Grace vs. No Grace in the New Mass

new

« Prev
1
Next »

Admin
Senior Member

Posts: 5,838

Grace vs. No Grace in the New Mass Apr 15, 2018 14:16:54 GMT

Post by Admin on Apr 15, 2018 14:16:54 GMT

Graces vs. No Graces in the Newmass

Adapted from Cor Mariae - by Machabees, Sep 4, 2016.

Below are some direct quotes of Archbishop Lefebvre, Fr. Hesse, Pope Leo XIII, and Saint Thomas Aquinas who all state their claim that God is NOT in the Rite of the novus ordo, nor in grace by its desecration.

Graces vs. No Graces in the Newmass

Bishop Richard Williamson said:

"There have been Eucharistic Miracles in the Novus Ordo Mass. [6:50]
"Therefore, there are cases that even at the Novus Ordo Mass, one can attend it with the effect of building the faith instead of destroying. [8:58]
"If you watch and pray even there you can find God's grace." [10:00]. (Conference in New York, July 2015)

Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre said:

"It is all wasted because the holy Sacrifice of the Mass, desecrated as it is, no longer confers grace and no longer transmits it." (In his 1986 book: Open Letter to Confused Catholics Ch. III pg. 19.)

____________________

There are more statements from Archbishop Lefebvre and Fr. Hesse which corroborate with this same line of thought:

Archbishop Lefebvre:

“The Church which affirms such errors is both schismatic and heretical. This Conciliar Church is therefore not Catholic.” (July 29, 1976, Reflections on the Suspension a divinis)

“We believe we can affirm, purely by internal and external criticism of Vatican II, i.e. by analysing the texts and studying the Council’s ins and outs, that by turning its back on tradition and breaking with the Church of the past, it is a schismatic council.” (Le Figaro, August 4, 1976)

"And we have the precise conviction that this new rite of Mass expresses a new faith, a faith which is not ours, a faith which is not the Catholic Faith. This New Mass is a symbol, is an expression, is an image of a new faith, of a Modernist faith..." (Sermon of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre for the Ordination Mass on the Feast of SS. Peter and Paul, Ecône, Switzerland, 29 June 1976.)

"It is not a choice between two rites that could be good. This is a choice between a Catholic rite and a rite that is practically favoring Protestantism." (Archbishop Lefebvre, 1990)

Fr. Gregory Hesse also agrees the Newmass is schismatic:

"Based on what has been stated by Archbishop Lefebvre, namely that the Newmass is a "schismatic rite", we would like to quote Pope Leo XIII and Saint Thomas Aquinas to prove that even though a schismatic sacrament may be valid, it does not have the guarantee of the graces and fruits that normally would flow from them, and also that they are like an amputated member of body (Church):

"From this it follows also that they cannot promise themselves any of the graces and fruits of the perpetual sacrifice and of the sacraments which although they are sacrilegiously administered are none the less valid and serve in some measure to form an appearance of piety, which St Paul mentions I Corinthians chapter 13 and which St. Augustine speaks of at greater length." (Serm. LXXI, in Matth., 32) Pope Leo XIII Eximia Leatitia, July 19, 1893, to the bishops of Poitiers

The form of the branch may still be visible, even apart from the wine, but the invisible life of the root can be preserved only in union with the stock. That is why the corporal sacraments, which some keep and use outside the unity of Christ, can preserve the appearance of piety. But the invisible and spiritual virtue of true piety cannot abide there anymore than feeling can remain in an amputated member." (Sermon of St. Augustine on the Gospel of St. Matthew). So there's no grace that flows from their sacraments.

"And since the conservation of the Eucharist is a power which follows the power of Order, such persons as are separated from the Church by heresy, schism, or excommunication, can indeed consecrate the Eucharist, which on being consecrated by them contains Christ's true body and blood; but they act wrongly and sin by doing so; and in consequence they do not receive the fruit of the sacrifice, which is a spiritual sacrifice." St. Thomas Aquinas [IIIa q. 82 art. 7, c]

"The priest, in reciting the prayers of the Mass, speaks in the person of the church, in whose unity he remains; but in consecrating the sacrament he speaks in the person of Christ, whose place he holds by the power of his Orders. Consequently, a priest severed from the unity of the Church celebrates Mass, not having lost the power of Order, he consecrates Christ's true body and blood; but because he is severed from the unity of the Church, his prayers have no efficacy. St. Thomas Aquinas [IIIa q. 82 art. 7, ad 3um]

On both ends of the spectrum, the false resistance shows they wish to be the enabler for error.

Last Edit: Oct 3, 2019 17:16:44 GMT by Admin

"So let us be confident, let us not be unprepared, let us not be outflanked, let us be wise, vigilant, fighting against those who are trying to tear the faith out of our souls and morality out of our hearts, so that we may remain Catholics, remain united to the Blessed Virgin Mary, remain united to the Roman Catholic Church, remain faithful children of the Church."- Archbp. Lefebvre 1980

Admin
Senior Member

Posts: 5,838

Grace vs. No Grace in the New Mass Apr 15, 2018 14:26:04 GMT

Post by Admin on Apr 15, 2018 14:26:04 GMT

1984 Angelus Magazine : New Mass does not give Grace...

Adapted from Cor Mariae - by Machabees, Sep 4, 2016.

During and in sync with Archbishop Lefebvre numerated many times, the old-sspx had stated the mew mass does not give grace.

Below are a series of Q&A with the editor of the Angelus Magazine, Fr. Carl Pulvermacher, blessed and promoted by Archbishop Lefebvre, as a then, staple of Catholic fidelity and missionary zeal.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Angelus Online

March 1984

Ask Me... answers given by Father Carl Pulvermacher

Q. We started going to our parish church (Novus Ordo, of course) on the Sundays there was no traditional Mass here. My question is this. Is it wrong to go to our parish church when the traditional Mass is only available so infrequently? Is it wrong to receive Communion or any other Sacrament in the Novus Ordo church? Is the bread and wine really transubstantiated into the Body and Blood of Christ at the Novus Ordo Mass? S. P., Kasson, Minn.

A. Here we get down to the bare facts. In all questions like this I always advise people to avoid attending the New Mass, as well as the altered Sacraments. I do not say they are always invalid. However, this alone doesn't make them good. The New Mass is not grace-giving. It is not our Catholic Mass. The only reason it was created was to destroy our true Mass. This excuse of people not being able to understand the Latin language is silly. We were always instructed to follow with our English (or other) missals. Latin is still the official language of the Church. Anybody telling me the New Mass in Latin is easier to understand than the Tridentine Mass is surely joking. The real thing is better than the substitute.

Source: www.angelusonline.org/index.php?section=articles&subsection=show_article&article_id=863

______________________________________________________________

April 1984

Ask Me...answers given by Father Carl Pulvermacher

Q. Several people objected to my saying, in last month's column, that the New Mass was not grace-giving. "It is heresy to hold a valid Mass is not grace giving."

A. First of all, there is a difference between validity and grace-giving. I believe the one may be present without the other. Surely, I do not claim that in every case the New Mass is invalid. I hate to make comparisons but I know you would agree that a valid Satanic mass (Black Mass) would not be grace giving. I certainly do not hold the New Mass is the same as a Black Mass. I merely look at the fruits. So far I have not seen a Catholic who has advanced in holiness because of the graces of the New Mass. No Novus Ordo priest or lay person that I know of has even come close to being lifted to the honors of the Altar—sainthood. Of course, you might say that 15 or 20 years is not enough time to tell. However, we can look at the miserable condition of the papacy, the episcopacy, the priesthood, the brotherhood and sisterhood, and the laity—single and married—and we find it easier to say "no grace giving," than "grace giving." We have material eyes and cannot see the state of grace, so we cannot prove it one way or the other. All we can do is to look at the results of the New Mass. Has anyone ever dreamed that in most of our churches such sacrilegious things could take place as clown liturgies, dancing girls, homosexual masses, Jewish and Protestant liturgies? Our Lord said, "Let no one lead you astray." "By their fruits you shall know them." "Beware of false prophets who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves." I have yet to see a single Catholic who has truly benefitted from the New Mass. Never have I seen a novus ordo convent or a monastery where religious life was not in a state of decline. When we had the true Mass, normal progress was seen. When we adopted the Novus Ordo, we have seen normal decline. I dare any person—cleric or lay—to prove the grace-givingness of the New Ordo liturgy!

Source: www.angelusonline.org/index.php?section=articles&subsection=show_article&article_id=875

______________________________________________________________

May 1984

Ask Me... answers given by Father Carl Pulvermacher

Q. If I were to take your advice I would not attend a Mass from one year end to another. If we lived in happier times and the Tridentine Mass was as available as the other, then I would go all the way with you. But, sad to say, this is not the case ... I am afraid if people took your advice they would eventually drift away from the Church and lose their faith ... I am sorry to say that I believe your advice to be totally wrong and immeasurably harmful. F. G., Hants, England.

A. My advice was, and still is, the same. It seems to be insane to say: "Don't go to the Novus Ordo Mass even under the best of circumstances!" I do not deny that in some cases it could be valid. It might be said with some dignity by a validly ordained, sad, old priest. You might cry with him over the memory of the Holy Mass of all times, which he misses. Christ could be present by transubstantiation. In spite of everything, it is not good and should be avoided. It is an invention of enemies of the Church. It is Protestant and leads to Protestantism. The only reason why it was invented and brought into the Church was for the purpose of destroying our true Mass. The devil hates our Holy Mass and he will do anything to stop it or slow it down. He can even make us feel sorry for the New Mass and for the good priests who obediently say it with sorrow. I am sure there are many good Catholics who go to it with sorrow because they want to be obedient children of Holy Mother Church. I will not judge them, or you—God knows all things. However, because of what I know of the New Mass, I shall never advise anyone to go to it, even if it is sometimes valid. I do not want to give advice that is wrong or harmful.

Source: www.angelusonline.org/index.php?section=articles&subsection=show_article&article_id=885

+++

As noted by another poster on this thread from Cor Mariae:

It seems as if we must echo the words of +ABL - he told the Pope that he (ABL) must either obey 2000 years of tradition and all the Popes before him (this current Pope) or obey the current Pope and ignore all the Popes and tradition...

So we too must either ignore 2000 years of tradition, all the Popes before V-II, and ignore too ABL - or we must listen to Bishop Williamson ... Foolishness!

God will judge us. We have been given much in being given an understanding of Catholic tradition:

The lord of that servant will come in the day that he hopeth not, and at the hour that he knoweth not, and shall separate him, and shall appoint him his portion with unbelievers. And that servant who knew the will of his lord, and prepared not himself, and did not according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. But he that knew not, and did things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. And unto whomsoever much is given, of him much shall be required: and to whom they have committed much, of him they will demand the more. Luke 12:48

Admin
Senior Member

Posts: 5,838

Grace vs. No Grace in the New Mass Apr 15, 2018 15:57:55 GMT

Post by Admin on Apr 15, 2018 15:57:55 GMT

The Council of Trent Condemns the new mass and the new position of Bp. Williamson

Adapted from Cor Mariae - by Machabees, Aug 12, 2016.

Here is a letter of Bishop de Castro Mayer (Bishop of Campos Brazil, [R.I.P.]) sent to Pope Paul VI dated September 12, 1969 - PRIOR to the implementation of the blasphemous new mass on the world.

Bishop de Castro Mayer laid out the new mass's defects and striking departure of Catholicism using the decrees of the Council of Trent.

_________________________________________________________________

Bishop de Castro Mayer's letter on New Mass

Bishop de Castro Mayer's letter to Pope Paul VI with respect to the publication of the Novus Ordo Missae

Given at Campos, Brazil on September 12, 1969

These two documents, the letter to Paul VI, and the attached explanatory comments were translated from Tradition: Doctrine-Actualite published by the SSPX's General House, pp. 23-29.

Most Holy Father,

After a close examination of the Novus Ordo Missae, which will enter into use on November 30 next, and after having prayed and reflected a great deal, I consider that it is my duty, as a Catholic priest and bishop, to lay before Your Holiness my anguish of conscience, and to formulate, with the piety and confidence that a son owes to the Vicar of Christ, the following request.

The Novus Ordo Missae shows, by its omissions, and by the changes that it has brought to the Ordinary of the Mass, as well as by a good number of the general rules that describe the understanding and nature of the new missal in its essential points, that it does not express, as it ought to do the theology of the Holy Sacrifice as established by the Holy Council of Trent in its XXII session. The teaching of the simple catechism cannot overcome this fact. I attach below the reasons that, in my opinion, justify this conclusion.

The pastoral reasons that could, perhaps, be invoked, initially, in favor of the new structure of the Mass, cannot make us forget the doctrinal arguments that point in the opposite direction. Furthermore, they do not seem to be reasonable. The changes that prepared the Novus Ordo have not helped to bring about an increase in the Faith and the piety of the faithful. To the contrary, they remain very disturbed, with a confusion that the Novus Ordo has increased, for it has encouraged the idea that nothing is unchangeable in the Holy Church, not even the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

Moreover, as I indicate in the attached reasons, the Novus Ordo not only fails to inspire fervor, but to the contrary, diminishes the Faith in central truths of the Catholic life, such as the Real Presence of Jesus in the Most Holy Sacrament, the reality of the propitiatory Sacrifice, the hierarchical priesthood.

I hereby accomplish an imperious duty in conscience by demanding, humbly and respectfully, that Your Holiness might deign, by a positive act that eliminates every doubt, to authorize us to continue using the Ordo Missae of St. Pius V, whose effectiveness in bringing about the spread of Holy Church and an increase in the fervor of priests and faithful has been proven, as Your Holiness reminded us with so much unction.

I am convinced that Your Holiness’s fatherly kindness will bring to an end the perplexities that have risen in my heart of a priest and bishop.

Prostrate at Your Holiness’ feet, in humble obedience and filial piety, I implore your Apostolic Benediction.

+ Antonio de Castro Mayer
Bishop of Campos, Brazil

Comments on the Novus Ordo Missae [by Bishop de Castro Mayer] :

The Novus Ordo Missae consists in general norms for the text of the Ordinary of the Mass. Both the text and the norms propose a new Mass that does not consider sufficiently the definitions of the Council of Trent concerning this matter, and constitutes, for this reason, a grave danger for the integrity and purity of the Catholic Faith. We have only examined here a few points, that, we believe, establish that which I have affirmed.

I. Definition of the Mass
In its no. 7 the new Ordo gives the follow as a definition of the Mass:

Cena dominica seu Missa est sacra synaxis seu congregatio populi Dei in unum convenientis, sacerdote praeside, ad memoriale Domini celebrandum. Quare de sanctae ecclesiae locali congregatione eminenter valet promissio Christi: 'Ubi sunt duo vel tres congregati in nomine meo, ibi sum in medio eorum'." (Mt. 18:10)[1]

In this definition:

There is insistence on the Mass understood as a meal. Moreover, this way of seeing the Mass can be found frequently, all along the general norms (cf. v.g. nos. 8, 48, 55d, 56 etc.). It seems even that the intention of the new Ordo Missae is to inculcate this aspect of the Mass, to the detriment of the other, which is essential, namely that the Mass is a sacrifice.
In fact, in the quasi-definition of the Mass given in article 7, the character of the sacrifice of the Mass is not signified.
Likewise, it attenuates the sacramental character of the priest, that distinguishes him from the faithful.
Furthermore, nothing is said of the intrinsic value of the Mass, independently of the presence of the assembly. Much to the contrary, it is supposed that there is no Mass without the "congregatio populi", for it is the "congregatio" that defines the Mass.
Finally, the text allows a confusion to exist between the Real Presence and the spiritual presence, for it applies to the Mass the text from St. Matthew which only concerns the spiritual presence.

The confusion between the Real Presence and the spiritual presence, already seen in article 7, is confirmed in article 8, which divides the Mass into a "table of the word" and a "table of the Lord’s body". But it also hides the aspect of sacrifice in the Mass, which is the principal of all, since the aspect of a meal is only a consequence, as can be deduced from Canon 31 of the XXII session of the Council of Trent.

We observe that the two texts from Vatican II, quoted in the notes, do not justify the concept of the Mass proposed in the text. We also note that the few expressions, that are more or less passing references, in which are found expressions such as this, at the altar: "sacrificium crucis sub signis sacramentalibus praesens efficitur" (no. 259) are not sufficient to undo the ambiguous concept, already inculcated in the definition of the Mass (no. 7), and in many other passages in the general norms.

II. The Purpose of the Mass

The Mass is a sacrifice of praise to the Most Holy Trinity. Such a purpose does not appear explicitly in the new Ordo. To the contrary, that which, in the Mass of St. Pius V, shows clearly this sacrificial end is suppressed in the new Ordo. Examples include the prayers "Suscipe, Sancta Trinitas" from the Offertory and the final prayer "Placeat, tibi, Sancta Trinitas". Likewise the Preface of the Most Holy Trinity has ceased to be the Preface for Sunday, the Lord’s Day.

As well as being the "sacrificium laudis Sanctissimae Trinitatis"[2], the Mass is a propitiatory sacrifice. The Council of Trent insists greatly on this aspect, against the errors of the Protestants (Chapter 1 & Canon 3). Such a purpose does not appear explicitly in the new Ordo. Here and there can be found a reminder of one or other expression that could be understand as implying this concept. But it never appears without the shadow of a doubt. Also, it is absent when the norms declare the purpose of the Mass (no. 54). In fact, it is insufficient to express the theology of the Mass established by the Council of Trent to simply affirm that it brings about "sanctification". It is not clear that this concept necessarily implies that of propitiation. Moreover the propitiatory intention, so clearly visible in the Mass of St. Pius V, disappears in the New Mass. In fact the Offertory prayers Suscipe Sancte Pater and Offerimus tibi and that for the blessing of the water Deus qui humanae substantiae… reformasti have been replaced by other that make no reference to propitiation at all. It is rather the sense of a spiritual banquet that they impress.

III. The Essence of the Sacrifice

The essence of the Sacrifice of the Mass lies in repeating what Jesus did at the Last Supper, and this not as a simple recitation, but accompanied by the gestures. Thus, as the moral theologians have said, it is not enough to simply say again historically what Jesus did. The words of consecration must be pronounced with the intention of repeating what Jesus accomplished, for when the priest celebrates, he represents Jesus Christ, and acts "in persona Christi".[3] In the Novus Ordo there is no such precise statement, although it is essential. To the contrary, in the passage that speaks of the narrative part, nothing is said of the properly sacrificial part. Thus, when it explains the Eucharistic Prayer, it speaks of the "narratio institutionis"[4] (no. 54 d.) in such a way that the expressions: "Ecclesia memoriam ipsius Christi agit"[5] and another at the end of the consecration: "Hoc facite in meam commemorationem"[6] have the meaning indicated by the explanation given in the preceding general norms (no. 54 d.). We remark that the final phrase of the (traditional) consecration "Haec quotiescumque feceritis, in mei memoriam facietis"[7] were much more expressive of the reality that in the Mass, it is the action of Jesus Christ which is repeated.

Furthermore, placing other expressions in the midst of the essential words of consecration, namely "Accipite et manducate omnes"[8] and "Accipite et bibite ex eo omnes"[9], introduce the narrative part into the same sacrificial act. Whereas, in the Tridentine Mass the text and movements guide the priest naturally to accomplish the propitiatory sacrificial action and almost impose this intention on the priest who celebrates. In this way the "lex supplicandi"[10] is perfectly in conformity with the "lex credendi"[11]. We cannot say this for the Novus Ordo Missae. However, the Novus Ordo Missae ought to make it easier for the celebrant to have the intention necessary to accomplish validly and worthily the act of the Holy Sacrifice, especially given the importance of this action, not mentioning the instability of modern times, nor even the psychological conditions of the younger generations.

IV. The Real Presence

The sacrifice of the Mass is bound to the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Most Holy Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist. The Real Presence is a consequence of the sacrifice. By transsubstantiation the change of the substance of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of the Savior is accomplished, and thus the sacrifice takes place. As a consequence the perpetual Victim is present on the altar. The Blessed Sacrament is nothing other than the Victim of the Sacrifice, who remains once the sacrificial act has been accomplished. As a consequence of the new definition of the Mass (no. 7) the new Ordo allows ambiguity to exist concerning the Real Presence, which is more or less confused with the simply spiritual presence, indicated by the phrase "where two or three are gathered in my name".

Moreover, the suppression of nearly all the genuflexions, traditional expression of adoration in the Latin church, the thanksgiving seated, the possibility of celebrating without an altar stone, on a simple table, the equating of the Eucharistic Banquet with a spiritual meal, all lead to the obscuring of the Faith in the Real Presence.

The equating of the Eucharistic Banquet to a spiritual meal leaves open the idea that Jesus’ presence in the Blessed Sacrament is bound to its use, as his presence in the word of God. From this it is not difficult to conclude with the Lutheran error, especially in a society that is little prepared to think on a higher plane. The same conclusion is favored by the function of the altar: it is only a table, on which there is not normally place for the tabernacle, in which the Victim of the sacrifice is customarily kept. The same can be said for the custom for the faithful to communicate with the same host as the celebrant. By itself, this gives the idea that once the sacrifice is completed, there is no longer any place for reserving the Blessed Sacrament. Thus none of the changes in the new Ordo Missae lead to greater fervor in the Faith towards the Real Presence, but they rather diminish it.

V. The hierarchical priesthood

The Council of Trent defined that Jesus instituted his apostles priests, in order that they, and the other priests, their successors, might offer His Body and Blood (Session xxii, Canon 2). In this manner, the accomplishment of the Sacrifice of the Mass is an act that requires priestly consecration. On the other hand, the same Council of Trent condemned the Protestant thesis, according to which all Christians would be priests of the New Testament. Hence it is that, according to the Faith, the hierarchical priest is alone capable of accomplishing the sacrifice of the New Law. This truth is diluted in the new Ordo Missae.

In this missal, the Mass belongs more to the people than to the priest. It belongs also the priest, but as a part of the assembly. He no longer appears as the mediator "ex hominibus assumptus in iis quae sunt ad Deum"[12] inferior to Jesus Christ and superior to the faithful, as St. Robert Bellarmine says. He is not the judge who absolves. He is simply the brother who presides.

We could make other observations to confirm what we have said above. However, we feel that the points that we have raised suffice to show that the new Ordo Missae is not faithful to the theology of the Mass, as established definitively by the Council of Trent, and that consequently it constitutes a serious danger for the purity of the Faith.

+ Antonio, Bishop of Campos

Footnotes
1. Translation of article 7: The Lord’s Supper or Mass is the sacred assembly or meeting of the people of God, met together with a priest presiding, to celebrate the memorial of the Lord. For this reason the promise of Christ is particularly true of a local congregation of the Church: "Where two or three are gathered in my name, there I am in their midst" (Mt. 18:20).
2. i.e., Sacrifice of praise of the Most Holy Trinity.
3. i.e., in the person of Christ.
4. i.e., the narration of the institution.
5. i.e., the Church commemorates the memory of Christ himself.
6. i.e., Do this in memory of me.
7. i.e., As often as you do this, do it in memory of me.
8. i.e., Take and eat all of you.
9. i.e., Take and drink from it all of you.
10. i.e., the manner of praying.
11. i.e., the rule of our Faith.
12. i.e., taken from among men for those things which are of God.

[Red font emphasis - The Catacombs]

Addendum

Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer made reference to the above letter to the pope, along with his "Considerations on the Novus Ordo Missae" in the presentation that he made to his clergy of the "A Short Critical Study of the New Order of Mass" (otherwise known as the "Ottaviani Intervention"). This critical study had been sent to Pope Paul VI by Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci during this same year of 1969. Bishop De Castro Mayer received it, had it translated into Portuguese and sent it to his priests with this commentary:

"Several priests of the diocese have asked me for some explanation of the Novus Ordo Missae. As the reading of it made me perplex on several issues, I had written to the Holy Father, explaining them, and asking for the authorization to continue with the old Ordo. Since I received no response, I continued, in accordance with the legislation that is in vigor, with the Tridentine Mass. However, I believe that the booklet of Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci is very useful for the study by the Reverend Fathers. It is with this in mind that I am sending a translation to my dear collaborators. The priests will understand that the subject is not to be publicly debated."

Source

Admin Senior Member Posts: 5,838	Grace vs. No Grace in the New Mass Apr 15, 2018 17:13:15 GMT Select Post Deselect Post Link to Post Back to Top Post by Admin on Apr 15, 2018 17:13:15 GMT thecatacombs.org/thread/696/ottaviani-intervention
	"So let us be confident, let us not be unprepared, let us not be outflanked, let us be wise, vigilant, fighting against those who are trying to tear the faith out of our souls and morality out of our hearts, so that we may remain Catholics, remain united to the Blessed Virgin Mary, remain united to the Roman Catholic Church, remain faithful children of the Church."- Archbp. Lefebvre 1980

Admin
Senior Member

Posts: 5,838

Grace vs. No Grace in the New Mass Apr 15, 2018 17:24:50 GMT

Post by Admin on Apr 15, 2018 17:24:50 GMT

Adapted from Cor Mariae - by Machabees, Sep 4, 2016.

Notice that all of the above sources are from the old-sspx archive. "Lex orandi, lex credendi." (the Law of Prayer is the Law of Belief).

Not that the neo-sspx still believes in the above due to their striking departure in accepting and agreeing with the modernist revolution for a canonical reconciliation WITHOUT doctrine; neither does Bishop Williamson believe in the old-sspx position any more.

To where Bishop Williamson now states with pertinacity he accepts the heresy of the new mass AGAINST the Council of Trent! :

The new religion can build your Faith. (1)

Attending the New Mass can build your Faith. (2)

Do whatever you think you need to do to keep the Faith, which can include attending the Novus Ordo Mass. (3)

If you attend the Novus Ordo Mass you have to be careful, but you can find the grace of God there and sanctify your soul. (4)

Not everyone needs to avoid the Novus Ordo Mass. (5)

Attending the Novus Ordo may do more good than harm spiritually. (6)

Not every priest needs to leave the conciliar church or stop saying the Novus Ordo Mass. (7)

The Novus Ordo Mass does not always undermine the Faith, though frequently it does. (8)

The problem with the Novus Ordo Mass is that it is ambiguous. It can be made to favour the new religion, but does not have to, it can also be done in line with the old religion. (9)

The problem with Vatican II is that it is ambiguous. (10)

By distancing yourself from the conciliar church, you are putting yourself in danger and risk becoming a Pharisee who is disconnected from reality. (11)

We must accept the supposed ‘Eucharistic miracles’ of the Novus Ordo Mass as genuine. (12)

The Eucharistic miracles of the Novus Ordo Mass have lessons for Traditional Catholics, one of which is that the Novus Ordo Mass doesn’t always have to be avoided. (13)

The Novus Ordo Mass is not as good as the Traditional Mass, but it is still better than nothing. (14)

There’s still something Catholic in the conciliar church, so it’s wrong for us to reject it completely. (19)

Congregations and seminaries are not needed today. They are outdated. God does not want there to be a structure or congregation for the Resistance. (20)

Seminarians who are ready for ordination should not be ordained, because there is no structure or congregation for them to be ordained into. (21)

We shouldn’t try to get priests to work together. It’s bound to fail, so it’s better not to attempt it at all. (22)

Source: www.therecusant.com/fake-resistance-statements

[Red font emphasis - The Catacombs]

therecusant
New Member

Posts: 78

Grace vs. No Grace in the New Mass Apr 20, 2018 19:52:05 GMT

Post by therecusant on Apr 20, 2018 19:52:05 GMT

From Issue 40 of the Recusant:

THE NEW MASS IS NOT A CATHOLIC RITE:

IT IS A SCHISMATIC, NON-CATHOLIC RITE.

THEREFORE, IT DOES NOT GIVE GRACE.

Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre :

“Soon, Archbishop Lefebvre would no longer tolerate participation at Masses celebrated in the new rite except passively, for example at funerals. … He considered that it was bad in itself and not only because of the circumstances in which the rite was performed.”

(Bishop Tissier de Mallerais, Marcel Lefebvre the Biography, p465 ff.)

“It is all wasted because the holy Sacrifice of the Mass, desecrated as it is, no longer confers grace and no longer transmits it.”

(‘Open Letter to Confused Catholics,’ Ch.3)

“These New Masses are not only incapable of fulfilling our Sunday obligation, but are such that we must apply to them the canonical rules which the Church customarily applies to communicatio in sacris with Orthodox Churches and Protestant sects.”

(Conference of 8th November, 1979)

“It must be understood immediately that we do not hold to the absurd idea that if the New Mass is valid, we are then free to assist at it. The Church has always forbidden the faithful to assist at the Masses of heretics and schismatics, even when they are valid. It is clear that no one can assist at sacrilegious Masses or at Masses which endanger our Faith.”

(Ibid.)

“Your perplexity takes perhaps the following form: may I assist at a sacrilegious Mass which is nevertheless valid, in the absence of any other, in order to satisfy my Sunday obligation? The answer is simple: these Masses cannot be the object of an obligation; we must moreover apply to them the rules of moral theology and Canon Law as regards the participation or the attendance at an action which endangers the faith or may be sacrilegious. The New Mass, even when said with piety and respect for the liturgical rules, is subject to the same reservations since it is impregnated with the spirit of Protestantism. It bears within it a poison harmful to the faith.”

(‘Open Letter to Confused Catholics,’ Ch.4)

“The current problem of the Mass is an extremely serious problem for the Holy Church. I believe that if the dioceses and seminaries and works that are currently done are afflicted with sterility, it is because the recent deviations drew upon us the divine curse. All the efforts that are made to hang on to what is being lost, to reorganize, reconstruct, rebuild, all that is afflicted with sterility, because we no longer have the true source of holiness which is the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Profaned as it is, it no longer gives grace, it no longer makes grace pass.”

(‘A Bishop Speaks’ - laportelatine.org/bibliotheque/oeuvres_mgr_lefebvre/

1963_1975_mgr_lefebvre_un_eveque_parle/1963_1975_mgr_lefebvre_un_eveque_parle.pdf - p. 71 ff. )

“… So, if someone asks me: ‘I only have Mass of St. Pius V once a month. So what should I do on the other Sundays? Should I go to the New Mass if I do not have the Mass of St. Pius V?’ - I reply: Just because something is poisoned, obviously it is not going to poison you if you go on the odd occasion, but to go regularly on Sunday like that, little by little the notions will be lost, the dogmas will diminish. They will become accustomed to this ambiance which is no longer Catholic and they will very slowly lose the Faith in the Real Presence, lose the Faith in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, and have a spirituality, since the prayers are changed and they have modified everything, in the sense of another spirituality. It is a new conception of Christian spirituality. There is no longer any ascetical effort, no longer a combat against sin, no longer a spiritual combat. There is a great need to combat against our own tendencies, against our faults, against everything which leads us to sin. So I would say to them: Listen, I cannot advise you to go to something which is evil. Myself, I would not go because I would not want to take in this atmosphere. I cannot. It is stronger than me. I cannot go. I would not go. So I advise you not to go.”

(Spiritual Conference at Écône, 25th June, 1981)

“The consequences of this state of mind or spirit spread within the Church, inside the Church, are deplorable, and are ruining and sapping the spiritual vitality of the Church. In conscience, all we can do is turn priests and faithful away from using the Novus Ordo Missae if we wish that the complete and whole Catholic Faith remains still living.”

(Letter to John-Paul II, 5th April 1983 - Conference #1, St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary, 24th April 1983)

“...People are still asking us these questions: ‘I don’t have the Mass of St. Pius V on Sunday and there is a Mass said by a priest that I know well, a holy man, so wouldn’t it be better to go to the Mass of this priest, even if it is the New Mass but said with piety, instead of just staying away?’

No! That’s not true! That is not true! Because this rite is bad, is bad, is bad! This is the reason why this rite is bad, it is poisoned! It is a poisoned rite! Mr. Salleron says it very well here: ‘It is not a choice between two rites that would be good! This is a choice between a Catholic Rite and a practically Protestant rite!’ It’s harmful to our Faith, the Catholic Faith!”

(Conference at Econe, 11th April, 1990)

“This Mass is poisoned, it is bad and it leads to the loss of faith little by little. We are clearly obliged to reject it.”

(‘The Mass of All Times,’ p.353)

Bishop de Castro Mayer:

“It seems to me preferable that scandal be given rather than a situation be maintained in which one slides into heresy. After considerable thought on the matter, I am convinced that one cannot take part in the New Mass, and even just to be present one must have a serious reason. We cannot collaborate in spreading a rite which, even if it is not heretical, leads to heresy. This is the rule I am giving my friends.”

(Letter to Archbishop Lefebvre, 29th Jan., 1970)

Bishop Williamson (previously, before he
changed his mind) :

“The New Mass is in any case illicit...it’s intrinsically offensive to God, it’s intrinsically evil. […] If it’s valid, but illicit, may I attend? No. I may no more attend a valid, illicit Mass than I may attend a satanic Mass.”

(youtube/opMuVJcud7M)

The New Mass is “so bad that no priest should use it, nor Catholic attend it.”

(Eleison Comments #387)

Fr. Carl Pulvermacher OFM, founder and director of Angelus Press (writing in ‘The Angelus’ magazine) :

“Question. We started going to our parish church (Novus Ordo, of course) on the Sundays there was no traditional Mass here. My question is this. Is it wrong to go to our parish church when the traditional Mass is only available so infrequently? Is it wrong to receive Communion or any other Sacrament in the Novus Ordo church? […] S. P., Kasson, Minn.

Answer. Here we get down to the bare facts. In all questions like this I always advise people to avoid attending the New Mass, as well as the altered Sacraments. I do not say they are always invalid. However, this alone doesn't make them good. The New Mass is not grace-giving. It is not our Catholic Mass. The only reason it was created was to destroy our true Mass.”

(www.angelusonline.org/index.php?section=articles&subsection=

show_article&article_id=875)

…And Again :

“Question. Several people objected to my saying, in last month's column, that the New Mass was not grace-giving. "It is heresy to hold a valid Mass is not grace giving."

Answer. First of all, there is a difference between validity and grace-giving. I believe the one may be present without the other. Surely, I do not claim that in every case the New Mass is invalid. I hate to make comparisons but I know you would agree that a valid Satanic mass (Black Mass) would not be grace giving. […] I have yet to see a single Catholic who has truly benefitted from the New Mass. Never have I seen a novus ordo convent or a monastery where religious life was not in a state of decline. When we had the True Mass, normal progress was seen. When we adopted the Novus Ordo, we have seen normal decline. I dare any person - cleric or lay - to prove the grace-givingness of the New Ordo liturgy!”

(www.angelusonline.org/index.php?section=articles&subsection=show_article

&article_id=863)

Fr. Gregory Hesse :

The New Mass “is not a work of the Church.” It is “schismatic, it’s also doubtful.” “How can you fulfil your Sunday obligation at a Mass that’s not pleasing to God? It’s absurd! … You’d rather stay home than go to the New Mass.”

(www.youtube.com/watch?v=kaGLel1_uXY - 33m.ff.)

“So you can’t go there because it’s schismatic. You also can’t go there because it is doubtful. And that’s why, as Archbishop Lefebvre of blessed memory said, you’d rather stay home than go to the New Mass.”

(Ibid.)

Fr. Paul Kramer, author of the book “The Suicide of Altering Faith in the Liturgy” (speaking at the June 2013, London Resistance Conference) :

The New Mass is “a schismatic rite,” “rooted in heresy” which was “never promulgated” and which it is therefore illegal to use.

(www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGnstoua3hY)

WHY IS THE NEW MASS A SCHISMATIC RITE?

“We must strip from our Catholic prayers and from our Catholic liturgy everything which can be the shadow of a stumbling block for our separated brethren, that is, for the Protestants.”

- Mgr. Annibale Bugnini

“To tell the truth, it is a different liturgy of the Mass. This needs to be said without ambiguity. The Roman Rite as we knew it no longer exists. It has been destroyed.”

- Fr. Joseph Gelineau SJ, member of Bugnini's "commission" which created the New Mass

“With the new liturgy, non-Catholic communities will be able to celebrate the Lord’s Supper with the same prayers as the Catholic Church. Theologically this is possible.”

- Max Thurian, Protestant member of Bugnini's comission which created the New Mass

“Our Dear Sons and Daughters, 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 novelty is no small thing.”

- Pope Paul VI

“The Catholic Church, in order that the Holy Sacrifice may be offered in a dignified and reverent way, established the sacred Canon centuries ago, so pure and free from all error that nothing is contained in it which does not, in the greatest way, inspire sanctify and raise the mind to God.”

- Council of Trent, Session XXII

“If anyone shall say that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church customarily used in the solemn administration of the Sacraments may be despised, or without sin omitted by the ministers at will, or changed into new different ones by any pastor of the Church whomsoever, let him be anathema.”

[Si quis dixerit, receptos et approbatos Ecclesiae catholicae ritus in sollemni sacramentorum administratione adhiberi consuetos aut contemni, aut sine peccato a ministris pro libito omitti, aut in novos alios per quemcumque ecclesiarum pastorem mutari posse: anathema sit.]

- Council of Trent, Session VII, Canon XIII

therecusant
New Member

Posts: 78

Grace vs. No Grace in the New Mass Apr 20, 2018 20:01:34 GMT

Post by therecusant on Apr 20, 2018 20:01:34 GMT

From Issue 42 of The Recusant:

WAS ARCHBISHOP LEFEBVRE INCONSISTENT

OR DID HE CHANGE HIS OPINION OVER TIME?

...and consequently, is it true or just or honest to characterise the Archbishop as being essentially in agreement with a man who says that you can attend the New Mass daily if you subjectively feel that it ‘nourishes’ you, that not every priest should leave the Novus Ordo nor should every faithful stop attending it, that God is using it to save souls without needing Tradition and that even Traditional Catholics who know what the New Mass is can still receive grace by attending it?

1974:

“Is the New Mass really intrinsically bad? If the Mass were intrinsically bad, I would say, well, I would say you can’t do an intrinsically bad act, that’s always forbidden; but if the Mass is not intrinsically bad, but only bad due to the circumstances which surround it … well since circumstances can change, can be changed…if there are seminarians who don’t have any other Mass, can they go to a Mass like that? I think so, what can you do! … However, I also told you, I think at least twice, that it is possible that our attitude, our position regarding this problem might become firmer or somehow harder, so to speak...”

- Écône Conference, 1st April, 1974

1975:

“Little by little the Archbishop’s position hardened … In 1975 he admitted that one could ‘assist occasionally at the New Mass when one feared going without Communion for a long time.’ [...] Soon, Archbishop Lefebvre would no longer tolerate participation at Masses celebrated in the new rite except passively, for example at funerals. … He considered that it was bad in itself and not only because of the circumstances in which the rite was performed.”

- (See: Tissier, “Biography of Marcel Lefebvre,” p465 ff)

1976:

“Let there be no mistake, it is not a matter of a difference between Mgr. Lefebvre and Pope Paul VI. It is a matter of the radical incompatibility between the Catholic Church and the conciliar church, the mass of Paul VI representing the symbol and the programme of the conciliar church.”

- ‘Agence France Presse’ Communiqué, 12th July 1976

1978:

“This is why I think that, given this increasingly serious and increasingly dangerous evolution, we must also avoid more and more, and I would almost say, in a radical way, any assistance at this New Mass.”

- Écône Conference, 21st March 1978

1979:

“It must be understood immediately that we do not hold to the absurd idea that if the New Mass is valid, we are free to assist at it. The Church has always forbidden the faithful to assist at the Masses of heretics and schismatics even when they are valid. It is clear that no one can assist at sacrilegious Masses or at Masses which endanger our faith. All these innovations are authorized. One can fairly say without exaggeration that most of these [new] Masses are sacrilegious acts which pervert the Faith by diminishing it.”

- 8th November, 1979, (See: Davies, ‘Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebvre, Ch.40)

1981:

“This Mass is not bad in a merely accidental or extrinsic way. There is something in it that is truly bad. … Really, in conscience, I cannot advise anyone to attend this Mass, it is not possible.”

- (See: D A White ‘Horn of the Unicorn’ p.224 ff)

1990:

“ ‘And that’s why I will never celebrate the Mass according to the new rite, even under threat of ecclesiastical penalties and I will never advise anyone positively to participate actively in such a Mass.’

Because people are still asking us those questions: I have not the Mass of St. Pius V on Sunday, and there is a mass said by a priest that I know well, a holy man, so, wouldn’t it be better to go to the mass of this priest, even if it is the new mass but said with piety, instead of abstaining?

No! This is not true! This is not true, because this rite is bad! Is bad, is bad. And the reason why this rite is bad in itself, is because it is poisoned. It is a poisoned rite! Mr. Salleron says it very well, here: "It is not a choice between two rites that could be good. It is a choice between a Catholic Rite and a rite that is practically bordering on Protestantism,” and thus, which attacks our faith, the Catholic Faith! So, it is out of question to encourage people to go to Mass in the new rite.

[…]

I’m a little surprised, you know. Sometimes, I receive a lot of requests for consultations from our priests who are in the priories and some are asking me: ‘What should one reply to a person who says he cannot have the Mass of St. Pius V and who believes that he is under the obligation to go to a mass of the new rite, said by a good priest, a serious priest who offers all the guarantees almost of holiness? etc.’ But, I do not understand how they cannot answer this by themselves! They don’t find the conclusion by themselves and they feel obliged to ask me such a thing. It's incredible! So you see, there are still some who hesitate. This is unbelievable!”

- April 1990 (Fideliter)

THE OLD SSPX SPEAKS -

IS THE NEW MASS INTRINSICALLY EVIL?

In 1974 Archbishop Lefebvre gave his cautious permission to attend the New Mass on the grounds that he did not (yet) consider it to be intrinsically bad:

“Is the New Mass really intrinsically bad? If the Mass were intrinsically bad, I would say, well, I would say you can’t do an intrinsically bad act, that’s always forbidden; but if the Mass is not intrinsically bad, but only bad due to the circumstances which surround it…”

So, is the New Mass intrinsically bad, or isn’t it?

Here is what the SSPX used to say on the question:

“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. […] 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.”

- Fr. Peter Scott, “Questions & Answers”, The Angelus magazine, September 2002

“Well, the Society is definitely against the New Mass. We even say that it is ‘intrinsically evil’. That’s a delicate label that needs a little explanation. By this we mean that the New Mass in itself – the New Mass as the New Mass, as it is written – is evil, because as such you find in it the definition of evil. The definition of evil is ‘the privation of a due good’. Something that should be in the New Mass is not there and that’s evil. What is really Catholic has been taken out of the New Mass. The Catholic specification of the Mass has been taken away. That’s enough to say that it is evil. And look at the terrible fruits.”

- Bishop Bernard Fellay, conference in Kansas City, Missouri, 5th March 2002

“Now, even if one wanted to contest the heretical elements of the New Mass, the sole refusal to profess Catholic dogmas quintessential to the Mass renders the new liturgy deficient. It is like a captain who refuses to provide his shipmen with a proper diet. They soon become sick with scurvy due, not so much to direct poison, as from vitamin deficiency. Such is the new Mass. At best, it provides a deficient spiritual diet to the faithful. The correct definition of evil – lack of a due good – clearly shows that the New Mass is evil in and of itself regardless of the circumstances. It is not evil by positive profession of heresy. It is evil by lacking what Catholic dogma should profess: the True Sacrifice, the Real Presence, the ministerial priesthood.”

- (author unknown) “Is the New Mass Legit”, sspx.org, 25th May, 2011

“Since the expression of intrinsically evil is an extremely strong one, I think it is better to reserve it to the greater evil of the positive expression of heresy, and to keep the expression ‘evil in itself’ to the lesser evil of the omission of the profession of Faith. But one must acknowledge that this omission is in the New Mass in itself, in the Latin original version.”

- Fr. Francois Laisney, “Is the Novus Ordo Missae Evil?”, The Angelus magazine, March 1997

“Q.65 - Is it permissible to take part in the New Mass?

Even if the New Mass is valid, it is displeasing to God inasmuch as it is ecumenical and protestantising; moreover it represents a danger to our faith in the holy sacrifice of the Mass. Thus it must be rejected. Whoever has understood the problem of the New Mass must no longer attend it because he would be deliberately endangering his faith, and at the same time this would be encouraging others to do likewise be seeming to assent to the reforms.

Surely one may attend a New Mass when it is devoutly and piously celebrated by a Catholic priest with an absolutely unquestionable faith?

The celebrant is not the issue, but the rite he uses. … The New Mass is one of the main sources of the current crisis of faith. It is thus imperative to distance oneself from it.”

“Q.66 - May one attend the New Mass in some circumstances?

One should apply the rules analogous to those governing attendance at non-Catholic ceremonies to attendance at the New Mass. One may attend for family or professional reasons, but without actively participating; and, of course, one does not go to Communion.”

“Q.67 - What should be done when it is not possible to attend a Traditional Mass every Sunday?

One for whom attendance at a Traditional Mass is not possible is excused from the obligation to attend Mass that Sunday. The precept of hearing Mass on Sunday only applies to attendance at a true Catholic Mass. One must, however, in this case at least try to attend a traditional Mass at regular intervals. Moreover, even if one is dispensed from attending Mass (which is a commandment of the Church), one is not dispensed from the commandment of God (“Remember thou keep holy the Lord’s day”). Thus, the Mass one could not attend must be replaced by something; for example, by reading the text of the Mass in one’s missal, by uniting one’s attention for the duration of a Mass with a Mass celebrated elsewhere, and by making a spiritual communion.”

- Fr. Matthias Gaudron, ‘Catechism of the Crisis in the Church,’ Q65ff (Angelus Press 2010 edition, p.152 ff.)

Last Edit: Apr 20, 2018 20:02:26 GMT by therecusant

therecusant
New Member

Posts: 78

Grace vs. No Grace in the New Mass Apr 20, 2018 20:12:10 GMT

Post by therecusant on Apr 20, 2018 20:12:10 GMT

From Issue 33 of The Recusant:

Extract from the Oath

Taken by SSPX Priests at their Ordination:

(Could Bishop Williamson take this oath today..?)

[…]

“I affirm that the new rite of Mass does not, it is true, formulate any heresy in an explicit manner, but that it departs “in a striking manner overall as well as in detail, from the Catholic theology of the Holy Mass”, and for this reason: the new rite is in itself bad.

That is why I shall never celebrate the Holy Mass according to this new rite, even if I am threatened with ecclesiastical sanctions; and I shall never advise anyone in a positive manner to take an active part in such a Mass.”

(Emphasis added)

Extract from a Conference

by Archbishop Lefebvre

Écône, 11th April, 1990

Source: epiphaniusblog.com/2016/02/16/extract-of-a-conference-given-by-the-archbishop-lefebvre/

“I admit that the masses celebrated according to the new rite are not all invalid, in view of the bad translations, of its ambiguity …”

You have on that subject some explanations from the book of Mr. Salleron, those are in my opinion, probably the best ones which were given and the most complete. He really made a study of the Novus Ordo Mass. It’s hard to do it more perfectly and more completely then what he did very courageously. He is not afraid to say in which way the Novus Ordo Mass is equivocal. There are three chapters, one after the other, which show that it is equivocal and it is clear that the Novus Ordo Mass favours heresy. For those reasons, the Novus Ordo Mass is a failure. There are three chapters which are very well written for us now. Also, his whole analysis of the Novus Ordo Mass and the whole history with all very well studied documents are really enlightening. If someone is still adhering to the Novus Ordo after having read that book, it is because he will never understand anything. Besides, that is why I brought it with me to the Holy Office. And then, when they talked with me about the Novus Ordo, they interrogated me. “So concerning the New Mass; how is it that you say some rather serious things about it?” So, I can assure you they asked me questions. It’s shocking. “Do you maintain that a faithful Catholic can think and affirm that a sacramental rite, especially the one of the Mass, approved and promulgated by the Pope, can be nonconforming with the Catholic faith or favour heresy?” I said: “Well here! You are holding the book. Those are not even my words, you see! But I agree absolutely with what he says: it’s an equivocal Mass, a Mass favouring heresy …”

So, I also advise you to have this in your library, this book by Salleron, and to give it to the people who are hesitant. “But, even so, we know brave priests who are good and who are trying to say the New Mass well etc.…” Read this! You will see! It is the New Mass in itself! It is not about the priest who is saying it. It is not because he says it piously or anything that the new rite changes. It is not because it changes anything in the rite of the Mass. It is obvious that this new rite is a rite that has been made only to draw us closer to the Protestants! That is clear! Finally clear!

On this subject, re-read also the article by Fr. Boyer in the supplement of the Dictionary of Catholic Theology. After the table of contents, there are a few articles and in particular a very long article by Fr. Boyer who was my teacher at the Gregorian, who is now dead, and who was very highly regarded, a man of value who was, for some time, Secretary of the Secretariat for Christian Unity. Basically, I think he was appointed to this Secretariat to give a slightly more traditional image and to give some confidence to the people. As you know, Fr. Boyer was a respected man, highly regarded in Roman circles and among teachers. He wrote a long article on ecumenism, an article very well documented where he quotes some phrases of Pope Paul VI requesting that we go as far as possible in suppressing everything that can hinder the Protestants in our ceremonies, excluding, obviously, what might be contrary to the Faith. But, I do not see how we can change the texts of our Mass and diminish them without harming the Faith? It is not possible! The Mass is everything! Once we remove what bothers the Protestants, how can we say that we are not going to touch the Faith? It is contradictory. They are unbelievable orders, and that is literally what is written by Fr. Boyer. So what do you want to do?

“And that’s why I never will celebrate the Mass according to the new rite, even under threat of ecclesiastical penalties and I will never advise anyone positively to participate actively in such a mass.”

Because people are still asking us those questions: “I don’t have the Mass of St. Pius V on Sunday, and there is a Mass said by a priest that I know well, a holy man, so, wouldn’t it be better to go to the Mass of this priest, even if it is the New Mass but said with piety, instead of just staying away?”

No! That’s not true! That is not true! Because this rite is bad, is bad, is bad! This is the reason why this rite is bad, it is poisoned! It is a poisoned rite! Mr. Salleron says it very well here: “It is not a choice between two rites that would be good! This is a choice between a Catholic Rite and a practically Protestant rite!” It’s harmful to our Faith, the Catholic Faith!

So, it is out of question to encourage people to go to Mass in the New Rite, because slowly, even without realizing it, they end up ecumenist! It’s strange, but it’s like that. It is a fact. Then, ask them questions on ecumenism, on what they think of the relations with other religions and you will see! They are all ecumenist. For the priest himself, the fact of saying this mass and celebrating it in a constant manner, even without thinking about anything, about its origin, or why it was made, turns him and the people who assist at it ecumenist. And, if we ask them about ecumenism, their answer will be: “But of course! You can be saved in all religions, it’s obvious!” This is the New Mass, the Novus Ordo Mass.

Of course, that’s why it says: “...positively to participate actively at such a Mass.” But we can exceptionally, as it Canon Law says for things like Orthodox ceremonies, for some reasons we can assist passively. For a wedding, funerals of parents or things like that, where we feel obliged to be present and we cannot do otherwise, we assist passively. We don’t receive communion, we are not participating in the Mass, but we are doing it more out of politeness towards the people who assist at it, than for assisting at the sacrifice of the Mass. Those are conditions that are already mentioned in Canon Law, the old Canon Law. But attending it as one’s Sunday Mass, no! It is better to stay home reading and going once a month. Make the effort to go once a month and do 100 km if necessary, to attend the Catholic Mass! Like in the missions, we were visiting our faithful’s three times a year. We could not do more! That was the average. This didn’t mean that they were bad Christians. They could not do otherwise. It is not an impossible thing. People say: “But am I not committing a grave sin by not going to Mass?” Not at that Mass! It does not oblige under pain of grave sin. We are never forced to do something which would tend to diminish our Faith. It’s not possible. God cannot force us to do that. On the other hand, we are seriously obliged to do everything possible to attend the Mass of St. Pius V, the Catholic Mass. There, the obligation remains, but not for a rite that is almost Protestant. On the contrary, there is an obligation not to go.

I’m a little surprised, you know. Sometimes, I receive a lot of requests for consultations from our priests who are in the priories and some are asking me: “What should one reply to a person who says he cannot have the Mass of St. Pius V and who believes that he is under the obligation to go to a New Rite Mass, said by a good priest, a serious priest who offers all the guarantees almost of holiness? etc.” But I don’t understand why they can’t answer this themselves! They don’t find the conclusion by themselves and they feel obliged to ask me such a thing. It’s incredible! So you see, there are still some who hesitate. This is unbelievable!

And that, you will see, will be mandatory for those who have left us. For the Fraternity of St. Peter, for Dom Gerard, even if they never say the New Mass themselves, even if they have our convictions, they will be obliged to consider the New Rite as having the same value as the Traditional Rite! In practice, when they receive Novus Ordo priests who come to visit them, they will be obliged to let them say their Mass and tell them: “No problem. But of course, say your Mass.” This is fatal! They cannot do otherwise. Look at the cohabitation of the two rites with Father Lafargue! In Paris there, with Father Veuillet! And beware! Father Lafargue and Father Veuillet must not go tell the others that their Mass is bad or say: “You must come with me, you must come with us.” It is well marked in the contracts. The two rites are valid, do not criticize… So, this is not possible. It is cannot be otherwise. They are trapped!

Last Edit: Apr 20, 2018 20:13:23 GMT by therecusant

Grace vs. No Grace in the New Mass

Post by Admin on Apr 15, 2018 14:16:54 GMT

Post by Admin on Apr 15, 2018 14:26:04 GMT

Post by Admin on Apr 15, 2018 15:57:55 GMT

Post by Admin on Apr 15, 2018 17:13:15 GMT

Post by Admin on Apr 15, 2018 17:24:50 GMT

Post by therecusant on Apr 20, 2018 19:52:05 GMT

Post by therecusant on Apr 20, 2018 20:01:34 GMT

Post by therecusant on Apr 20, 2018 20:12:10 GMT