SgC I agree with a lot of what you say however I believe the NO Mass is not a bad Mass. Is the TLM better fitting for our King? Of course. And you have provided wonderful examples of Pope Emeritus Benedict's thoughts and lamentations regarding the old rite verses the new liturgy. I am so glad Our Lord gives us the prophetic scene of what we are living now with the NO mass! he gave us this revelation as a baby! from his very birth at Bethlehem. Where Our Lady and Saint Joseph give us the exemplar of how to love and adore Him no matter what the circumstance. When God revealed in the old testament that he would come to his chosen people, through the line of King David, the Israelite's wanted to prepare for their coming royal Messiah and welcome him with the due grandeur befitting the King of Kings, much like the old rite liturgy. Jesus should have been born in the finest Palace with the best of garments, warmth, sweet fragrances, gentle hymns and all manner of splendour and ceremony. But He was born among His people in a cold and smelly stable and laid in a manger! Our Lady and St Joseph would have wished for the palace and all that should have accompanied the arrival of the King of Kings and the Lord of Lords but they accepted and loved and trusted no matter what. God the Father provided the gentle hymns by sending the angels and those lucky animals provided the warmth. Jesus is present at the NO Mass where we can follow Our most Holy Mother Mary and St Joseph's example, providing the warmth of our hearts for Him to rest in. No Mass is bad when Jesus is present. The bad Mass will not have the Lord.
Thank you for this post, Josephite. How humble the Holy Family is. And there is always something for us to offer up , for no servant is greater than his Master. “what a privilege to carry, everything to God in prayer,” Words from a hymn
Josephite, The Holy Family analogy is a good one. I also believe that orthodox priests, while in the minority, aren't all ready to embrace the TLM; nor are their parishioners. Deacons like myself are in a similar boat. The beauty of the TLM tugs at my heart, but my call as a servant to the flock is a higher calling. I can be patient now, the landscape is rapidly changing. The time of testing is at hand. Oramus!
Only someone with a very deep faith could have written this post. I wish it had come from me. Thank you Josephite. Note to SgCatholic: These are hard times for Catholics trying to reconcile what we have always been taught with what we are hearing from our shepherds. Mario rightly says that the time of testing is at hand. Regarding Vatican 11, if teachings contained in documents from that Council can be dismissed or reversed, wouldn't we be strengthening the argument of those who oppose teachings from other Councils such as Vatican 1 and especially the Council of Trent?
What I have understood about the confusion around the Second Vatican Council was. The discussions and decisions were in conformity with tradition and faithful to doctrine. Those who were given the task of recording and passing on the information had changed the content and passed on information that was not actually what had been decided by the council. The impression I got from what I read was that the masonic infiltration was active at the level of those who recorded and published the outcome of the council. If that is the case, there must be records somewhere with the true findings and decisions from the second Vatican council. All the jargon about the spirit of the second Vatican Council must be a load of baloney. And we all believed it well kinda sorta.
It’s not baloney, because Satan could not destroy the Church. Oh, the Masonic infiltration was obvious, but the Mass still lives. This is what Jesus promised. The Church will prevail.
Thank you for your vote of confidence Dolours. The simple fact is, I am in awe of the remarkable gifts that the Holy Spirit has given you and SgCatholic and all the members here at the MoG forum, this is where many inspirations are born. The communion of saints, we are a mighty "Grace force" under God.
This the most beautiful post on the NO I have ever read. Your analogy is heaven inspired. I never thought if it in that way. But when I wrestled through my own struggles with the NO I begged Our Lady to help me and she literally sent me a priest--a TLM priest who explained it is certainly valid. That Jesus is there! And the next realization was to love Him there with more ardor for those who did not even realize what they were attending or Who was present.
Speaking from personal experience, I had bought into the 'Spirit of the Second Vatican Council,' which was continuously preached over a number of years. No one ever really articulated what that meant. It just seemed to open up avenues for all sorts of change, almost anything goes mentality. Receiving Holy Eucharist on the hand had become the norm, and I was going with the flow, like everyone else around me. I began to notice my faith weaken, or should I say felt less reverence and awe for what was becoming my portion (waifer) at the banquet table of the Lord. I trusted what we were being told, and did not even consider it could damage my personal Faith......I was wrong. I understand that as long as there is Consecration of the two species at Holy Mass and the Lord's prayer, The Our Father. A Mass is valid. As far as I am concerned, I found it necessary to start receiving Holy Eucharist on the Tongue, Genuflecting before receiving to remind myself, Jesus has humbled Himself and come down from Heaven to me, a sinner; and I want Him to know, His effort on my behalf to save me from the pit is appreciated. This also begins to recall all that Jesus suffered and still endures to this day, in order to save us, to redeem us, to heal us, to forgive us in confession. A lot of what I bought into was BALONEY. It was pure protestantism, and no one can convince me to go back down that rabbit hole again. Ever. It became a very dark hole indeed before I realised there was no sign of a light at the other end of the tunnel, in a figure of speech. I have read there was a lot of good that should have come from the Second Vatican Council; but it never got past the masonic shield. I was not aware of the masonic interference until long after I had come to the conclusion, the modern methods were seriously flawed. I can't pretend to agree with the modern Church of nice for the sake of not upsetting anyone. Hell is not worth risking.
NO with the Roman Canon, the Nicene Creed, the priest ad orientem, Communion on the tongue at altar rails, some plain chant, no 'sign of peace' or 'altar girls' and I see little to complain about.
Another wimp! Sure his name isn't Luther? Underlining emphasis is mine! Like Fr. Michel said....the Pope has boxed himself in by giving so much authority to local Bishops to form their own liturgies, etc., to go along with their individual cultures. Now when they present their various "liturgies" to him they expect a stamp of approval due to what he has already told them. New leader of German bishops signals no retreat from progressive line ROME – In a recent interview, Bishop Georg Bätzing of Limburg, the new president of the German bishops’ conference, signaled openness to both married priests and women’s ordination and appeared to criticize a lengthy essay by Pope Benedict XVI last year on the root causes of the clerical sexual abuse crisis. Speaking to the Italian newspaper La Repubblica, Bätzing responded to a question about why debate over women’s priestly ordination seems to have disappeared so quickly. “It is not a question of fear,” he said, noting that throughout the Catholic Church’s recent history, “different popes have explained and underlined that women’s access to the priesthood cannot be decided by the Church, and Pope Francis is no exception.” “In the Catholic Church the magisterium of the episcopal college cum Petro et sub Petro is the decisive instance,” Bätzing said. “But that does not mean that we cannot continue to talk about the issue of the ordination of women, because it is a question presented by the Church itself!” (huh? Only the corrupted "institutional" church) Bätzing, 59, said the Church’s reasons for refusing women’s ordination “are no longer accepted” by large portions of the Catholic faithful. As a result, Bätzing said he’s happy that the conclusions of a two-year “synodal path” in Germany eventually will be sent to Rome, including their resolutions on women and the role of ministers. “I believe that what is expressed synodally must also be clarified and a synodal answer be found, not simply the answer of a Roman dicastery! I am confident in this,” he said, adding, “This is the novelty which, with Pope Francis, has gained strength.” Bätzing was elected president of the German Catholic Bishops’ Conference in March, taking the place of long-time heavyweight Cardinal Reinhard Marx, who has been a key player in the Francis papacy. MORE: https://cruxnow.com/church-in-europ...ops-signals-no-retreat-from-progressive-line/
I do not agree. The validity of the Mass is not the only thing that matters. It is all important, but definitely not the sole factor that makes the difference between a good and a bad Mass. Friday, August 22, 2014 Mass Confusion: Why All Valid Masses Are Not Equal Written by Robert J. Siscoe https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/in...-confusion-why-all-valid-masses-are-not-equal Have you ever wondered how to respond to those who equate the efficacy of the Traditional Mass and the Novus Ordo by directing the argument to the level of validity? They rightly point out that any valid Mass is a renewal of Our Lord’s Sacrifice on Calvary, which was of infinite value, and then conclude that as long as a Mass is valid, it, too, is of infinite worth, and therefore equally efficacious for those who attend. They might concede that a scandalously celebrated Mass will have a negative effect on the subjective disposition of those present, which could perhaps lessen the amount of grace they receive, but they will insist (or at least imply) that neither liturgical abuses, nor an unworthy priest, nor watered down prayers or profane music, per se, will lessen the efficacy of the Mass or the fruit to be derived there from. The answer to the above question (how is the Traditional Mass more efficacious than the Novus Ordo) is found in the distinction between the intrinsic and extrinsic value of the Mass. Before delving into this matter, let us recall the four ends of the Mass. The Catechism of Pope St. Pius X explains them as follows The Sacrifice of the Mass is offered to God for four ends: (1) To honour Him properly, and hence it is called Latreutical; (2) To thank Him for His favours, and hence it is called Eucharistical; (3) To appease Him, make Him due satisfaction for our sins, and to help the souls in Purgatory, and hence it is called Propitiatory; (4) To obtain all the graces necessary for us, and hence it is called Impetratory. Intrinsic and Extrinsic Value When considering the efficacy of the Mass, we must distinguish between the intrinsic value and the extrinsic value. The intrinsic value refers to the efficacious power of the Sacrifice itself. Since the Mass is essentially identical to the Sacrifice of Christ on Calvary, which was of infinite worth, the intrinsic value of any Mass is itself infinite. In Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, we read: “The intrinsic value of the Mass, that is, its peculiar dignity and efficacious power of itself (in actu primo), is infinite, on account of the infinite dignity of the Sacrificial Gift, and of the Primary Sacrificial Priest”. (1) With respect to the Mass’s extrinsic value, we must make a distinction between the extrinsic value in relation to God to whom it is offered, and the extrinsic value in relation to man for whom it is offered. Since God is an infinite being, and therefore capable of receiving an infinite act, the adoration (latreutical) and thanksgiving (eucharistical) offered to God by virtue of the Sacrifice is itself infinite. (2) But since man is a finite creature who is incapable of receiving infinite effects, the effects of the Mass in relation to man – which are referred to as “the fruits of the Mass” – are limited. In his magnificent book, The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, Fr. Nicholas Gihr wrote: “if we consider the Eucharistic Sacrifice in itself… as well as the inscrutable treasures therein enclosed… we perceive how the Holy Mass possesses a value absolutely infinite” and then a little further on added: “But the case is different when the Eucharistic Sacrifice is considered in its relation to man. From this point of view it aims at procuring our salvation and sanctification, and is, consequently, a means of grace, or rather a source of grace, bringing us the riches of heavenly blessings. (…) The fruits which the Sacrifice of the Mass obtains for us from God are only finite, that is, restricted to a certain number and determining measure… The Sacrifice of the Mass, therefore, with respect to man can have only a restricted efficacy, and in its fruits is capable of only limited application.” (3) The same author goes on to explain that the limited efficacy “does not lie in the essence or value of the Sacrifice, since it possesses infinite power for producing every effect”. Rather, “the final and decisive reason for the more or less plentiful application of the sacrificial graces is the will of Christ, in other words, is to be sought in the positive ordinance of God”. (4) He explains that, while the Mass itself is an infinite source of grace, when it comes to “the distribution of His gifts, God requires our cooperation”. (5) (cont'd) +
The Fruits of the Mass The fruit that an individual derives from a particular Mass is not based solely on their personal piety and devotion, which is only one factor that determines the amount of grace they receive. There are other factors as well that have a bearing on the efficacy of a particular Mass, such as the holiness of the priest, the external glory given to God by the ritual, and even the general holiness of the Church in its members at a given time. These external factors affect the amount of grace a person receives, in such a way, that a person can derive more fruit from the devout hearing of one Mass, than from an equally devout hearing of a different Mass. The Holiness of the Church One factor determining the efficacy of the Mass is the general holiness of the Church in its members at a given time, including the bishops and reigning pope. Regarding this point, the old Catholic Encyclopedia says “the greatness and extent of this ecclesiastical service is dependent on the greater or less holiness of the reigning pope, the bishops, and the clergy throughout the world, and for this reason in times of ecclesiastical decay and laxity of morals (especially at the papal court and among the episcopate) the fruits of the Mass, resulting from the sacrificial activity of the Church, might under certain circumstances easily be very small”. (6) Regarding this same point, Fr. Gihr wrote: “But since the holiness of the Church consists in the sanctity of her members, it is not always and invariably the same, but greater at one period than another; therefore, the Sacrifice of the Church is also at one time in a greater, at another in a less degree pleasing to God and beneficial to man”. (7) Since this factor is based on the moral condition of the Church as a whole, it will have an equal effect on all Masses offered at a given time in history. The next several factors, however, are based on specific circumstances which have a direct effect on the efficacy of individual Masses. The Priest St. Thomas explained that the fruits to be derived from a particular Mass are based, in part, on the holiness of the priest celebrant who intercedes for the faithful, “and in this respect there is no doubt but that the Mass of the better priest is the more fruitful”. (8) A Mass celebrated irreverently by an unworthy priest, or worse still, by one who violates the rubrics, will be less efficacious, and therefore produce fewer fruits than one celebrated by a holy priest who says Mass with devotion and follows the rubrics with precision. Hence, as Fr. Gihr observed, “the faithful are thus guided by sound instinct when they prefer to have Mass celebrated for their intentions by an upright and holy priest, rather than by an unworthy one…” (9) St. Bonaventure said “it is more profitable to hear the Mass of a good priest than of an indifferent one”. Cardinal Bona (d. 1674) explained it this way: “The more holy and pleasing to God a priest is, the more acceptable are his prayers and oblations; and the greater his devotion, the greater the benefit to be derived from his Mass. For just as other good works performed by a pious man gain merit in proportion to the zeal and devotion with which they are performed, so Holy Mass is more or less profitable both to the priest who says it and to the persons for whom it is said, according as it is celebrated with more or less fervor”. The Ritual Another factor determining the efficacy of a Mass is the degree of external glory given to God. In this respect, not all Rites are equal; neither does a low Mass have the same efficacy as a High Mass. On this point, Fr. Gihr wrote: “The Church not only offers the Sacrifice, but she moreover unites with its offering various prayers and ceremonies. The sacrificial rites are carried out in the name of the Church and, therefore, powerfully move God to impart His favors and extend His bounty to the living and the dead. By reason of the variety of the formulas of the Mass, the impetratory efficacy of the Sacrifice can be increased… also the nature of the prayers of the Mass and even of its whole rite exerts accordingly an influence upon the measure and nature of the fruits of the Sacrifice. From what has been said there follow several interesting consequences. Among others, that, on the part of the Church, a High Mass solemnly celebrated has greater value and efficacy than merely a low Mass. (…) At a Solemn High Mass the external display is richer and more brilliant than at a low Mass; for at a solemn celebration the Church, in order to elevate the dignity of the Sacrifice, manifests greater pomp, and God is more glorified thereby. (…) This grander and more solemn celebration of the Sacrifice is more acceptable to God and, therefore, more calculated to prevail upon Him to grant us, in His mercy, the favors we implore - that is, to impart greater efficacy to the petitions and supplications of the Church.” (10) Even the decora has an effect on the fruits of the Mass, insofar as it contributes or detracts from the glory of God. As Fr. Ripperger, FSSP explained in his article on this topic: “If we use objects that do not fit the majesty and the exalted nature of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, we can actually detract from the extrinsic merit. Ugly things please God less, and thus merit less”. (11) (cont'd) +
The Novus Ordo Missae If, as Fr. Gihr noted above, “the nature of the prayers of the Mass and even its whole rite” have an effect on the fruits of the Mass, it does not bode well for the Novus Ordo, which, to use the words of Cardinal Ottaviani, “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” and “has every possibility of satisfying the most modernist of Protestants”. (12) When we consider the liturgical shipwreck that is the Novus Ordo Missae, and the scandalous manner in which the Mass is often celebrated, is there any wonder why the Church is in the condition it is today? Let us recall the strange and even ominous words used by Paul VI when he introduced the New Mass to the world in November of 1969. In words that no doubt caused anxiety for many, the Pope said: “We ask you to turn your minds once more to the liturgical innovation of the new Rite of the Mass. This new Rite will be introduced into our celebration of the holy Sacrifice starting from Sunday next which is the first of Advent… a change in a venerable tradition that has gone on for centuries. This is something that affects our hereditary religious patrimony, which seemed to enjoy the privilege of being untouchable and settled. … This change will affect the ceremonies of the Mass. We shall become aware, perhaps with some feeling of annoyance, that the ceremonies at the altar are no longer being carried out with the same words and gestures to which we were accustomed… We must prepare for this many-sided inconvenience. It is the kind of upset caused by every novelty that breaks in on our habits. We shall notice that pious persons are disturbed most, because they have their own respectable way of hearing Mass, and they will feel shaken out of their usual thoughts and obliged to follow those of others. Even priests may feel some annoyance in this respect. … we must prepare ourselves. This novelty is no small thing. We should not let ourselves be surprised by the nature, or even the nuisance, of its exterior forms. … We will lose a great part of that stupendous and incomparable artistic and spiritual thing, the Gregorian chant. We have reason indeed for regret, reason almost for bewilderment”. (13) Is it any surprise that a Mass described by the Pope who published it as “a many-sided inconvenience” and “nuisance”, which would cause “the feeling of annoyance”, “regret” and “bewilderment”, would have a greatly diminished extrinsic value, and therefore end in disaster for the Church? Almost 30 years later, Cardinal Ratzinger wrote: “I am convinced that the crisis in the Church that we are experiencing today is to a large extent due to the disintegration of the liturgy.” (14) Many clear thinking people foresaw, from the outset, the disaster that would result from the Novus Ordo. In the Critical Study of the New Mass (later known as the Ottaviani Intervention), which was written by twelve Roman theologians and signed by Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci, who presented the work to Paul VI, we read: “To abandon a liturgical tradition which for four centuries was both the sign and pledge of unity of worship, and to replace it with another which cannot but be a sign of division by virtue of the countless liberties implicitly authorized, and which teems with insinuations or manifest errors against the integrity of the Catholic religion is, we feel in conscience bound to proclaim, an incalculable error”. They further observed that “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”. Unfortunately, the “law” was never abrogated and the Church has paid the price, as Cardinal Ratzinger himself noted in 1997. Conclusion The Catechism of Pope St. Pius X explained the difference between the Sacrifice of Calvary and the Sacrifice of the Mass as follows: “On the Cross Jesus Christ offered Himself by shedding His Blood and meriting for us; whereas on our altars He sacrifices Himself without the shedding of His Blood, and applies to us the fruits of His passion and death.” But as we have seen, the fruits of the Mass (the merits applied to us at Mass) are finite in their application, and contingent on many factors: the holiness of the priest, and the manner in which he says the Mass, will have an effect on the fruits of the Mass; the ritual and even the decorawill have an effect on the amount of grace one receives, since the greater the solemnity, beauty and grandeur of the celebration, the greater will be the glory given to God, and consequently greater will be the graces He pours out on those who assist. For this reason, it is worth the extra effort to attend the Traditional Mass, which Fr. Faber called “the most beautiful thing this side of heaven”, and to avoid, at all costs, the Novus Ordo Missae, which Cardinal Ratzinger himself referred to as “a fabrication, a banal on-the-spot product”. (15) Footnotes: 1) Fundamental of Catholic Dogma, Ott, TAN, pg 414 2) Ibid 3) Holy Sacrifice of the Mass (Becktold Printing and Book Mfg Co, 1902), pg 137-138 4) Ibid. p. 138-139 5) Ibid. p. 139 6) Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. X (1913) p. 19 7) Holy Sacrifice of the Mass (Becktold Printing and Book Mfg Co, 1902), p. 144 8) Summa, St. Thomas, Pt III, Q 82, A.6 9) Holy Sacrifice of the Mass (Becktold Printing and Book Mfg Co, 1902), p. 147 10) Ibid p. 144-145 11) The Merits of a Mass, Fr. Ripperger, Latin Mass Magazine, 12) Ottaviani Intervention 13) Paul VI, General Audience, November 26, 1969 14) Milestones, Ratzinger, 1997 15) The Reform of the Roman Liturgy, by (Msgr Gamber, Introduction to the French edition +
To clarify again, the Third Secret was to be released by 1960 by the express order of Our Lady, because "it would become clearer then". From Fr Ingo Dollinger and Cardinal Silvio Oddi, we learnt that the unreleased part of the Third Secret mentioned a "bad Council and a bad Mass, that was to come in the near future". These can only be the Vatican II council and the Novus Ordo Mass. By their bad fruits, we know them. Pope Benedict XVI has said before that his authority 'stopped at the door'. I don't think it was as simple as you make it out to be. Satan was already in the Church. +
What I understand is that right from its outset, the Vatican II council declared itself as a 'pastoral' council, where no doctrine was to be defined. Since it nowhere expressed its intention to define a dogma, it can be categorised as a non-defining magisterium (Ordinary magisterium) which is not infallible. +
