Quickly, I'm about to rant as HH likes to say, and I just want to be clear that nothing is meant towards you personally Waiting by the Window. The short answer is yes, absolutely, and I won't even argue with anyone here about it, because anyone who argues in favor (imo) is so totally oblivious of what the Sacrifice of the Mass is about that they should start in examining that before arguing music. I was involved in music ministry for mass for a few years, in addition to a decade of music classes and theory, so it definitely irks me when folk masses, youth masses, and so on basically blaspheme the entire Sacrifice with horrid inapproropriate sound. Here are some quick links for anyone to research. (The 3rd link will answer the question about the OT dancing and leaping. This is a common excuse/thought that modernists and liberals use to push irreverent Masses but it is only half true and interpreted through our modern Western ideas of things. As you will see, the Israelites themselves corrected this behavior)
Thank you for taking the time to post those, Divine Mercy. They are very informative and I note the relative young age of the presenters gives me hope for future holiness in the Church.
In case you don't speak German (which I don't fluently, but enough to understand a lot of it), "all baptized Christians are invited to communion" in the third video.
I just watched another video on Fr Malachi Martin. Here he talks about Satan's plans and the Traditional Latin Mass. Watch the very brief part from the 9m58s point onwards. In another video, he says that "of itself, the novus ordo mass is invalid. You can make it valid, but you've got to make an effort."
I asked my friends who left the Novus Ordo mass for the SPPX, why they did so and they said they no longer believed the mass was valid. To which I asked, how did your husband get cured from his bone marrow cancer in his shoulder from a host that was consecrated from a priest in a Novus Ordro mass? You see, they both came into a small Eucharistic adoration chapel, a room about 14' x 15' one evening to make a short visit to our Lord. Barb sat in the back of the room next to the lady who's holy hour it was. Her husband Augie went to the front kneeler (which was about 3' away from the host) and prayed for 10 minutes or so. When he got up, he mentioned to his wife that he would wait for her in the car. As soon as he left, the lady turned to Barb and said, "Did you see what just happened?". Barb said, "what are you talking about". She then explained to his wife that when he knelt down, golden rays came out of the Eucharist, upon his shoulder and back and remained there until he rose from the kneeler and then went back into the Eucharist. You see, Augie was diagnosed by the University of Iowa by radiology and his surgeon as having bone cancer, which he was to go into surgery in a week. When Barb was told what this lady saw, she told her husband and convinced him to go back and have another x-ray taken, to which he did. Nothing had changed. That is, until he went into surgery and when the doctor cut him open, he found no cancer! Yes, this couple, even though Augie was healed by a Eucharist, consecrated within a Novus Ordo Mass, denied to me that it happened later. They had no way to explain his healing, once they joined SPPX and denied that the Novus Ordo mass was valid.
I believe this unbelief saddens Our Lord very much. It is in many NO tabernacles where He is most ignored and insulted. For those who believe the reality of the Eucharist (validly confected in the NO Mass properly said)we OWE it to Jesus to visit Him and adore Him and make reparation for those who ignore or insult Him by their behavior. The Latin Mass community reverence Him. The NO community it gets harder. I always feel I am spending time with Him after everyone has abandoned Him. I can’t help but feel it is a ploy of the devil to steal our faith when we start worrying about validity.
I think the key here is that as Fr Malachi Martin said, I have been to NO masses in the USA where based on the priest's actions and homily, I doubted that he even believed in the Real Presence and thus I doubted that the consecration was valid. Not here in Singapore though. The thing is that we were warned that 'even the elect would be deceived'. If it were so obvious as the words of consecration being changed, the elect would not be deceived.
I am posting again what I've posted before on 'The Vatican has Fallen' thread: As many on this forum have said, they prefer the TLM over the NO mass. Some go to the TLM exclusively. The sense of the sacred is very obvious in the TLM; the opposite is true of the NO mass. Some have also voiced their views that without the TLM, the Church/world would be in deep trouble. All these make me question why it is so. If the NO mass were every bit as valid and licit as the TLM, surely we wouldn't believe that we cannot do without the TLM? Also, once again, I have to mention that it is well known by now that the Freemasons intended to destroy the Catholic Church from within. We know of: -the Permanent Instruction of the Alta Vendita, -Bella Dodd's testimony to the Committee on Un-American Activities, House of Representatives, about the communists' targeted infiltration into the seminaries and their success in going right to the highest ecclesiastical positions in the Catholic Church, -the various prophecies about apostasy within the Church, going right up to involve the pope (Our Lady of Quito, LaSalette, Akita, Fatima, Blessed Catherine Anne Emmerich, Bruno Cornicciola, Abp Fulton Sheen etc) There is a transcript of a speech given by Father Paul Kramer at the Fatima Peace Conference in October, 2001 about "The Suicide of Altering the Faith in the Liturgy". He explained things much better than I can. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1346700/posts Some excerpts: Msgr. Eugene Pacelli, the future Pope Pius XII, made the astonishing prophecy on the future upheavel in the Church: "I am worried by the Blessed Virgin's messages to Lucy of Fatima. This persistence of Mary about the dangers which menace the Church is a divine warning against the suicide of altering the Faith, in Her liturgy, Her theology and Her soul. … I hear all around me innovators who wish to dismantle the Sacred Chapel, destroy the universal flame of the Church, reject Her ornaments and make Her feel remorse for Her historical past. "A day will come when the civilized world will deny its God, when the Church will doubt as Peter doubted. She will be tempted to believe that man has become God. In our churches, Christians will search in vain for the red lamp where God awaits them. Like Mary Magdalene, weeping before the empty tomb, they will ask, 'Where have they taken Him?'" - Roche, Pie XII Devant L'Historie, p. 52-53 One method of the heretics for attacking the Church is to infiltrate the Catholic hierarchy and then change the liturgy to mute its explicit profession of faith, making the liturgy appear to uphold heretical doctrine. Pope Pius XII warned of this danger, “the suicide of altering the faith in the liturgy”. Many priests and faithful see no problem with the new Rite of Mass. They consider themselves upholders of Catholic tradition and are outspokenly anti-Modernist. But the subtleties of the devil are so great that they are tricked into consenting to the Modernist position without realizing it. It is like the treatment given to frogs: you put them into hot water and they will jump out of the water immediately, but if you put them into cold water and slowly heat it, they don’t notice the increase of heat until it’s too late. They’ve been cooked. ........................ The first question we have to answer, however, is what the change in liturgy has to do with the Message of Fatima. And the answer, of course, is that it has everything to do with the Message of Fatima. Bishop Cosme do Amaral, the former Bishop of Leiria-Fatima, at the Technical University of Vienna, in 1984, spoke about the Third Secret as dealing with apostasy, the loss of faith, on entire continents. What does the change in liturgy have to do with the loss of faith? We will see it has everything to do with the loss of faith. Father Alonso spoke of the Third Secret as dealing with the deficiencies of the upper hierarchy of the Church and its contents as tending to vindicate those in the Church who are called Traditionalists. ................... Cardinal Torquemada explains in quoting Pope Innocent III — in that book I just mentioned, that if the Pope should attempt to change the customs of the Church, especially the liturgical Rites, if he were to attempt to change the Church’s liturgical ceremonies, he would commit an act of schism. A century later, the great Suarez, who was named by Pope Paul V as the most pious and excellent Doctor, explained that “if the Pope were to attempt to change the liturgy, he would fall in schism.” This is the pontifically approved teaching of the two greatest theologians of their respective centuries. ..................... According to the liturgical reformers who created the new Rite, they made their changes with what Father Braga called “an ecumenical dimension and” now ponder these words, “a new foundation of Eucharistic theology”. No longer the theology of the Council of Trent, the doctrine of St. Thomas Aquinas. But a new foundation of Eucharistic theology. And as we go through them one by one, we see that the changes made in the liturgy reflect exactly those changes undertaken by the Protestant Reformers in the 16th Century. Does it not seem to be more than coincidence that all the changes made in the liturgy were precisely those made by the Protestant Reformers? And whatever was found to be offensive to the Protestants, whatever was most dear to traditional Catholic Eucharistic doctrine and the doctrine of the Holy Mass, was either toned down or removed altogether from the liturgy, so that one of the Protestant observers at Vatican II, who helped and gave advice in making the new liturgy, said that “Evangelical Protestants with all tranquility may use this new Rite of Mass.” The “new foundation” of Eucharistic theology is clearly Protestant. ...................... the ambiguities and Protestant suggestiveness of the new Rite are well documented, (they were even pointed out by Cardinal Ottaviani and Cardinal Bacci during the reign of Pope Paul VI). They show that the new Rite fails to be what Pope Pius XII declared that the liturgy must be: an explicit profession of Catholic Faith. It is the ambiguities, the distortions, the suggestions of heresy in the new Rite of Mass that has brought about what Sister Lucy refers to in connection with the Third Secret of Fatima: “the diabolical disorientation in the post- Conciliar Church.”
If you have never read the Ottavianni Intervention before, here it is: The Ottaviani Intervention: A Critical Study of the New Mass Written by Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani and Antonio Cardinal Bacci and a Group of Roman Theologians Editor's Note: The New Order of Mass was introduced on April 4, 1969. On June 5, 1969 Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani of the Holy Office, and Antonio Cardinal Bacci, along with a group of Roman theologians, presented Pope Paul VI with a Short Critical Study of the New Order of Mass. The Study contained a cover letter signed by Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci, which warned that 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 22 of the Council of Trent". Among other points, the Study maintains that the faithful "never, absolutely never, asked that the liturgy be changed or mutilated to make it easier to understand." "On many points," the study says, "it has much to gladden the heart of even the most modernist Protestant." Furthermore, "the definition of the Mass is thus reduced to a 'supper'." "The altar is nearly always called the table." "The instruction recommends that the Blessed Sacrament now be kept in a place apart ...as though it were some sort of relic." "The people themselves appear as possessing autonomous priestly powers." "He [the priest] now appears as nothing more than a Protestant minister." For these and many other reasons, the Critical Study concludes that to abandon our liturgical tradition in favor of a liturgy "which teems with insinuations or manifests errors against the integrity of the Catholic Faith is . . . an incalculable error." Presented here are Chapter 3 and part of Chapter 4 of this Study. CFN readers are urged to obtain, or re-read, the entire book. This will help Catholics keep their feet on the ground in the midst of the jubilation prompted by the recently-released Liturgiam authenticam. The grave deficiencies pointed out by the Critical Study were not of a flawed translation of the Novus Ordo, but of the original Latin text. "The Ottaviani Intervention" Letter from Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci to His Holiness Pope Paul VI September 25th, 1969 Most Holy Father, Having carefully examined, and presented for the scrutiny of others, the Novus Ordo Missae prepared by the experts of the Consilium ad exequendam Constitutionem de Sacra Liturgia, and after lengthy prayer and reflection, we feel it to be our bounden duty in the sight of God and towards Your Holiness, to put before you the following considerations: 1. 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. 2. 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 suspicions 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 agonising crisis of conscience of which innumerable instances come tour notice daily. 3. We are certain that these considerations, which can only reach Your Holiness by the living voice of both shepherds and flock, cannot but find an echo in Your paternal heart, always so profoundly solicitous for the spiritual needs of the children of the Church. It has always been the case that when a law meant for the good of subjects proves to be on the contrary harmful, those subjects have the right, nay the duty of asking with filial trust for the abrogation of that law. Therefore we most earnestly beseech Your Holiness, at a time of such painful divisions and ever-increasing perils for the purity of the Faith and the unity of the church, lamented by You our common Father, not to deprive us of the possibility of continuing to have recourse to the fruitful integrity of that Missale Romanum of St. Pius V, so highly praised by Your Holiness and so deeply loved and venerated by the whole Catholic world. A. Card. Ottaviani A. Card. Bacci
Brief Summary I History of the Change The new form of Mass was substantially rejected by the Episcopal Synod, was never submitted to the collegial judgement of the Episcopal Conferences and was never asked for by the people. It has every possibility of satisfying the most modernist of Protestants. II Definition of the Mass By a series of equivocations the emphasis is obsessively placed upon the 'supper' and the 'memorial' instead of on the unbloody renewal of the Sacrifice of Calvary. III Presentation of the Ends The three ends of the Mass are altered:- no distinction is allowed to remain between Divine and human sacrifice; bread and wine are only "spiritually" (not substantially) changed. IV The Essence The Real Presence of Christ is never alluded to and belief in it is implicitly repudiated. V The Elements of the Sacrifice The position of both priest and people is falsified and the Celebrant appears as nothing more than a Protestant minister, while the true nature of the Church is intolerably misrepresented. VI The Destruction of Unity The abandonment of Latin sweeps away for good and all unity of worship. This may have its effect on unity of belief and the New Order has no intention of standing for the Faith as taught by the Council of Trent to which the Catholic conscience is bound. VII: The Alienation of the Orthodox While pleasing various dissenting groups, the New Order will alienate the East. VIII The Abandonment of Defences The New Order teems with insinuations or manifest errors against the purity of the Catholic religion and dismantles all defences of the deposit of Faith. Chapter I History of the Change In October 1967, the Episcopal Synod called in Rome was required to pass judgement on the experimental celebration of a so-called "normative Mass" (New Mass), devised by the Consilium ad exsequendam Constitutionem de Sacra Liturgia. This Mass aroused the most serious misgivings. The voting showed considerable opposition (43 non placet), very many substantial reservations (62 juxta modum), and 4 abstentions out of 187 voters. The international press spoke of a "refusal" of the proposed "normative Mass" (New Mass) on the part of the Synod. Progressively-inclined papers made no mention of it. In the Novus Ordo Missae lately promulgated by the Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum, we once again find this "normative Mass" (New Mass), identical in substance, nor does it appear that in the intervening period the Episcopal Conference, at least as such, were ever asked to give their views about it. In the Apostolic Constitution, it is stated that the ancient Missal promulgated by St. Pius V, 13th July 1570, but going back in great part to St. Gregory the Great and still remoter antiquity, [1] was for four centuries the norm for the celebration of the Holy Sacrifice for priests of the Latin rite, and that, taken to every part of the world, "it has moreover been an abundant source of spiritual nourishment to many holy people in their devotion to God". Yet, the present reform, putting it definitely out of use, was claimed to be necessary since "from that time the study of the Sacred Liturgy has become more widespread and intensive among Christians". This assertion seems to us to embody a serious equivocation. For the desire of the people was expressed, if at all, when - thanks to Pius X - they began to discover the true and everlasting treasures of the liturgy. The people never on any account asked for the liturgy to be changed, or mutilated so as to understand it better. They asked for a better understanding of the changeless liturgy, and one which they would never have wanted changed. The Roman Missal of St. Pius V was religiously venerated and most dear to Catholics, both priests and laity. One fails to see how its use, together with suitable catechesis, could have hindered a fuller participation in, and great knowledge of the Sacred Liturgy, nor why, when its many outstanding virtues are recognised, this should not have been considered worthy to continue to foster the liturgical piety of Christians. Rejected by Synod Since the "normative" Mass (New Mass), now reintroduced and imposed as the Novus Ordo Missae (New Order of the Mass), was in substance rejected by the Synod of Bishops, was never submitted to the collegial judgement of the Episcopal Conferences, nor have the people - least of all in mission lands - ever asked for any reform of Holy Mass whatsoever, one fails to comprehend the motives behind the new legislation which overthrows a tradition unchanged in the Church since the 4th and 5th centuries, as the Apostolic Constitution itself acknowledges. As no popular demand exists to support this reform, it appears devoid of any logical grounds to justify it and makes it acceptable to the Catholic people. The Vatican Council did indeed express a desire (para. 50 Constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium) for the various parts of the Mass to "be revised in a way that will bring out more clearly the intrinsic nature and purpose of its several parts, as also the connection between them." [2]We shall see how the Ordo recently promulgated corresponds with this original intention. An attentive examination of the Novus Ordo reveals changes of such magnitude as to justify in themselves the judgement already made with regard to the "normative" Mass. Both have in many points every possibility of satisfying the most Modernists of Protestants.
Chapter II Definition of the Mass Let us begin with the definition of the Mass given in No. 7 of the "Institutio Generalis" at the beginning of the second chapter on the Novus Ordo: "De structura Missae": "The Lord's Supper or Mass is a sacred meeting or assembly of the People of God, met together under the presidency of the priest, to celebrate the memorial of the Lord. [3]Thus the promise of Christ, "where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them",[4]is eminently true of the local community in the Church (Mt. XVIII, 20)". The definition of the Mass is thus limited to that of the "supper", and this term is found constantly repeated [5](nos. 8, 48, 55d, 56). This supper is further characterised as an assembly [6] presided over by the priest and held as a memorial of the Lord, recalling what He did on the first Maundy Thursday. None of this in the very least implies either the Real Presence, or the reality of sacrifice, or the Sacramental function of the consecrating priest, or the intrinsic value of the Eucharistic Sacrifice independently of the people's presence. It does not, in a word, imply any of the essential dogmatic values of the Mass which together provide its true definition. Here, the deliberate omission of these dogmatic values amounts to their having been superseded and therefore, at least in practice, to their denial. [7] In the second part of this paragraph 7 it is asserted, aggravating the already serious equivocation, that there holds good, "eminently", for this assembly Christ's promise that "Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them" (Matt. XVIII, 20). This promise which refers only to the spiritual presence of Christ with His grace, is thus put on the same qualitative plane, save for the greater intensity, as the substantial and physical reality of the Sacramental Eucharistic Presence. In no. 8 a subdivision of the Mass into "liturgy of the word" and Eucharistic liturgy immediately follows, with the affirmation that in the Mass is made ready "the table of the God's word" as of "the Body of Christ", so that the faithful "may be built up and refreshed"; an altogether improper assimilation of the two parts of the liturgy, as though between two points of equal symbol value. More will be said about this point later. This Mass is designed by a great many different expressions, all acceptable relatively, all unacceptable if employed, as they are, separately in an absolute sense. We cite a few: The Action of the People of God; The Lord's Supper or Mass, the Pascal Banquet; The Common Participation of the Lord's Table; The Eucharistic Prayer; The Liturgy of the Word and the Eucharistic Liturgy. As is only too evident, the emphasis is obsessively placed upon the supper and the memorial instead of upon the unbloody renewal of the Sacrifice of Calvary. The formula "The Memorial of the Passion and Resurrection of the Lord", besides, is inexact, the Mass being the memorial of the Sacrifice [8] alone, in itself redemptive, while the Resurrection is the consequent fruit of it. We shall later see how, in the very consecratory formula, and throughout the Novus Ordo, such equivocations are renewed and reiterated. Chapter III Presentation of the Ends We now turn to the ends or purposes of the Mass-----what it accomplishes in the supernatural order. 1. Ultimate purpose. The ultimate purpose of the Mass is the sacrifice of praise rendered to the Most Holy Trinity. This end conforms to the primary purpose of the Incarnation, explicitly enunciated by Christ Himself: "Coming into the world he saith: sacrifice and oblation thou wouldst not, but a body thou hast fitted me." (9) In the Novus Ordo, this purpose has disappeared: From the Offertory, where the prayer Receive, Holy Trinity, this Oblation has been removed. From the conclusion of Mass, where the prayer honoring the Trinity, May the Tribute of My Homage, Most Holy Trinity has been eliminated. From the Preface, since the Preface of the Most Holy Trinity, formerly used on all ordinary Sundays, will henceforth be used only on the Feast of the most Holy Trinity. 2. Ordinary Purpose. The ordinary purpose of the Mass is propitiatory sacrifice-----making satisfaction to God for sin. This end, too, has been compromised. Instead of emphasizing remission for sins for the living and the dead, the new rite stresses the nourishment and sanctification of those present. (10) At the Last Supper, Christ instituted the Blessed Sacrament and thus placed Himself in It as Victim, in order to unite Himself to us as Victim. But this act of sacrificial immolation occurs before the Blessed Sacrament is consumed and possesses beforehand full redemptive value in relation to the bloody Sacrifice on Calvary. The proof for this is that people who assist are not bound to receive Communion sacramentally. (11) 3. Immanent Purpose. The immanent purpose of the Mass is fundamentally that of sacrifice. It is essential that the Sacrifice, whatever its nature, be pleasing to God and accepted by Him. Because of original sin, however, no sacrifice other than the Christ's Sacrifice can claim to be acceptable and pleasing to God in its own right. The Novus Ordo alters the nature of the sacrificial offering by turning it into a type of exchange of gifts between God and man. Man brings the bread, and God turns it into "the bread of life"; man brings the wine, and God turns it into "spiritual drink:" Blessed are you, Lord God of all creation, for through your goodness we have this bread [or wine] to offer, fruit of the earth [vine] and work of human hands. It will become for us the bread of life [spiritual drink]. (12) The expressions "bread of life" and "spiritual drink," of course, are utterly vague and could mean anything. Once again, we come up against the same basic equivocation: According to the new definition of the Mass, Christ is only spiritually present among His own; here, bread and wine are only spiritually-----and not substantially-----changed. (13) In the Preparation of the Gifts, a similar equivocal game was played. The old Offertory contained two magnificent prayers, the Deus qui humanae and the Offerimus tibi: The first prayer, recited at the preparation of the chalice, begins: O God, by whom the dignity of human nature was wondrously established and yet more wondrously restored. It recalled man's innocence before the Fall of Adam and his ransom by the blood of Christ, and it summed up the whole economy of the Sacrifice from Adam to the present day. The second prayer, which accompanies the offering of the chalice, embodies the idea of propitiation for sin: it implores God for His mercy as it asks that the offering may ascend with a sweet fragrance in the presence of Thy divine majesty. Like the first prayer, it admirably stresses the economy of the Sacrifice. In the Novus Ordo, both these prayers have been eliminated. In the Eucharistic Prayers, moreover, the repeated petitions to God that He accept the Sacrifice have also been suppressed; thus, there is no longer any clear distinction between Divine and human sacrifice. Having removed the keystone, the reformers had to put up scaffolding. Having suppressed the real purposes of the Mass, they had to substitute fictitious purposes of their own. This forced them to introduce actions stressing the union between priest and faithful, or among the faithful themselves-----and led to the ridiculous attempt to superimpose offerings for the poor and for the Church on the offering of the host to be immolated. The fundamental uniqueness of the Victim to be sacrificed will thus be completely obliterated. Participation in the immolation of Christ the Victim will turn into a philanthropists' meeting or a charity banquet.
There is more, but I am sure you can get the picture by now. Read the rest at: http://www.catholictradition.org/Eucharist/ottaviani.htm
(It's a mish-mash of the current hot topics, but they are obviously all related to one another.) With the revelation of the horrific truths about the deceitful, depraved lives that so many cardinals, bishops and priests have been living, can one trust that each one had the correct intention, to make the mass valid?
As a traditional Catholic I have no great love of all the innovations they introduced into the Novus Ordo. That being said, I always try to look at the facts as they are, not as I might think or wish them to be. The fact is that the Novus Ordo can be a valid Mass. Meaning it can confect the Eucharist. We know this from the huge number of Eucharistic miracles that we have experienced since the new Mass was introduced. In fact we have more Eucharistic miracles now than we have ever had before in the history of the Church. It is also important to note that Eucharistic miracles almost always happen when there has been some desecration of the Eucharist (i.e. someone leaves a Consecrated Host under a pew, etc.). It is also important to note that in modern times to my knowledge (and I have looked hard) there has never been a Eucharistic miracle at a Latin Mass. This would seem to tell us two important things. The Novus Ordo can Transubstantiate if done properly and also that there are many more abuses to the Eucharist today in the Novus Ordo. If someone wants the most surety that they are receiving the Body and Blood of Our Lord I would suggest attending a Latin Mass.
Sg, you refer to Malachi Martin as Father Malachi Martin, yet in an interview posted on Aviso's blog twitter feed, he posted a Firing Line show which included Malachi Martin as a guest who was announced as Dr. Malachi Martin, a former Jesuit priest dressed in a suit and tie. I do not mean to disrespect your point, but he has made some strong statements about the validity of the 'new' Mass and so one needs to look at how this person presents himself. If he is regarded as 'Father Malachi Martin', why is he announced in the Firing Line show as Dr. Martin? (the part with Dr. Martin is in the later half of the show) To all those who promote the beauty and holiness of the Latin Mass, I say that you were also receiving graces at the Novos Ordo Masses that motivated you to find the Latin Mass. There are graces available for all who go to Mass. Our Lord is the one who see the state of our hearts, minds and intentions as we present ourselves to Him at Mass.
Without getting into whether or not one receives grace at the novus ordo, I just want to point out (because several people have tried to use this idea) that if one receives grace in going to the novus ordo, it is not necessarily because of the n.o. that one receives that grace but because of the mercy of God. If one were to travel on a pilgrimage hundreds of miles for instance and end up praying in a location that you believed to be the burial site of some saint who actually was buried in the next church over, do you think God will withhold his grace for your honest mistake? Your heart was sincere and devout in the pursuing of this pilgrimage, and over a technical error it is not believed that God will withhold bestowing the grace of the pilgrimage. It is given to you in spite of the error you made, just like God will not withhold his forgiveness in the confessional if you sincerely forget a sin (that also goes for graces received from attending questionable apparition sites). However, we are accountable once we discover the error we have made - we should confess the forgotten sin at the next confession, and if while still on that pilgrimage you discover you are in the wrong church, to get to the right one. Some of us believe that we received many graces while attending n.o. Masses, but it is in spite of, not because of, because our intentions and our heart was sincere and faithful. However some of us feel God has shown us the errors of the n.o., and are obligated in consciousness to attend the Mass of the Ages, as it has affectionately been called.
This is actually a simple answer. I heard Fr. Malachi Martin address this point as he was asked this by the interviewer in one of his interviews. He took up residence in the diocese of New York and according to the wishes of the Bishop in charge at the time no priest who has been laicized was allowed to present himself as active clergy. Presumably meaning they were not to be called Fr. or to dress in religious garb. Fr. Martin was simply following the wishes of his Bishop as any good Catholic should.
I take umbrage at the remarks that the Novos Ordo Mass is in error and when Sg stated that she felt that few of the Masses in the United States were valid. That is really showing a lot of hubris to presume to know what effects that the Novos Ordo Mass has wrought in the world or not. We are to take a very controversial man, Malachi Martin, at his word about some very heavy topics..........the third secret of Fatima and the validity of the Novos Ordo Mass when he himself was beset by many and various controversies which I don't think can be easily explained away. I sense that you love God so much that you want to honor Him in every way and exalt worship of Him in the most pure and perfect way which is probably the Latin Mass, but since most of the Church is running on the Novos Ordo, you need to be less condescending about the effects of the Novos Ordo because the Holy Spirit is at work there as well.
