http://wdtprs.com/blog/2018/04/ask-father-same-amount-of-grace-at-every-mass/ ASK FATHER: Same amount of grace at every Mass?
No, it doesn't. But I have read that Akita contains the Third Secret of Fatima, or close to it. That is why I suggested it. But as I said before, we have options now. These concerns can be addressed by going to the TLM, or receiving from a priest at the NO.
If I have the choice between a valid but illicit mass (almost every current Novus Ordo celebration) and a valid AND licit mass (almost EVERY TLM) I’ll choose the latter. Every. Single. Time. By the way, by that measure, every SSPX mass, which in the eyes of Rome is valid but illicit, is no different than every single (illicit) Novus Ordo mass. That’s why I have NO scruples now about attending and receiving at the SSPX.
That is why I said we have choices. GREAT article, thanks for posting, this is a great explanation.....
If I have a “choice” between a valid but illicit mass and a valid and licit mass, I have no choice but to attend the latter.
Maybe part of what is meant by a minor apostasy is that many of the masses said will be illicit (where we are now) and part of what is meant by a major apostasy is that many of the masses said will be invalid, if not all of them - the abomination of desolation. I have always thought of the people falling away from the Faith when I think of the minor and major apostasy but of course this falling away effects the Church, this I always knew. I never thought of it in terms of the illicit masses and the future invalid mass. Edited to add: Sg, I think that there are few members of MOG that would not agree that there are and have been many abuses of the mass since Vatican II, instances or worse. The Novus Ordo mass is valid but Our Lady may have been warning us of its future abuse. Brian, Sorry, I updated this post but you can remove your "like" if you care to.
I found the following Q&A from the SSPX archives: http://archives.sspx.org/SSPX_FAQs/q5_novus_ordo_missae.htm (Emphasis in red is mine). Question 5 What is wrong with the Novus Ordo Missae? A. Preliminary remarks A criticism of the New Rite cannot be a criticism of the Mass in itself, for this is the very sacrifice of Our Lord bequeathed to His Church, but it is an examination, whether it is a fit rite for embodying and enacting this august Sacrifice. A typical New Mass It is difficult for those who have known nothing other than the Novus Ordo Missae to understand of what they have been deprived, and attending a “Latin Mass” often just seems alien. To see clearly what it is all about, it is necessary to have a clear understanding of the defined truths of our Faith on the Mass (principles 11-18 are some of them). Only in the light of these can the “new rite” of Mass be evaluated. B. What is the Novus Ordo Missae? Let us answer this by looking at its four causes, as the philosophers would say: What are the elements that make up the New Rite? Some are Catholic: a priest, bread and wine, genuflections, signs of the Cross, etc., but some are Protestant: a table, common-place utensils, communion under both kinds and in the hand, etc. Now, the Novus Ordo Missae assumes these heterodox elements alongside the Catholic ones to form a liturgy for a modernist religion which would marry the Church and the world, Catholicism and Protestantism, light and darkness. Indeed, the Novus Ordo Missae presents itself as: a meal (vs. principle 11). This is shown by its use of a table around which the people of God gather to offer bread and wine (vs. principle 18) and to communicate from rather common-place utensils, often under both kinds (vs. principle 15), and usually in the hand (vs. principle 16). (Note too the almost complete deletion of references to sacrifice). a narrative of a past event (vs. principle 12). This told out loud by the one presiding (vs. principle 14), who recounts Our Lord’s words as read in Scripture (rather than pronouncing a sacramental formula) and who makes no pause until he has shown the Host to the people. a community gathering, (vs. principle 13). Christ is perhaps considered to be morally present but ignored in his Sacramental Presence (vs. principles 16 & 17). Notice also the numerous rubrical changes: the celebrant facing the people from where the tabernacle was formerly kept. just after the consecration, all acclaim He “will come again.” sacred vessels are no longer gilt. Sacred Particles are ignored (vs. principle 15) the priest no longer joins thumb and forefinger after the consecration. the vessels are not purified as they used to be. Communion is most frequently given in the hand. genuflections on the part of the priest and kneeling on the part of the faithful are much reduced. the people take over much of what the priest formerly did. Moreover, the Novus Ordo Missae defined itself this way: The Lord’s Supper, or Mass, is a sacred synaxis, or assembly of the people of God gathered together under the presidency of the priest to celebrate the memorial of the Lord. (Pope Paul VI, Institutio Generalis, §7, 1969 version) What is the aim of the Novus Ordo Missae as a rite? ...the intention of Pope Paul VI with regard to what is commonly called the Mass, was to reform the Catholic liturgy in such a way that it should almost coincide with the Protestant liturgy... there was with Pope Paul VI an ecumenical intention to remove, or at least to correct, or at least to relax, what was too Catholic, in the traditional sense, in the Mass and, I repeat, to get the Catholic Mass closer to the Calvinist mass...* *Jean Guitton on December 19, 1993 in Apropos (17), p. 8ff [also in Christian Order, October 1994]. Jean Guitton was an intimate friend of Pope Paul VI. Paul VI had 116 of his books and had made marginal study notes in 17 of these: When I began work on this trilogy I was concerned at the extent to which the Catholic liturgy was being Protestantized. The more detailed my study of the Revolution, the more evident it has become that it has by-passed Protestantism and its final goal is humanism. (Pope Paul's New Mass, pp. 137 and 149) This latter is a fair evaluation when one considers the changes implemented, the results achieved, and the tendency of modern theology, even papal theology (cf. question 7). (cont'd)
Wow I had never thought of this before. As far as illicit I mostly had been thinking of things like if a priest had his faculties removed etc. but apparently even small liturgical abuses can make a Mass illicit: http://www.ewtn.com/v/experts/showmessage.asp?number=317276 Just an important note though: Even though some (possibly many) Novus Ordo Masses may be illicit, that does not mean they are invalid. Transubstantiation can still take place even if there is liturgical abuse as long as the consecration is done properly. Meaning it has: 1) The correct matter (Wheat bread and grape wine) 2) The essential form (The correct words used) 3) The intention of the celebrant to do what the Church does is present (He intends to confect the sacrament)
5. WHO made up the Novus Ordo Missae? It is the invention of a liturgical commission, the Consilium, whose guiding light was Fr. Annibale Bugnini (made an archbishop in 1972 for his services), and which also included six Protestant experts. Fr. Bugnini (principal author of Vatican II’sSacrosanctum Concilium) had his own ideas on popular involvement in the liturgy (La Riforma Liturgia, A. Bugnini, Centro Liturgico Vincenziano, 1983), while the Protestant advisors had their own heretical ideas on the essence of the Mass. Archbishop Bugnini, one of the architects of the New Mass But the one on whose authority the Novus Ordo Missae was enforced was Pope Paul VI, who “promulgated” it by his apostolic constitution, Missale Romanum(April 3, 1969).A Brief Critical Study of the Novus Ordo Missae, September 25, 1969) *A Novus Ordo Missae celebrated according to the 1969 typical edition would look very similar to the traditional Roman Rite, with the celebrant saying most (if not all) the prayers in Latin, facing the tabernacle and wearing the traditional Mass vestments, with a male altar server, and Gregorian chant, etc. None of the current abuses, e.g., Communion in the hand, Eucharistic Ministers, liturgical dancing, guitar-masses, etc., have part with this official form. Hence, the aforementioned cardinals' (as well as the SSPX's) critique of the Novus Ordo Missae is not of its abuses or misapplication, but rather of its essential and official form. And Archbishop Lefebvre definitely agreed with them when he wrote: The Novus Ordo Missae, even when said with piety and respect for the liturgical rules, ...is impregnated with the spirit of Protestantism. It bears within it a poison harmful to the faith (An Open Letter to Confused Catholics, p. 29 [appendix 2]) The dissimulation of Catholic elements and the pandering to Protestants which are evident in the Novus Ordo Missae render it a danger to our faith, and, as such, evil, given that it lacks the good which the sacred rite of Mass ought to have. 2. By their fruits you shall know them: We were promised the Novus Ordo Missae would renew Catholic fervor, inspire the young, draw back the lapsed and attract non-Catholics. Who today can pretend that these things are its fruits? Together with the Novus Ordo Missae did there not instead come a dramatic decline in Mass attendance and vocations, an “identity crisis” among priests, a slowing in the rate of conversions, and an acceleration of apostasies? So, from the point of view of its fruits, the Novus Ordo Missae is not a rite conducive to the flourishing of the Church’s mission. 3. Does it follow from the apparent promulgation by the popes that the Novus Ordo Missae is truly Catholic? No, for the indefectibility of the Church does not prevent the pope personally from promoting defective and modernist rites in the Latin rite of the Church. Moreover, the Novus Ordo Missae: was not properly promulgated (and therefore does not have force of law; cf., [vi] above), the old Roman Mass (aka, the Tridentine or traditional Latin Mass) was not abolished or superseded in the constitution Missale Romanum, hence in virtue of the of Quo Primum (which de jure [by law] is still the liturgical law and therefore the official Mass of the Roman Rite), it can always be said (principle 19), and lastly, the constitution Missale Romanum does not engage the Church's infallibility.* *Let us remember that a pope engages his infallibility not only when teaching on faith or morals (or legislating on what is necessarily connected with them) but when so doing with full pontifical authority and definitively (cf. Vatican I [Dz1839]. But as regards the Novus Ordo Missae, Pope Paul VI has stated (November 19, 1969) that: ...the rite and its related rubric are not in themselves a dogmatic definition. They are capable of various theological qualifications, depending on the liturgical context to which they relate. They are gestures and terms relating to a lived and living religious action which involves the ineffable mystery of God's presence; it is an action that is not always carried out in the exact same form, an action that only theological analysis can examine and express in doctrinal formulas that are logically satisfying. NB: It should be also be understood that the papal bull, Quo Primum is neither an infallible document, but rather only a disciplinary document regarding the liturgical law that governs the Tridentine Rite (cf. this Catholic FAQ for details). D. This being so, can it be said that the Novus Ordo Missae is invalid? This does not necessarily follow from the above defects, as serious as they might be, for only three things are required for validity (presupposing a validly ordained priest), proper: matter, form, and intention. However, the celebrant must intend to do what the Church does. The Novus Ordo Missae will no longer in and of itself guarantee that the celebrant has this intention. That will depend on his personal faith (generally unknown to those assisting, but more and more doubtful as the crisis in the Church is prolonged). Therefore, these Masses can be of doubtful validity, and more so with time. The words of consecration, especially of the wine, have been tampered with. Has the “substance of the sacrament” (cf., Pope Pius XII quoted in principle 5) been respected? This is even more of a problem in Masses in the vernacular, where pro multis (for many) has been deliberately mistranslated as "for all". While we should assume that despite this change the consecration is still valid, nevertheless this does add to the doubt. E. Considering what has been said, are we obliged in conscience to attend the Novus Ordo Missae? If the Novus Ordo Missae is not truly Catholic, then it cannot oblige for one’s Sunday obligation. Many Catholics who do assist at it are unaware of its all pervasive degree of serious innovation and are exempt from guilt. However, any Catholic who is aware of its harm, does not have the right to participate. He could only then assist at it by a mere physical presence without positively taking part in it, and then and for major family reasons (weddings, funerals, etc).
Which are the ones you are referring to? I can only clearly recall the one in Buenos Aires when the Cardinal then was Jorge Bergoglio. One more recent one, but I can't remember where. This is not about the sedevacantists and what they believe.
There are some very important personal reasons why I do attend the NO In my parish I know where the TLM is not far from here This is between me and God
Don't forget that the SSPX is schismatic. At this point in the discussion, I wish I were camping with Padraig and the pets I have to leave to take care of some errands I am out the back door!
No, it most definitely is not. According to the Vatican, the SSPX is in an “irregular juridical status” but NOT in schism. This has even been clarified by Pope Francis. The Eastern Orthodox are in schism, but the SSPX is Catholic. I would receive at the SSPX mass but not at an Orthodox Divine Liturgy (except in case of emergency.)
“However, there is more to a rite of Mass than the bare minimum. “Liberals often reduce Mass to what is the minimum for validity and they think that they can do what they want with the rest of the rite.”
I’ve researched this at length. I assure you, they are NOT in schism, but an “irregular juridical status.” Separation but not schismEdit Apart from the formal declarations by the Catholic Church, Cardinal Darío Castrillón Hoyos, president of the PCED, commented about the status of the SSPX in a 2005 interview that the 1988 consecrations, without a pontifical mandate, created a "situation of separation [...] even if it was not a formal schism."[17] Castrillón Hoyos commented in 2005, about a 2004 meeting between Benedict XVI and Fellay, that it was said at that meeting that, in Castrillón Hoyos words, "It cannot be said in correct, exact, and precise terms that there is a schism. [...] They are within the Church. There is only the fact that a full, more perfect communion is lacking [...] a fuller communion, because communion does exist."[18] Castrillón Hoyos commented in 2007, when asked "Does the Indult support ecumenism, 'ad intra' (internal)?" Castrillón Hoyos answered that he "reject the term ' ecumenism ad intra '." He explained that the SSPX priests and adherents "are not schismatics" since it was Lefebrve who has undertaken an illicit Episcopal consecration and therefore performed a schismatic act. It is for this reason that the Bishops consecrated by him have been suspended and excommunicated. The priests and faithful of the Society have not been excommunicated. They are not heretics. I do, however, share St Jerome’s fear that heresy leads to schism and vice versa. The danger of a schism is big, such as a systematic disobedience vis-à-vis the Holy Father or by a denial of his authority. It is after all a service of charity, so that the Priestly Society gains full communion with the Holy Father by acknowledging the sanctity of the new Mass."[19] 2009 declaration of no canonical status and no legitimate ministryEdit In 2009, Benedict XVI reaffirmed that: "Until the doctrinal questions are clarified, the Society has no canonical status in the Church, and its ministers – even though they have been freed of the ecclesiastical penalty – do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church."[20] The status of the SSPX was not changed by Benedict XVI in 2009.[1]This has to some extent been superseded with regard to the exercise by SSPX ministers of ministry within the Catholic Church, but not as regards the canonical status of the Society as viewed by the Holy See. Faculties granted by the Holy See to SSPX ministers for confessionsEdit On 20 November 2016, Pope Francis personally extended for priests of the Society, until further provisions are made, the faculty by which "those faithful who, for various reasons, attend churches officiated by the priests of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X, can validly and licitly receive the sacramental absolution of their sins", a faculty he had already granted for the duration of the 2015-16 Jubilee Year.[21] Confession, along with marriage, requires the granting of the required faculty for validity: "The valid absolution of sins requires that the minister have, in addition to the power of orders, the faculty of exercising it for the faithful to whom he imparts absolution" (Code of Canon Law 966.1).[22]
HH, I think that many of us are in a similar situation. Well, this is another "whole ball of wax" and I do remember Cardinal Burke stating what you have said here. Brian, Can you further explain what that means, an “irregular juridical status? Thank you. Brian, Your welcome. I would have never come up with that if it weren't for your posts and the others here. Sg, Ultimately, this comes to the same conclusion that we have all given you, does it not? ____________ I have a question related to the Council of Trent which led to the Tridentine Mass, if anyone could answer this I would be grateful. Can anyone explain what the mass was like before the Tridentine Mass in their own words? I am curious if there were big changes made to the mass, pre-Tridentine mass in comparison to Tridentine mass. Thank you. (I may do some research on this, I should look for a video it might be easier).
Go to Mass, both masses if possible and pray and seek God out with these questions. Guard yourself though, a great many of the heresies posted online are sprinkled with truth and IMO endorse a great many lies. God will guide us but we must listen carefully.
