  but God gave me eyes and I see the horrid catastrophe for what it is.
We r in dark times but satan and his demons will not prevail!
By extension
The NO being a non catholic mass how can catholics in good consciounce worship at it? Yoir a bright lad walty. So do ur soul a favor and compare the mass for all time side by side to the prod bastard mass the NO. And u will see. Just if u do go  stop going to the NO and only worship at the mass of all time. Tradition lad!!
The world will eat itself along with the modernists but stand with Tradition.

I definitely agree with you DK.  I mean, if I didn't love Tradition I wouldn't be here.  You are right.  It certainly does seem that the TLM is superior in every way.  At the same time, I just don't understand how to come to grips with that or understand that in light of everything else I know about the Church.  You're right that it's a hard pill to swallow and ever since I started considering myself a Traditional Catholic (at least two years ago) I guess I still haven't figured out exactly what's going on in the Church.  I don't want to become an anti-Papist nor do I want to deny the Holy Ghost in the Church so this is why I hold the views I do.
Reply
(10-18-2009, 02:58 PM)Walty Wrote:
(10-18-2009, 02:46 PM)devotedknuckles Wrote: Walty allot to respond to ill try
To get all the points
First
The NO certainly is not catholic. Its protestant  through and through.
Is it valid? Well sometimes I suppose. Again as has been said better then myself here the orthodox masses r valid but not catholic. Hell black masses r valid but certainly r not catholic.
Walty its a very hard edged pill to swallow but the smoke of satan has done so much demolishin on the True faith by the imposition of a non catholic mass I sympathjize with u in having a hard time comming to grips with how how so very deep the destruction and revolution has been. But alas Tradition was not destroyed and the True mass the mass of all times like ST athanasius stands against the world. Walty the NO is no good lad! Avoid it like the plague. And I mean it. I don't know why God would allow what happened to happen  but God gave me eyes and I see the horrid catastrophe for what it is.
We r in dark times but satan and his demons will not prevail!
By extension
The NO being a non catholic mass how can catholics in good consciounce worship at it? Yoir a bright lad walty. So do ur soul a favor and compare the mass for all time side by side to the prod bastard mass the NO. And u will see. Just if u do go  stop going to the NO and only worship at the mass of all time. Tradition lad!!
The world will eat itself along with the modernists but stand with Tradition.

I definitely agree with you DK.  I mean, if I didn't love Tradition I wouldn't be here.  You are right.  It certainly does seem that the TLM is superior in every way.  At the same time, I just don't understand how to come to grips with that or understand that in light of everything else I know about the Church.  You're right that it's a hard pill to swallow and ever since I started considering myself a Traditional Catholic (at least two years ago) I guess I still haven't figured out exactly what's going on in the Church.  I don't want to become an anti-Papist nor do I want to deny the Holy Ghost in the Church so this is why I hold the views I do.

I used to be just like you, man.  I could NOT come to grips with it - no matter how hard I tried.  When it comes down to it, we can all agree, that is the majority of us who are on this forum, that the Church is a VERY confusing place these days - and the smoke of Satan has surely entered the Church and is wafting to her utmost levels.

What do the saints tell us when a situation like this arises.  Heed the words of St. Vincent of Lerins, which have consoled me on more than one occasion:

"What then shall the Catholic do if some portion of the Church detaches itself from communion of the universal Faith? If some new contagion attempts to poison, no longer a small part of the Church, but the whole Church at once, then his great concern will be to attach himself to antiquity (Tradition) which can no longer be led astray by any lying novelty."

You say that you don't want to become an anti-Papist.  We who are associated with the SSPX have probably the most respect for the Chair of St. Peter than anyone else.  BUT, we will NOT stand aside as the Church is destroyed from within.  If a priest or bishop or even the Pope himself says or does something that is damaging to the faith of souls, then we will call it as we see it.  As saints have said "to not speak out against evil is to condone it."

I will pray that you continue to hold fast to Tradition.  God Bless.
Reply
(10-18-2009, 02:05 PM)Nic Wrote:
(10-18-2009, 02:00 PM)Walty Wrote: The difference is that Arianism didn't infilitrate and change the form of the sacraments, as far as I can tell.

So if you admit that the Sacraments have been changed, then why do you continue to defend the new Sacraments when we are supposed to "cling to Tradition."  (and yes, Arianism most DEFINATELY did infiltrate, and they did change the Sacraments - how could they not?  They didn't believe in the Divinity of Christ!)

Arianism is a DIRECT parrallel to our times.  The Arian Crisis and the Modernist Crisis are extraordinarily similiar.  St. Athanasius, who truly is the Saint of our times, was without a doubt one of the most courageous defenders of the Faith in Church history.  He shares many interesting parallels with His late Excellency, Archbishop Lefebvre.  Here is a quote from St. Athanasius that you really should read.  Word for word, it could have been written yesterday:

"May God console you! ... What saddens you ... is the fact that others have occupied the churches by violence, while during this time you are on the outside. It is a fact that they have the premises – but you have the Apostolic Faith. They can occupy our churches, but they are outside the true Faith. You remain outside the places of worship, but the Faith dwells within you. Let us consider: what is more important, the place or the Faith? The true Faith, obviously. Who has lost and who has won in the struggle – the one who keeps the premises or the one who keeps the Faith? True, the premises are good when the Apostolic Faith is preached there; they are holy if everything takes place there in a holy way ...

"You are the ones who are happy; you who remain within the Church by your Faith, who hold firmly to the foundations of the Faith which has come down to you from Apostolic Tradition. And if an execrable jealousy has tried to shake it on a number of occasions, it has not succeeded. They are the ones who have broken away from it in the present crisis. No one, ever, will prevail against your Faith, beloved Brothers. And we believe that God will give us our churches back some day.

"Thus, the more violently they try to occupy the places of worship, the more they separate themselves from the Church. They claim that they represent the Church; but in reality, they are the ones who are expelling themselves from it and going astray. Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ."

Awesome quotes. That's going in my signature! well, part of it anyway. you can hve a fishie too.
Reply
(10-19-2009, 06:17 AM)Arun Wrote:
(10-18-2009, 02:05 PM)Nic Wrote:
(10-18-2009, 02:00 PM)Walty Wrote: The difference is that Arianism didn't infilitrate and change the form of the sacraments, as far as I can tell.

So if you admit that the Sacraments have been changed, then why do you continue to defend the new Sacraments when we are supposed to "cling to Tradition."  (and yes, Arianism most DEFINATELY did infiltrate, and they did change the Sacraments - how could they not?  They didn't believe in the Divinity of Christ!)

Arianism is a DIRECT parrallel to our times.  The Arian Crisis and the Modernist Crisis are extraordinarily similiar.  St. Athanasius, who truly is the Saint of our times, was without a doubt one of the most courageous defenders of the Faith in Church history.  He shares many interesting parallels with His late Excellency, Archbishop Lefebvre.  Here is a quote from St. Athanasius that you really should read.  Word for word, it could have been written yesterday:

"May God console you! ... What saddens you ... is the fact that others have occupied the churches by violence, while during this time you are on the outside. It is a fact that they have the premises – but you have the Apostolic Faith. They can occupy our churches, but they are outside the true Faith. You remain outside the places of worship, but the Faith dwells within you. Let us consider: what is more important, the place or the Faith? The true Faith, obviously. Who has lost and who has won in the struggle – the one who keeps the premises or the one who keeps the Faith? True, the premises are good when the Apostolic Faith is preached there; they are holy if everything takes place there in a holy way ...

"You are the ones who are happy; you who remain within the Church by your Faith, who hold firmly to the foundations of the Faith which has come down to you from Apostolic Tradition. And if an execrable jealousy has tried to shake it on a number of occasions, it has not succeeded. They are the ones who have broken away from it in the present crisis. No one, ever, will prevail against your Faith, beloved Brothers. And we believe that God will give us our churches back some day.

"Thus, the more violently they try to occupy the places of worship, the more they separate themselves from the Church. They claim that they represent the Church; but in reality, they are the ones who are expelling themselves from it and going astray. Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ."

Awesome quotes. That's going in my signature! well, part of it anyway. you can hve a fishie too.

Arun,

The first time I read that quote I actually thought it was written by Archbishop Lefebvre!  That is how eerily similar the situation of the Arian Crisis is with the Modernist Crisis of today.  I truly think that St. Athanasius is the saint of our times.  His courageous stance against error and his love for Apostolic Tradition speak volumes during these tumultuous times.
Reply
Darn skippy! I read the biography by Bishop Tissier de Mallerais earlier this year, and was absolutely amazed by how saintly the Archbishop's life was. If it weren't for his fidelity to Truth and the Faith, I don't think the Mass of All Time would even be around any more!
Reply
How true!!! ABL will be knows as ST. And don't u forget it
Sip
Reply
(10-18-2009, 03:42 AM)nsper7 Wrote: As one who is a Neo-Conservative Catholic w/ Traditional leanings, I would admonish Traditional Catholics to be more supportive and understanding of us Neo-Caths. Remember that on many key issues we agree and we both desire what we believe is best for the Catholic Church.

How is that I can go to a NO and no TLM available, yet you seem stuck on the NO? I go to the NO out of necessity. I have a good priest in my guitar mass parish. I'm not fond of it; but I don't grumble. I just pray for the TLM's restoration.  I just don't see why you complain about the NO being equal when even I who only goes to a TLM and has never been to a TLM, can tell just by looking at TLM and examining its prayers on the 'net that the TLM's superior in every way to the NO. Hands down. Yet, you still whine and gripe?

Understand I'm an "NO"-attender, but I've been "trad-itized." You'd be wise to wise up to tradition and do likewise.

Pax,
Matthew
Reply
(10-21-2009, 06:48 PM)Ravenonthecross Wrote:
(10-18-2009, 03:42 AM)nsper7 Wrote: As one who is a Neo-Conservative Catholic w/ Traditional leanings, I would admonish Traditional Catholics to be more supportive and understanding of us Neo-Caths. Remember that on many key issues we agree and we both desire what we believe is best for the Catholic Church.

How is that I can go to a NO and no TLM available, yet you seem stuck on the NO? I go to the NO out of necessity. I have a good priest in my guitar mass parish. I'm not fond of it; but I don't grumble. I just pray for the TLM's restoration.  I just don't see why you complain about the NO being equal when even I who only goes to a TLM and has never been to a TLM, can tell just by looking at TLM and examining its prayers on the 'net that the TLM's superior in every way to the NO. Hands down. Yet, you still whine and gripe?

Understand I'm an "NO"-attender, but I've been "trad-itized." You'd be wise to wise up to tradition and do likewise.

Pax,
Matthew

Going to the N.O., out of necessity as you state, when you obviously see the problems with it and the supremacy of the TLM, is opportunism.  It is a good thing to desire to fulfill your Sunday Obligation - but it is not permitted to use a sinful means to do this.  The Novus Ordo Mass is a sacrilege - it is a Protestantized form of the Mass that meets almost fully the demands of Luther and Cranmer.  It is reminiscent of one of the oldest Biblical accounts - that of Cain and Abel.  Cain's sacrifice to God was not pleasing, and neither is the N.O. Mass.  One CANNOT fulfill their Sunday Obligation at such a Mass.  Here is a bit from the SSPX site concerning this topic that I think you should read carefully:

Is the Novus Ordo Mass invalid, or sacrilegious, and should I assist at it when I have no alternative?

The validity of the reformed rite of Mass, as issued in Latin by Paul VI in 1969, must be judged according to the same criteria as the validity of the other sacraments; namely matter, form and intention. The defective theology and meaning of the rites, eliminating as they do every reference to the principal propitiatory end of sacrifice, do not necessarily invalidate the Mass. The intention of doing what the Church does, even if the priest understands it imperfectly, is sufficient for validity. With respect to the matter, pure wheaten bread and true wine from grapes are what is required for validity. The changes in the words of the form in the Latin original, although certainly illicit and unprecedented in the history of the Church, do not alter the substance of its meaning, and consequently do not invalidate the Mass.

However, we all know that such a New Mass celebrated in Latin is an oddity, doomed to extinction by the very fact of the reform. The validity of the New Masses that are actually celebrated in today’s parishes more than 30 years later is a quite different question. Additives to the host sometimes invalidate the matter. The change in the translation from the words of Our Lord, "for many" to the ecumenically acceptable "for all" throws at least some doubt on the validity of the form. Most importantly, however, is the fact that the intention of the Church of offering up a true sacrifice in propitiation for the sins of the living and the dead has been obliterated for 30 years. In fact, most liturgies present the contrary intention of a celebration by the community of the praise of God. In such circumstances it is very easy for a priest to no longer have the intention of doing what the Church does, and for the New Mass to become invalid for this reason. The problem is that this is hidden and nobody knows. Whereas the traditional Mass expresses the true intention of the Church in a clear and unambiguous manner, so that everyone can be certain of the priest’s intention, the New Mass does no such thing. Consequently, the doubt of invalidity for lack of intention, especially in the case of manifestly modernist priests, cannot be easily lifted or removed.

Clearly, an invalid Mass is not a Mass at all, and does not satisfy the Sunday obligation. Furthermore, when it comes to the sacraments, Catholics are obliged to follow the "pars tutior," the safer path. It is not permissible to knowingly receive doubtful sacraments. Consequently nobody has the obligation to satisfy his Sunday obligation by attending the New Mass, even if there is no other alternative.

However, even if we could be certain of the validity of the Novus Ordo Masses celebrated in today’s Conciliar churches, it does not follow that they are pleasing to God. Much to the contrary, they are objectively sacrilegious, even if those who assist at them are not aware of it. By such a statement, I do not mean that all those who celebrate or assist at the New Mass are necessarily in mortal sin, having done something directly insulting to Almighty God and to our Divine Savior.

Sacrilege is a sin against the virtue of religion, and is defined as "the unbecoming treatment of a sacred person, place or thing as far as these are consecrated to God" (Jone, Moral Theology, p.108). The moral theologians explain that sacrilege is in itself and generally a mortal sin (ex genere suo), but that it is not always a mortal sin, because it can concern a relatively small or unimportant thing. Here we are speaking of a real sacrilege, the dishonoring of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, by the elimination of the prayers and ceremonies that protect its holiness, by the absence of respect, piety and adoration, and by the failure to express the Catholic doctrine of the Mass as a true propitiatory sacrifice for our sins. Here there are varying degrees. Just as it is a grave sacrilege and objective mortal sin for a lay person to touch the sacred host without reason, so it is, for example, a venial sin to do the same thing to the chalice or the blessed linens, such as the purificator or pall.

Likewise with the New Mass. It can be an objectively mortal sin of sacrilege if Holy Communion is distributed in the hand or by lay ministers, if there is no respect, if there is talking or dancing in church, or if it includes some kind of ecumenical celebration, etc. It can also be an objectively venial sin of sacrilege if it is celebrated with unusual respect and devotion, so that it appears becoming and reverential to Almighty God. This in virtue of the omissions in the rites and ceremonies, which constitute a true disrespect to Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament and to the Blessed Trinity, and of the failure to express the true nature of what the Mass really is. In each case, the subjective culpability is an altogether other question that God only can judge.

However, regardless of the gravity of the sacrilege, the New Mass still remains a sacrilege, and it is still in itself sinful. Furthermore, it is never permitted to knowingly and willingly participate in an evil or sinful thing, even if it is only venially sinful. For the end does not justify the means. Consequently, although it is a good thing to want to assist at Mass and satisfy one’s Sunday obligation, it is never permitted to use a sinful means to do this. To assist at the New Mass, for a person who is aware of the objective sacrilege involved, is consequently at least a venial sin. It is opportunism. Consequently, it is not permissible for a traditional Catholic, who understands that the New Mass is insulting to Our Divine Savior, to assist at the New Mass, and this even if there is no danger of scandal to others or of the perversion of one’s own Faith (as in an older person, for example), and even if it is the only Mass available.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)