Husband says NO is endangering his faith
#21
(08-05-2019, 09:42 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: Why is the only reply to theologically significant deviations which were purposely designed to harm the Faith always presented as a matter of preference?

Is it an absolute certainty that the NO was instituted to purposely harm the Faith?  And if it was purposely designed to do such a thing, is this one of those cases where God's active will or His permissive will allows it to happen?  Literally millions of NO Masses have taken place over the last 50 years.  Were they all offensive to God?

[/quote]
Did not Christ suggest that it were better for a man who would scandalize others, especially children, that he be drowned in the sea?

People don't "work themselves" up to taking scandal from the Novus Ordo. The problem is the Novus Ordo itself which can cause it. No one has argued that everyone needs to be so scandalized, but this lady who asked the question really ought to try to understand her husband's principles and the arguments.

If he (or I) am wrong, the correct reply is to show where and how, not to plead how stupefied you are at the position. Point out the problem with the arguments made, or ask for clarification.
[/quote]

Here one must differentiate between someone who is actively working to scandalize someone, and one who perceives they are being scandalized.  Even in the case of the most off-the-wall NO Mass, it may be doubful that those perpetrating the offenses are working to consciously scandalize the flock.  Are they extremely misguided and wrong?  Yes, but their errors most likely stem from a genuine, yet erroneous, desire to "connect" to the faithful.  Now, if these novelties and errors were orchestrated by someone with malicious intent then I would say yes, they are the type who the Lord said should be fitted for a millstone.

[/quote]
Because you don't see anything inherently wrong with it, so that is the logical moral decision. If you, prudently, judge that there is some serious issue and a danger to your Faith, then the only moral thing to do is omit attendance. You cannot do evil that good may come of it. But to expose your Faith to danger, in order to fulfill an obligation of a lower virtue (obedience), is to do evil that good may come of it.

If you are not convinced of this argument, then your moral decision is easy. For others who struggle with this it is not so easy, so it is a bit patronizing to pooh-pooh such a struggle, and again, the proper tactic would be to show why they are wrong, not to virtue signal.
[/quote]

Like I said, I go to the NO.   I think it can be improved, as everyone on here does.  I don't feel it is a clear and present danger to my faith, because I understand the faith as more than attendance at a particular liturgy.

[/quote]
So you are saying this action of these women is not a serious problem and in no way affects your Faith or that of your son, that the Novus Ordo allows this?

If it is seriously wrong, perhaps you should run away, or at least consider the arguments. People are no scandalized without some foundation.

So the priest is omitting speaking about an integral part of the Faith, and this does not affect your Faith or your sons? Not at all?

Can you not see that that omission might be a real danger for other people who perhaps are not as strong in their Faith as you?
[/quote]

Well my one son just turned 7 and the other is 4, so I teach them the faith appropriate for their age level.  

No, the priest not speaking about hell does not affect my faith, because I know it exists and what puts a person there.  I agree with you that the omission can be damaging to those who don't understand the faith well.  I agree that the Church is too feminized, and young boys and men in the pews are not going to aspire to the priesthood when the only people aside from the priest on the altar are women.  This is why I felt called to teach R.E., to at least have some men instructing the children in the faith.  But we are still outnumbered 10-1.

[/quote]
Sure there would.

If people vote with their feet, as everything around dies and darkeness sets in, people will begin to see the light on the hill and flock to it.

It's precisely the story with why the Traditional Mass is as accessible as it is today. A handful of people throughout the world, plus a handful of priests. Now you can number priests of traditional institutes in the thousands. You can number the faithful who exclusively attend the traditional Mass in the millions, all because a handful of people drew a line in the sand 50 years ago.

To be clear, though, I would be very happy to hear those arguments against this case. I think that does people a great service to air out those concerns, because many people who will not say do struggle with these decisions and matters. The fault is not theirs, nor ours, but the bad clergy who created this crisis. They deserve the blame. People in such a mess without an orthodox Pope and clergy guiding us will make varied decisions. The key is that we are trying to take counsel like the virtue of prudence demands. We may make opposite decisions, but then we are doing exactly what God expects of us : we are following an informed conscience in good will. That protects from sin, and it would be a sin to violate it.
[/quote]

I'm not sure if "voting with feet" is going to work anytime soon.  I think that many Traditionalists exist in types of bubbles, attending only TLM, frequenting only Traditionalist websites, etc.  So they are constantly "surrounded" by like-minded people and thinking they have large numbers and great momentum.  I wish that were the case, and I think there certainly is a resurgence of Tradition, and hopefully a move to more parishes offering the EF.  But I don't think a massive shift is going to happen any time soon.  To be quite honest, I am expecting the next Pope to be a Pope Francis II, and the current Pope is going to make Traditionalists wish he was still the Chair of Peter.  So if we think we have it rough now, it's just the beginning of what will likely be a quite "liberal" Vatican for another 10-20 years perhaps.  And yes:  this is a case where I hope I'm wrong. 

I tried cutting the quotes in blocks but obviously did something wrong.
Reply
#22
(08-05-2019, 09:41 PM)boredoftheworld Wrote: The numbers say otherwise. I think it's reasonable to expect the whole NO apparatus to be dead and gone in about 20 years. Plummeting attendance, non existent growth through birth, almost total collapse in conversions (yeah, that surprised me too), HUGE numbers of funerals, almost no weddings. It's over and nobody is looking at the numbers. Ordinations to the priesthood? HAH! Almost half the priests in service will reach, or be past, retirement age in 10 years. TEN! We've been fussing about the coming priest shortage for decades, well: It's here. Is there a diocese on the planet with 200 seminarians? Is there a diocese in the US with 50 seminarians even in the pipeline, let alone within 2 years of ordination? Those are the numbers currently needed. We won't need that many priests of course because the pews are emptying faster than the priests are dying. 
Consider a middling US diocese with 120 active priests. On average 30 are already at retirement age (75) and another 30 will hit that in 10 years. Is there anywhere even remotely able to meet the attrition rate? There isn't.
Why anyone would be surprised by any of this is beyond me though. Just go look at the CARA reports, the raw numbers are there. The NO chickens are home to roost, and they're barren.

Do you know if anyone has done a good analysis on those raw numbers?
Reply
#23
(08-05-2019, 11:21 PM)LionHippo Wrote: Is it an absolute certainty that the NO was instituted to purposely harm the Faith?

Yes. The architects themselves have said that the intention was to remove what Protestants found offensive. That means Catholic elements were intentionally removed, and by intended omission, there is the possibility of harm to the Faith of attendees. That is objectively established.

Jean Guitton, a close confidant of Paul VI, for instance, wrote of his personal conversations with the Pope over the Mass and that Paul VI has specifically told him that the purpose of the reform of the Mass was to make it as close to a Calvinist service as possible.

Whether it causes that harm is a different question and highly subjective. Novus Ordo with Latin only, ad orientem, Gregorian chant, retaining the genuflections, no extraordinary ministers, Communion under one kind only, solid orthodox sermons about the nature of the Mass as a Sacrifice and the Priesthood, etc. and there will be far less danger. Average Novus Ordo Mass, probably quite a bit of danger to the average person, more by omission than comission.

(08-05-2019, 11:21 PM)LionHippo Wrote: And if it was purposely designed to do such a thing, is this one of those cases where God's active will or His permissive will allows it to happen?

If there is a objectively worse thing, then it cannot be actively willed by God.

(08-05-2019, 11:21 PM)LionHippo Wrote: Literally millions of NO Masses have taken place over the last 50 years.  Were they all offensive to God?

No. And no one has claimed that here.

(08-05-2019, 11:21 PM)LionHippo Wrote: Here one must differentiate between someone who is actively working to scandalize someone, and one who perceives they are being scandalized.

Yes, but if there is a real basis for someone perceiving a harm to their Faith (a positive doubt), then the only morally acceptable action is to avoid doing what they think would cause that harm. That is independent of the action of those who they think are giving scandal.

If a Latin Catholic mistakenly thought that the Marionites were schismatic and that by going to their Mass he would put his Faith in danger, then even though there is error and no active scandal, the Latin still have a subjective duty to avoid this Mass. If he goes he would commit a grave sin, because he would be acting against a certain conscience. We are bound to obey a certain conscience under pain of sin, even if erroneous.

And so it still comes back to addressing the reasons why this person is wrong, not simply being aghast that someone would think such a thing. You would explain to this Latin Catholic why he was wrong. So to if you think that people who perceive harm to their Faith would come by attending the Novus Ordo. You should point out their misperception, because morally they are on the correct footing. If they are in error, then that is what must be corrected.

(08-05-2019, 11:21 PM)LionHippo Wrote: Even in the case of the most off-the-wall NO Mass, it may be doubful that those perpetrating the offenses are working to consciously scandalize the flock.  Are they extremely misguided and wrong?  Yes, but their errors most likely stem from a genuine, yet erroneous, desire to "connect" to the faithful.

Even if this were the case, that does not change the moral assessment for the person who perceives a harm to their Faith. It just removes the subjective guilt that the perpetrator of this "off-the-wall" stuff would have.

The question is not the malice of the doer, but the effect on the receiver.

(08-05-2019, 11:21 PM)LionHippo Wrote: Like I said, I go to the NO.   I think it can be improved, as everyone on here does.  I don't feel it is a clear and present danger to my faith, because I understand the faith as more than attendance at a particular liturgy.

Right, so for you to omit said attendance would be a sin. For the person who truly thinks it would be a harm it would be a sin not to omit that attendance.

It is incorrect to suggest that those in the latter category do not "understand the faith as more than an attendance at a particular liturgy." In fact it is somewhat offensive. It is just as wrong a viewpoint as a traditionalist suggesting that everyone who attends the Novus Ordo is a bad Catholic or does not understand their Faith. Such statements show a superficiality of understanding of what the Faith is.

(08-05-2019, 11:21 PM)LionHippo Wrote: I'm not sure if "voting with feet" is going to work anytime soon.  I think that many Traditionalists exist in types of bubbles, attending only TLM, frequenting only Traditionalist websites, etc.  So they are constantly "surrounded" by like-minded people and thinking they have large numbers and great momentum.  I wish that were the case, and I think there certainly is a resurgence of Tradition, and hopefully a move to more parishes offering the EF.  But I don't think a massive shift is going to happen any time soon.  To be quite honest, I am expecting the next Pope to be a Pope Francis II, and the current Pope is going to make Traditionalists wish he was still the Chair of Peter.  So if we think we have it rough now, it's just the beginning of what will likely be a quite "liberal" Vatican for another 10-20 years perhaps.  And yes:  this is a case where I hope I'm wrong.

We just have a different opinion of what would work best here.

I think you are probably right and we'll have even worse Popes going forward. We don't have good Cardinals, so the hope of a good Pope is slim to none. If past crises are any indication the solution will likely be by something quite ridiculous that only God can work out, like Cardinals or Popes trying to destroy the Church by appointing those crazy traddies to extremely liberal dioceses to be crushed down, and somehow that converting the places to bastions of orthodoxy. Basically what happened with Julian the Apostate.

The voting with feet is not an immediate solution, but as numbers dwindle in parishes and more and more close, with more and more abuse cases and payouts, the bishops will start running low on cash soon enough after selling off the parishes.

There is momentum, but let's face it, we're a lifeboat. We're not a frigate. Still, if you look at the whole history of the movement, there is a marked growth. It's not ever going to be "take over" size, but it is a force to be reckoned with.

The very fact that the Holy See has taken the SSPX seriously suggests that it's not just some pointless operation. Clerical and religious members of the SSPX number over 1,000 (nearly 700 priests). The Dominicans are about 6,000 (about 4,500 priests), so while the SSPX is small, they are certainly not a non entity. They are about one-sixth the size of the Dominicans. Add in the associated religious communities (two Benedictine Monasteries, a Carmelite Convent, Capuchin Friary, three orders of Dominicans and at least two other religious orders ... then add in the FSSP, ICK and other such groups, and it's a small drop in the bucket, yes, but not something that can be entirely ignored, at least at the highest levels.

On the parish level, and local level, yes, most of the traddies can be safely ignored, but not for ever, especially as things get worse and worse.

(08-05-2019, 11:21 PM)LionHippo Wrote: I tried cutting the quotes in blocks but obviously did something wrong.

Easiest thing to do is switch to the "View source" and copy the bracketed part that has quote='MagisterMusicae' pid='1234565' etc. section and put it in where you want the break, then after that section you want to comment on add a bracketed slash and the word quote.

Alternatively, you could just copy the whole and paste it in each time, then delete what you don't want.

Wish it were more intuitive.
[-] The following 1 user Likes MagisterMusicae's post:
  • Fionnchu
Reply
#24
Have you tried regular ground ginger from your spice cabinet for the migraine? I bet not, because this works. I know two people that tried it for their regular debilitating migraines, when after years, NOTHING else had ever worked, and it cured them completely of their migraine almost immediately, and also WHENEVER they used the remedy after that.  A teaspoon mixed in some applesauce, chased with water, or, make a "tea" with the ginger stirred into boiled water, some honey to taste if you need it, and drink every bit. Unlike medications, all the side effects are GOOD for you.

Here is an article reporting a double-blind test of ginger for migraines that I just found. They suggest an 1/8 of a teaspoon! That is tiny! I always heard it's a one teaspoon dose.  https://foodrevolution.org/blog/ginger-migraines/

_________

I have only a personal opinion on the NO Mass. It seems to me that it would be a true act of faith in the our Holy Mother the Church, who is suffering a Passion right now and not looking very enticing, to fulfill the Sunday obligation by making it to an illicit though valid NO Sunday Mass, when you can't get to the good one. Yes, it's a suffering, but that can be offered up. A great offering to the Lord, considering how much he (your husband) hates it! He can find ways to tolerate it. Wear earplugs while praying the rosary, for example. (Or a subtle headphone playing Gregorian Chant?). After all, the liturgy is in fact the work for the people, not of the people. 

Also the unpleasantness will not be as acute with the migraine cured.

Imagine what it must be like for Chinese Catholics, or for believers whose government won't allow them to go to Mass at all (could be OUR government someday!) How much one would long for a valid though miserably illicit Mass! And you have one across the street! Looks like providence to me.

This is a huge decision. He clearly knows his own will in the matter, but has he asked God? I think he will have peace in this matter only after he relentlessly seeks to know God's will for him on this. Our ways are not God's ways. Perhaps read how others have "put out a fleece" for important matters or crossroads in their lives, and then come to his own way of seeking God's word on that matter, a way that will give him confidence he knows God's will.

(Also, maybe there is a less-offensive NO Mass around somewhere? And sometimes I think that what looks like a bad Mass might actually be amazingly good considering the priest's catechesis, and training, and directions from his bishop...). (And the ordeal can be offered up for the priest giving the Mass!)
Reply
#25
Against better judgment, here I go:


Quote:I have only a personal opinion on the NO Mass. It seems to me that it would be a true act of faith in the our Holy Mother the Church, who is suffering a Passion right now and not looking very enticing, to fulfill the Sunday obligation by making it to an illicit though valid NO Sunday Mass, when you can't get to the good one. 
As much as I try to sympathize with this position and understand where people are coming from, I can't make this connection:
"I have to fulfill my Sunday obligation. The only mass near me is a mass riddled with liturgical abuses and follows an Ordo which was formulated with the specific intention of obfuscating Catholic doctrine in an effort not to offend Protestant theology. Well, I guess Our Lord would want me to attend!" 
As others have said above, if you really think that the Novus Ordo near you is a danger to your faith, why would you attend? Even more so if you have children? Maybe you know the difference and know what is wrong, but is a 5 year old going to?

Quote:Wear earplugs while praying the rosary, for example. (Or a subtle headphone playing Gregorian Chant?). After all, the liturgy is in fact the work for the people, not of the people. 

I think this just solidifies my point above. If your attendance at mass is so dreadful that you have to plug your ears and close your eyes, why are you going? What are you trying to hide from?


Quote:(Also, maybe there is a less-offensive NO Mass around somewhere? And sometimes I think that what looks like a bad Mass might actually be amazingly good considering the priest's catechesis, and training, and directions from his bishop...). (And the ordeal can be offered up for the priest giving the Mass!)

Again, as much as I try to understand peoples sensibilities, I just can't make the connection. Is God really expecting me to worship Him in a Mass that has to be measured in terms of how much less offensive it is than others? 

"Oh, this is a good Mass. Father still has altar girls, female lectors, he faces us and ad libs during the mass, the walls are white washed and the hymns sound like they were torn out of a Beatles cover band playlist, but they only had MALE extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion! Real progress!" 

Also, how can something objectively bad suddenly become "amazingly good" because of the ignorance of the priest celebrating mass?
[-] The following 3 users Like Alphonse il Segundo's post:
  • jovan66102, MagisterMusicae, St.Eliza
Reply
#26
(08-08-2019, 04:32 PM)Alphonse il Segundo Wrote: As much as I try to sympathize with this position and understand where people are coming from, I can't make this connection:
"I have to fulfill my Sunday obligation. The only mass near me is a mass riddled with liturgical abuses and follows an Ordo which was formulated with the specific intention of obfuscating Catholic doctrine in an effort not to offend Protestant theology. Well, I guess Our Lord would want me to attend!" 

They would say that what you consider liturgical abuses - female altar boys, communion in the hand, women readers - are approved by the church, and the new rite of Mass is also approved, and all by Saints, too. How can you substitute your preferences over what Pope Saints of the Church have approved?

Put another way, "Who am I to judge?"
[-] The following 2 users Like Paul's post:
  • jovan66102, MagisterMusicae
Reply
#27
(08-06-2019, 09:35 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote:
(08-05-2019, 11:21 PM)LionHippo Wrote: Is it an absolute certainty that the NO was instituted to purposely harm the Faith?

Yes. The architects themselves have said that the intention was to remove what Protestants found offensive. That means Catholic elements were intentionally removed, and by intended omission, there is the possibility of harm to the Faith of attendees. That is objectively established.

Jean Guitton, a close confidant of Paul VI, for instance, wrote of his personal conversations with the Pope over the Mass and that Paul VI has specifically told him that the purpose of the reform of the Mass was to make it as close to a Calvinist service as possible.


Specifically, it is known from the mouths of the reformers themselves that their imposition of the new mass was to alter the Faith.

"[T]he intention of Pope Paul VI with regard to what is commonly called the Mass, was to reform the Catholic liturgy in such a way that it should coincide with the Protestant liturgy.... [T]here was with Pope Paul VI an ecumenical intention to remove, or at least to correct, or at least to relax, what was too Catholic in the traditional sense, in the Mass, and I, repeat, to get the Catholic Mass closer to the Calvinist mass" (Jean Guitton, French philosopher, Lay Peritus (Expert) at Vatican II, and close friend of Giovanni Montini/Paul VI quoted in radio program “Ici Lumiere 101,” broadcasted by Radio-Courtoisie, Paris, December 19, 1993, translated by Adrian Davies in Latin Mass, Winter 1995 [IV, 1], pp. 10-11.) cited in Apropos, #17, pp. 8f; Christian Order, October, 1994.

Father Martin Patino, one of the members of the Concilium who assisted in preparing the New Order of the Mass, stated in a commentary on the General Instruction of the New Missal:

"The [new] mass is not an act of the priest with whom the people unite themselves, as it used to be explained. The Eucharist is, rather, an act of the people, whom the minsters serve by making the Savior present sacramentally... This former formulation, which corresponds to the classical theology of recent centuries, was rejected because it placed what was relative and ministerial (the hierarchy) above what was ontological and absolute (the people of God)." (The New Order of Mass, Official Text of Instruction, English Version and Commentary, translated by the Monks of Mount Angel Abbey (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1977).

In L'Osservatore Romano  (The Vatican newspaper) on October 13,1967 we read "Liturgical reform has taken a notable step forward on the path of ecumenism.  It has come closer to the liturgical forms of the Lutheran Church."

"We must strip from our Catholic prayers and from the Catholic liturgy everything which can be the shadow of a stumbling block for our separated brethren, that is for the Protestants." (Annibale Bugnini, Secretary for The Liturgical Reform, Chief Architect of the Novus Ordo, quoted in  L'Osservatore Romano, March 19, 1965.)

“A false(!) perspective of sacrifice offered to God” has been “abandoned” in “the new Eucharistic Prayers”. (Jean Guitton, personal confidante of Giovanni Montini/Paul VI,  in the December 10, 1969 issue of La Croix.

“To tell the truth, it (the NEW mass) is a different liturgy. This needs to be said without ambiguity. The Roman Rite...as we knew it, no longer exists.. has been DESTROYED. Some walls of the former edifice have fallen while others have changed their appearance, to the extent that it appears today either as a ruin or the partial substructure of a different building. We must not weep over the ruins or dream of an historical reconstruction.” (Father Joseph Gelineau S.J. , associate of Archbishop Annibale Bugnini on the Consilium, Synod Vatican 2 peritus- expert- who helped to create the Novus Ordo along with 6 Protestant clergymen "Observers". Quoted from his book - Demain La Liturgk, Paris, 1976, pp. 9-10).

"The accompanying critical study of the Novus Ordo Missae, the work of a group of theologians, liturgists and pastors of souls, shows quite clearly in spite of its brevity that if we consider the innovations implied or taken for granted which may of course be evaluated in different ways, the Novus Ordo represents, both as a whole and in its details, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session XXII of the Council of Trent. The "canons" of the rite definitively fixed at that time provided an insurmountable barrier to any heresy directed against the integrity of the Mystery . .The (new) definition of the Mass is thus limited to that of a "supper"...and none of this in the very least implies either the Real Presence, or the reality of the sacrifice. ."

"...The pastoral reasons adduced to support such a grave break with Tradition, even if such reasons could be regarded as holding good in the face of Doctrinal considerations, do not seem to Us sufficient. The innovations in the Novus Ordo and the fact that all that is of perennial value finds only a minor place, if it subsists at all, could well turn into a certainty the suspicion, already prevalent, alas, in many circles, that truths which have always been believed by the Christian people, can be changed or ignored without infidelity to that Sacred Deposit of Doctrine to which the Catholic Faith is bound for ever.  Recent reforms have amply demonstrated that fresh changes in the liturgy could lead to nothing but complete bewilderment on the part of the Faithful who are already showing signs of restiveness and of an indubitable lessening of faith. Amongst the best of the Clergy the practical result is an agonizing crisis of conscience of which innumerable instances come to our notice daily.... “the true Catholic, by the promulgation of the Novus Ordo, is faced with the tragic necessity of a choice”. (Cardinals Ottaviani {Head of the Holy Office} and Bacci in "The Ottaviani Intervention – Short Critical Study of the New Order of Mass")

"" The new Missal was published as if it were a book put together by professors, not a phase in a continual growth.  Such a thing has never happened before.  It is absolutely contrary to the laws of liturgical growth.....The prohibition of the missal that was now decreed, a missal that had known continuous growth over the centuries, starting with the sacramentaries of the ancient Church, introduced a breach into the history of the liturgy whose consequences could only be tragic....the old building was demolished, and another was built... this has caused an enormous harm. For then the impression had to emerge that liturgy is something "made", not something given in advance but something lying without our own power of decision. "(Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Milestones,San Francisco:  Ignatius Press, 1986), pp. 81, 86 .)

"What happened after the Council was something else entirely: in the place of liturgy as the fruit of development came fabricated liturgy.We abandoned the organic, living process of growth and development over centuries, and replaced it--as in a manufacturing process--with a fabrication, a banal on-the-spot product." (Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger [Benedict VI], Preface to the French language edition of Monsignor Klaus Gamber's The Reform of the Roman Liturgy.)

"Pope Paul VI saw fit to alter the words of Consecration and Institution, unchanged in the Roman Liturgy for 1,500 years- a change that was never intended by the Council nor is of any discernible pastoral benefit. Truly problematic, in fact truly scandalous, is the translation of the phrase pro multis as "for all", a translation inspired by modern theological thinking but not found in any historic liturgical text. Liturgy and faith are interdependent. That is why a new rite was created, a rite that in many ways reflects the bias of the new (modernist) theology. The traditional liturgy simply could not be allowed to exist in its established form because it was permeated with the truths of the traditional faith and the ancient forms of piety. For this reason alone, much was abolished and new rites, prayers and hymns were introduced, as were the new readings from Scripture, which conveniently left out those passages that did not square with the teachings of modern theology...Was all this really done because of a pastoral concern about the souls of the faithful, or did it not rather represent a radical breach with the traditional rite, to prevent the further use of the liturgical texts and thus to make the celebration of the "Tridentine Mass" impossible because it no longer reflected the new spirit moving through the Church?..At the same time, the priests and the faithful are told that the new liturgy created after the Second Vatican Council is identical in essence with the liturgy that has been in use in the Catholic Church up to this point, and that the only changes introduced involved reviving some earlier liturgical forms and removing a few duplications, but above all getting rid of elements of no particular interest. Most priests accepted these assurances about the continuity of liturgical forms of worship and accepted the new rite with the same unquestioning obedience with which they had accepted the minor ritual changes introduced by Rome from time to time in the past, changes beginning with the reform of the Divine Office and of the liturgical chant introduced by Pope St. Pius X...Following this strategy, the groups pushing for reform were able to take advantage of and at the same time abuse the sense of obedience among the older priests, and the common good will of the majority of the faithful, while, in many cases, they themselves refused to obey. . . .The real destruction of the traditional Mass, of the traditional Roman rite with a history of more than one thousand years, is the wholesale destruction of the faith on which it was based, a faith that had been the source of our piety and of our courage to bear witness to Christ and His Church, the inspiration of countless Catholics over many centuries. Will someone, some day, be able to say the same thing about the new Mass?....One statement we can make with certainty is that the new Ordo of the Mass that has now emerged would not have been endorsed by the majority of the Council Fathers..."" (Monsignor Klaus Gamber, The Reform of the Roman Liturgy, p. 39, p.61, p. 99, pp. 100-102.)

- “This Novus Ordo Missae [NEW Order of Mass] is so profoundly Ecumenical that it is theologically possible for Protestants to celebrate the Lord's Supper in the same words.  The simplified Offertory does NOT anticipate a sacrificial act [as it does in the Ancient Roman Rite] and therefore does away with the difficulty which the “old” Offertory [of the Ancient Roman Rite] presented to Ecumenical efforts.” -- Max Thurian, Protestant theologian and "observer" at the Consilium, on the New Mass, 1969

“...nothing in the renewed[i.e. the NOR - the NEW Order]mass need really trouble the Evangelical Protestant.”  (M.G. Siegvalt, Protestant Professor of Dogmatic Theology, Strasbourg.)

Professor Dietrich von Hildebrand (whom Pius XII acclaimed as the 20th century Doctor of the Church) stated: "Truly, if one of the devils in C.S. Lewis' The Screwtape Letters had been entrusted with the ruin of the liturgy he could not have done it better.".. “The innovators would replace Holy Intimacy with Christ by an unbecoming familiarity.  The new liturgy actually threatens to frustrate the confrontation with Christ, for it discourages reverence in the face of mystery, precludes awe, and all but extinguishes a sense of Sacredness.  What really matters, surely, is not whether the Faithful feel at home at Mass, but whether they are drawn out of their ordinary lives into the world of Christ....”(Der verwüstete Weinberg (in German) Regensburg: Habbel.1973, from Pope Paul’s New Mass, Kansas City, MO: Angelus Press, p. 80.)

And perhaps the most scandalous admission, from Paul VI himself:

"We ask you to turn your minds once more to the liturgical innovation of the new rite of the Mass.... A new rite of the Mass: a change in a venerable tradition that has gone on for centuries. This is something that affects our hereditary religious patrimony, which seemed to enjoy the privilege of being untouchable and settled.....It is the kind of upset caused by every novelty....We shall notice that pious persons are disturbed most.... We are parting with the speech of the Christian centuries; we are becoming like profane intruders in the literary preserve of sacred utterance. We will lose a great part of that stupendous and incomparable artistic and spiritual thing, the Gregorian chant...We have reason indeed for regret, reason almost for bewilderment. What can we put in the place of that language of the angels? We are giving up something of priceless worth. But why?...The answer will seem banal, prosaic. Yet it is a good answer, because it is human..."CHANGES IN MASS FOR GREATER APOSTOLATE, Pope Paul VI, Address to a General Audience, November 26, 1969

Oh yes, pious Catholics were going to be disturbed. And God was going to be offended.

Most laymen today are unaware of even what was taken from them, so have no frame of reference, and alas silently lose their Faith or it never catches on.

And as Cardinal Ottoviani said, "true Catholics will be faced with a choice."
[-] The following 1 user Likes BC's post:
  • jovan66102
Reply
#28
I wanted to address a few of the replies in one post as I am new here and not too familiar yet with how to quote everyone in a clear manner. 

At least in this thread so far, I am finding the arguments against attending the NO are more strongly articulated as it seems like the argument to go is kept simple like a parent to a child the Church is saying, “Because I said so.” And leaving it at that. And I admire that obedience and loyalty. I do.

But to use the new phrase the kids are using these days- I feel like I have been taking “the blue pill” for a long time and choosing to ignore a lot of the problems within the Church today and for the last several years. I am learning more about infallibility which is scary and still not very clear to me yet but I accept that you can question authority and still be a good Catholic.

Someone mentioned Pope saints as an argument to legitimize the new mass but I am learning too that there is an argument to be made that canonizations are not infalliable. 

And thank you to those who expressed concern over my husband’s migraine. He really does not have them often. Maybe once or twice a year and not necessarily ever on a Sunday but the headaches themselves are not really relevant to why I posted. They were just an example of something that interferes with mass attendance at a certain time and puts us in a dilemma of how to fulfill our obligation. 
We have been doing our very best to make sure we attend that Byzantine liturgy an hour away but things happen. Life happens and although rare, it cannot be guaranteed that we can make it there and it would be silly not to make a plan or come to a decision about those inevitabilities. Holy Days are probably the most common scenario that are going to create a problem for us. We are continuing to pray and read and pray some more.

My husband has become very sympathetic to the position of the SSPX. (The closest SSPX church is an hour and a half drive.)
I am still really torn personally. We have two babies so far we are trying to raise and I am very concerned about fostering their faith as well. Kinda feels like we lose either way. On a day when it just can’t work out for us to travel- we either avoid going to mass which is a shame or we attend the NO and expose the kids to a circus that we will have to explain away. It is a difficult time to be Catholic. I am glad not to be in China though as someone mentioned. Trying to hold on to some gratitude.
[-] The following 2 users Like StellaMatutina's post:
  • antiquarian, Fionnchu
Reply
#29
(08-08-2019, 04:32 PM)Alphonse il Segundo Wrote: I think this just solidifies my point above. If your attendance at mass is so dreadful that you have to plug your ears and close your eyes, why are you going? What are you trying to hide from?

You make good points here, and good point about the five year old.  Hmm, kid-size ear plugs?  :-/

 It's all very hard. And because I believe this is still Christ's Church, though suffering, I stand by what I said.  While also understanding the sense of what you say. Sounds lame, and it seems uncomfortable fence-sitting, but I have actually picked a side. The messy one.

As to the above quote from you, the reason I would go with ear plugs and a rosary is, of course, to receive the valid and real Jesus in the Eucharist. And the ear plug would hide me from the pain of the illicitness of it, while praying without that distraction. Not sure it's the best choice, but it is self-serving anyway.
Reply
#30
Lots of cuts and pastes of quotes, personal opinions, etc. about the NO Mass...but they're just quotes, not teachings, they do nothing to definitely teach on the legitimacy of the NO Mass. Until a future official declaration condemns the NO (which will never happen), it is still Mass.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)