Universae Ecclesiae released - full English text
I don't think he is being honest. In certain circumstances, I accept that assisting at the novus ordo may be a mortal sin--if I have a traditional mass to go to and I obstinately go to the novus ordo knowing full well that it is a bastardization of the true mass. I even accept that assisting at the novus ordo is sinful in most circumstances for trads and have heard such from SSPX priests. Never have I heard that it was an objective mortal sin. I think I will write to Father Alphonsus for clarification.
Reply
(05-16-2011, 03:04 PM)St. Drogo Wrote: I don't think he is being honest. In certain circumstances, I accept that assisting at the novus ordo may be a mortal sin--if I have a traditional mass to go to and I obstinately go to the novus ordo knowing full well that it is a bastardization of the true mass. I even accept that assisting at the novus ordo is sinful in most circumstances for trads and have heard such from SSPX priests. Never have I heard that it was an objective mortal sin. I think I will write to Father Alphonsus for clarification.

I've been wrong before and I have freely admitted it - I would do so now if that were the case..............but the NO is a freaking curse and if the entire Catholic population woke up tomorrow, regained the true faith and never attended the evil thing again, it would disappear.

Reply
(05-16-2011, 02:55 PM)Bakuryokuso Wrote:
(05-16-2011, 02:51 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
(05-16-2011, 02:48 PM)St. Drogo Wrote: Wow! I have no idea what you are talking about. I have been to dozens of SSPX chapels and never once have I heard that attendance at the NO was a mortal sin. You are almost certainly making that up, and I consider it a grave detraction of the society. The NO is scandalous and may potentially jeopardize your faith, to be sure, but it is not a mortal sin. Shame on you!

It's certainly a mortal sin for those who know what it is and what it stands for.

A fully informed Christian will not attend a Mass that is sacrilegious and scandalous.

I can see why the beatification of JP2 would be viewed as problematic then since he was clearly "fully informed". Same for Pope Benedict, having been at the council and privy to the machinations at the Vatican and having read Michael Davies he must be more "fully informed" than basically any of us.

Saying the Holy Father is in blatant mortal sin sounds a bit over the top to me though.

That is because you wrongly believe the Pope to be impeccable.

Only God is impeccable.
Reply
(05-16-2011, 03:01 PM)Stubborn Wrote: .
IOW, sin is sin - regardless of who commits it - no?

The NO service is a parody - a caricature of the Holy Sacrifice........................why is that not a sin regardless of who give it the OK? 

I see what you're saying. It's just that in liturgical matters the Pope can changes things "arbitrarily". Quo Primum forbade liturgical innovations without Papal approval and yet the French bishops created illicit changes to the breviary, Gallican psalter and all that. Objectively sinful. But then Pope Saint Pius X actually used some of their changes in his own 1911 breviary revision, making them licit by papal mandate. 

I hear he argument that the NO is the creation of a freemason (Bugnini) and therefore wrong... And yet the SSPX has zero problem with the 1955 Holy Week, which was Bugnini's warm-up to the Novus Ordo. I do find that rather odd in some ways. 

So in matters liturgical the Pope does have some power to make changes. 

The other example is the Eucharistic fast. A one hour fast, the three hour fast would've been insufficient and therefore sinful in certain years but this is something the church is allowed to modify like, to some extent, the liturgy. 
Reply
(05-16-2011, 02:18 PM)crusaderfortruth3372 Wrote:
(05-16-2011, 02:08 PM)st.dominic_savio Wrote: Also, two months ago I emailed the vocations dept. at FSSP and asked them if I could be accepted into their seminary believing that the tridentine mass is superior to the NO. They told me flat out, via email, no I could not be accepted if I believe the tridentine is superior to the NO.

Well, it might depend on who you talk to then!
I know of at least 3 FSSP priests who believe the NO is nothing more then a mere "protestant celebration", and another priest (Administrator) told me in person flat out that the TLM was far more superior to that of the NO!!  So I hope you are not implying that the FSSP has the same stance on this issue!

Why would I join the FSSP and have to hide my true beliefs in the seminary? (i.e. Tridentine clearly superior to NO, Fatima not yet consecrated, etc.) To be accepted by the FSSP party line, one must diguise their true traditionalsim. This is why I have decided that if I ever did join a seminary, which right now I'm leaning against, it will be in the SSPX where there priests are allowed to speak honestly on these issues.
Reply
(05-16-2011, 03:10 PM)Stubborn Wrote: I've been wrong before and I have freely admitted it - I would do so now if that were the case..............but the NO is a freaking curse and if the entire Catholic population woke up tomorrow, regained the true faith and never attended the evil thing again, it would disappear.

This is why I like UE - it's going to allow more Catholics to experience the TLM which is a huge part ofthe problem. It's virtually impossible to come across the TLM by regular means. No one is going to tell me the SSPX is in my city - it's not like they advertise. And my diocese refuses to promote the diocesan TLM except by calling it a "Latin community" on the list of parishes which would make one think it's for latinos. It's by intenet or word of mouth that folks hear of actual TLM's... Until now, we might see a groundswell of new TLM's and I think once a lot of Neo-Catholics actually attend a few they'll be won over.

Vetus - if you mean impeccable = sinless... I mean I think it was wrong for JP2 to do a lot of what he did and I think it was wrongfor B16 to beatify him. Again, there is a middle ground between "Popes are sinless" and "the last four popes have been in continual mortal sin"
Reply
(05-16-2011, 03:14 PM)Bakuryokuso Wrote:
(05-16-2011, 03:01 PM)Stubborn Wrote: .
IOW, sin is sin - regardless of who commits it - no?

The NO service is a parody - a caricature of the Holy Sacrifice........................why is that not a sin regardless of who give it the OK? 

I see what you're saying. It's just that in liturgical matters the Pope can changes things "arbitrarily". Quo Primum forbade liturgical innovations without Papal approval and yet the French bishops created illicit changes to the breviary, Gallican psalter and all that. Objectively sinful. But then Pope Saint Pius X actually used some of their changes in his own 1911 breviary revision, making them licit by papal mandate. 

I hear he argument that the NO is the creation of a freemason (Bugnini) and therefore wrong... And yet the SSPX has zero problem with the 1955 Holy Week, which was Bugnini's warm-up to the Novus Ordo. I do find that rather odd in some ways. 

So in matters liturgical the Pope does have some power to make changes. 

The other example is the Eucharistic fast. A one hour fast, the three hour fast would've been insufficient and therefore sinful in certain years but this is something the church is allowed to modify like, to some extent, the liturgy. 

Well, the pope is the supreme authority. He can change whatever he wants far as I'm concerned.

What he cannot do without sound reason is bind any of us to the promulgation of the contradiction tradition. 

Perhaps folks were fooled in the early years - but if they remain fooled after all this time, after seeing with their own eyes the abomination, then they are the fools and have no one to blame but themselves.

Hopefully their obedience will grant them some slack, but IMO, I'd hate to have to depend on that.
Reply
(05-16-2011, 03:20 PM)Bakuryokuso Wrote:
(05-16-2011, 03:10 PM)Stubborn Wrote: I've been wrong before and I have freely admitted it - I would do so now if that were the case..............but the NO is a freaking curse and if the entire Catholic population woke up tomorrow, regained the true faith and never attended the evil thing again, it would disappear.

This is why I like UE - it's going to allow more Catholics to experience the TLM which is a huge part ofthe problem. It's virtually impossible to come across the TLM by regular means. No one is going to tell me the SSPX is in my city - it's not like they advertise. And my diocese refuses to promote the diocesan TLM except by calling it a "Latin community" on the list of parishes which would make one think it's for latinos. It's by intenet or word of mouth that folks hear of actual TLM's... Until now, we might see a groundswell of new TLM's and I think once a lot of Neo-Catholics actually attend a few they'll be won over.

IMO, the UE is like this................want to completely screw up the TLM?, then by all means allow the NO to play with it.
IMO, that is exactly the purpose of the UE. That is the purpose of the whole SP.

That pretty much sums up what's been happening since the revolution of V2...........they promise one thing that sounds good - it ends up turning to crap. This, IMO is no different.

One thing is absolutely certain - if you wish for the TLM to get dismantled then be sure to put the professionals on it - - - - enter the NO. Enter those against the NO to be happy that the NO "is finally" making progress.

Until the NO is abrogated officially FROM THE TOP DOWN, good luck with the SP and UE and whatever other vehicle they choose to pacify the unsuspecting ~ IMO of course.

Reply
This may be informative to those who have not already read it.

http://www.sspx.org/Catholic_FAQs/cathol...dnovusordo


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.  [Answered by Fr. Peter R. Scott]
Reply
(05-16-2011, 03:11 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
(05-16-2011, 02:48 PM)St. Drogo Wrote: The NO is scandalous and may potentially jeopardize your faith, to be sure, but it is not a mortal sin.

It's certainly a mortal sin for those who know what it is and what it stands for.

SSPX.org (Fr. Peter R. Scott) Wrote: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.

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.

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.

In each case, the subjective culpability is an altogether other question that God only can judge.

To assist at the New Mass, for a person who is aware of the objective sacrilege involved, is consequently at least a venial sin.


Thanks Dymphna. An article that pops up again every few months and sums up the SSPX’s position rather well. I don’t think it’s much of a stretch to say that Vetus’s blanket characterization of NO attendance as a mortal sin (without any qualification other than “knowledge”) is a gross oversimplification of the actual SSPX position.

Question though for Vetus/Stubborn. In a recent FE poll, the majority of voters prefer the FSSP/Diocesan TLM (52%). The SSPX and Other (assuming these are SSPV or pre-1962 missal masses) clock in at 34%. So 66% of FE members who answered the poll are non-SSPX folks. With that sort of balance, do you see FE as a sort of mission field, these poor FSSP and Diocesan souls come on board and you hope to show them the truth, the light, about their supposed complicity in the destruction of the faith?

http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/inde...907.0.html

I ask because for me, in some ways, I wouldn’t make a certain discussion board my main hang-out/online home if I believed that half (or more) of its active posters were living in mortal sin.

Has FE in fact grown since Summorum Pontificum? It seems to have grown a lot since 2009 at any rate… whether or not this is due to an increase in TLM’s is up for debate. But again, this is what I see happening… Universae Ecclesiae will lead to more TLM’s, more neo-Catholics will become Trads and probably for a number of them it will be a stepping-stone to the SSPX. For example, a neo-Catholic would never dream of going directly to the SSPX but thru FE I could see that happening, for good or ill.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)