- Mar 25, 2005
- 3,099
- 208
- 53
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Republican
I have been unbanned and placed on a probationary period for 60 days. First of all, my sincere apologies to anyone I have offended in the past. It's been about 8 months since I have been banned.
A lot has changed in the 8 months since I have been gone. Some bad and some good. First of all I have found tradition and I am now at the point where I can no longer attend the Novus Ordo without endangering my faith. This past spring we were having problems with our bishop not being able to find priests to say our TLM. Finally it was announced we would have a new chaplaincy started. The St. Gregory the Great Latin Mass Chaplaincy. There was a Melkite priest that was given a leave from his order to come back to Maine to take care of his mother. The Bishop asked him to be the Chaplain of our Community. He was given several months to learn Latin and the Latin Rite. This was shortened as the Bishop asked if he could fill in early before he was scheduled to start. The priest had a struggle with some of the Latin words but he did a great job.
We are blessed to have this Holy Priest and I pray for his mothers long life since once she passes on more than likely his order will want him back and we don't know what will happen then. Since he took over our Community has expanded and now we have Latin Masses both in Portland and Lewiston Maine. Plus there are a couple of other priests who say the TLM in other places.
I guess the final straw with the NO Mass for me was a couple of instances. One of them was at my parents church. The priest at my parents Church during the homily told everyone that no priest and no bishop has a right to deny anyone Communion because they support abortion. The priest said that by taking Communion Jesus enters the soul and that's how change begins. He went on to say that "Communion is a meal..." and that no one should prevent anyone from sharing that meal.
That was bad enough but then on one occasion I had to attend a Novus Ordo and during the homily the priest said "The Church used to say there was mortal sin! This was damaging because they said this mortal sin would cut you off from God's Grace and that you would go to Hell because of mortal sin! Can you imagine how damaging this would be for people to hear this!" Then he went on to say his father never went to confession but was a good Catholic and he confessed his sins to God. This was the point when I got up and left the protestant service I was at and vowed never to go to another NO Mass.
I wrote to the Bishop about both of these incidents and I was just told I should take up my issues with the priests. I disagree. I don't have the ability to defroc a heretic priest. That is the bishops job. Apparently a job he wasn't willing to do.
Just two weeks ago our Bishop had our priest read a letter he did condemning homosexual marriage. But the Bishop defended "civil unions." Our Latin Mass priest had the funniest expression and read the rest of his letter with a "huh?" expression on his face. After he read the letter he gave his homily and said he agrees with the Bishop about being against homosexual marriage (this was a topic because all the protestant heretic pastors came out in support of homosexual marriage which will most likely be on the ballot here in Maine next election.)
Then our priest went on to say that he can't agree with the Bishop about being in support of civil unions. He said why should they get special rights? He said my mother gets VA benefits and I live with her so why shouldn't I get to have her VA benefits? Why shouldn't two brothers living together get the benefits of gays in civil unions? He went on to say it's a slippery slope that has no end if we allow one thing.
So, I really can't bring myself to go to a NO Mass. For me, the NO Mass is appropriate because the NO Mass is no Mass. I know many will disagree with this and that is fine. But when you have 54% of Catholics that voted for the most pro abortion candidate ever you can tell that the smoke of Satan has entered the NO Church.
You might be asking if I even believe the NO Mass is a valid Mass. My answer is that would depend. In order for a Mass to be valid it needs to have 3 things. Propper Matter, Propper Form, and for the priest to intend to do that the Church says, namely confect the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Our Lord.
I have been to NO's where propper matter have not been used. Such as leavened bread, grape juice (which I believe would be allowed in the case of alcoholic priests who are in recovery with a dispensation from the Bishop) I have seen improper form being used. Such as priests add libbing the words of the consecration. In fact, when you look at the NO Missal and the Latin Missal almost all the prayers have been removed or watered down and all but 2 genuflections have been removed and the priest hardly ever makes the sign of the cross whereas in the Latin Mass the Priest makes the sign of the cross 54 times. So I have a big question about proper form.
As for the priest intending to Consecrate the Eucharist. I know there are a lot of priests that don't even believe the bread and wine is the actual Body and Blood of Our Lord so how can the priest be intending to do what the Church says?
I know there are a lot of good and Holy NO Priests that are very reverent. But the problem with the NO is as Forest Gump would say, it's like a box of chocolates, you never know what you are going to get.
This is something I believe and is an answer to a question about whether the NO is a sacrelige as answered by Fr. Peter Scott, SSPX. Now before anyone goes off and says "They are excommunicated!" Let me remind you, they are not. The Vatican currently has what can be described as a "working relationship" with the SSPX and they are working diligently towards a full reuniting. Archbishop Lefebvre was unjustly and illegally excommunicated and I say this because anyone who is excommunicated is entitled to an appeal and this was never granted to Archbishop Lefebvre. In fact it was never a pope who excommunicated him. It was a Cardinal who wrote a letter and said "If you don't do X then you can consider yourself excommunicated." There is rumors that by Christmas an important announcement about the SSPX could be released by the Vatican. So with our prayers maybe something positive can happen!
Anyway, this sums up my feelings about the NO Mass by Fr. Peter Scott...
http://www.sspx.org/Catholic_FAQs/catholic_faqs__traditional.htm#attendnovusordo
The validity of the reformed rite of Mass, as issued in Latin by Paul VI in 1969, must be judged according to the same criteria as the validity of the other sacraments; namely matter, form and intention. The defective theology and meaning of the rites, eliminating as they do every reference to the principal propitiatory end of sacrifice, do not necessarily invalidate the Mass. The intention of doing what the Church does, even if the priest understands it imperfectly, is sufficient for validity. With respect to the matter, pure wheaten bread and true wine from grapes are what is required for validity. The changes in the words of the form in the Latin original, although certainly illicit and unprecedented in the history of the Church, do not alter the substance of its meaning, and consequently do not invalidate the Mass.
However, we all know that such a New Mass celebrated in Latin is an oddity, doomed to extinction by the very fact of the reform. The validity of the New Masses that are actually celebrated in todays parishes more than 30 years later is a quite different question. Additives to the host sometimes invalidate the matter. The change in the translation from the words of Our Lord, "for many" to the ecumenically acceptable "for all" throws at least some doubt on the validity of the form. Most importantly, however, is the fact that the intention of the Church of offering up a true sacrifice in propitiation for the sins of the living and the dead has been obliterated for 30 years. In fact, most liturgies present the contrary intention of a celebration by the community of the praise of God. In such circumstances it is very easy for a priest to no longer have the intention of doing what the Church does, and for the New Mass to become invalid for this reason. The problem is that this is hidden and nobody knows. Whereas the traditional Mass expresses the true intention of the Church in a clear and unambiguous manner, so that everyone can be certain of the priests intention, the New Mass does no such thing. Consequently, the doubt of invalidity for lack of intention, especially in the case of manifestly modernist priests, cannot be easily lifted or removed.
Clearly, an invalid Mass is not a Mass at all, and does not satisfy the Sunday obligation. Furthermore, when it comes to the sacraments, Catholics are obliged to follow the "pars tutior," the safer path. It is not permissible to knowingly receive doubtful sacraments. Consequently nobody has the obligation to satisfy his Sunday obligation by attending the New Mass, even if there is no other alternative.
However, even if we could be certain of the validity of the Novus Ordo Masses celebrated in todays Conciliar churches, it does not follow that they are pleasing to God. Much to the contrary, they are objectively sacrilegious, even if those who assist at them are not aware of it. By such a statement, I do not mean that all those who celebrate or assist at the New Mass are necessarily in mortal sin, having done something directly insulting to Almighty God and to our Divine Savior.
Sacrilege is a sin against the virtue of religion, and is defined as "the unbecoming treatment of a sacred person, place or thing as far as these are consecrated to God" (Jone, Moral Theology, p.108). The moral theologians explain that sacrilege is in itself and generally a mortal sin (ex genere suo), but that it is not always a mortal sin, because it can concern a relatively small or unimportant thing. Here we are speaking of a real sacrilege, the dishonoring of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, by the elimination of the prayers and ceremonies that protect its holiness, by the absence of respect, piety and adoration, and by the failure to express the Catholic doctrine of the Mass as a true propitiatory sacrifice for our sins. Here there are varying degrees. Just as it is a grave sacrilege and objective mortal sin for a lay person to touch the sacred host without reason, so it is, for example, a venial sin to do the same thing to the chalice or the blessed linens, such as the purificator or pall.
Likewise with the New Mass. It can be an objectively mortal sin of sacrilege if Holy Communion is distributed in the hand or by lay ministers, if there is no respect, if there is talking or dancing in church, or if it includes some kind of ecumenical celebration, etc. It can also be an objectively venial sin of sacrilege if it is celebrated with unusual respect and devotion, so that it appears becoming and reverential to Almighty God. This in virtue of the omissions in the rites and ceremonies, which constitute a true disrespect to Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament and to the Blessed Trinity, and of the failure to express the true nature of what the Mass really is. In each case, the subjective culpability is an altogether other question that God only can judge.
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. For the end does not justify the means. Consequently, although it is a good thing to want to assist at Mass and satisfy ones Sunday obligation, it is never permitted to use a sinful means to do this. To assist at the New Mass, for a person who is aware of the objective sacrilege involved, is consequently at least a venial sin. It is opportunism. 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 ones own Faith (as in an older person, for example), and even if it is the only Mass available. [Answered by Fr. Peter R. Scott]
(and since this is part of a larger list of FAQ's this should meet the no more than 20% rule)
Anyway, before I get into any trouble (if it's not already too late) I will end this by saying I know not everyone is going to agree with everything I say. Probably most people on here are NO people and even my own parents are NO people and I respect that.
A lot has changed in the 8 months since I have been gone. Some bad and some good. First of all I have found tradition and I am now at the point where I can no longer attend the Novus Ordo without endangering my faith. This past spring we were having problems with our bishop not being able to find priests to say our TLM. Finally it was announced we would have a new chaplaincy started. The St. Gregory the Great Latin Mass Chaplaincy. There was a Melkite priest that was given a leave from his order to come back to Maine to take care of his mother. The Bishop asked him to be the Chaplain of our Community. He was given several months to learn Latin and the Latin Rite. This was shortened as the Bishop asked if he could fill in early before he was scheduled to start. The priest had a struggle with some of the Latin words but he did a great job.
We are blessed to have this Holy Priest and I pray for his mothers long life since once she passes on more than likely his order will want him back and we don't know what will happen then. Since he took over our Community has expanded and now we have Latin Masses both in Portland and Lewiston Maine. Plus there are a couple of other priests who say the TLM in other places.
I guess the final straw with the NO Mass for me was a couple of instances. One of them was at my parents church. The priest at my parents Church during the homily told everyone that no priest and no bishop has a right to deny anyone Communion because they support abortion. The priest said that by taking Communion Jesus enters the soul and that's how change begins. He went on to say that "Communion is a meal..." and that no one should prevent anyone from sharing that meal.
That was bad enough but then on one occasion I had to attend a Novus Ordo and during the homily the priest said "The Church used to say there was mortal sin! This was damaging because they said this mortal sin would cut you off from God's Grace and that you would go to Hell because of mortal sin! Can you imagine how damaging this would be for people to hear this!" Then he went on to say his father never went to confession but was a good Catholic and he confessed his sins to God. This was the point when I got up and left the protestant service I was at and vowed never to go to another NO Mass.
I wrote to the Bishop about both of these incidents and I was just told I should take up my issues with the priests. I disagree. I don't have the ability to defroc a heretic priest. That is the bishops job. Apparently a job he wasn't willing to do.
Just two weeks ago our Bishop had our priest read a letter he did condemning homosexual marriage. But the Bishop defended "civil unions." Our Latin Mass priest had the funniest expression and read the rest of his letter with a "huh?" expression on his face. After he read the letter he gave his homily and said he agrees with the Bishop about being against homosexual marriage (this was a topic because all the protestant heretic pastors came out in support of homosexual marriage which will most likely be on the ballot here in Maine next election.)
Then our priest went on to say that he can't agree with the Bishop about being in support of civil unions. He said why should they get special rights? He said my mother gets VA benefits and I live with her so why shouldn't I get to have her VA benefits? Why shouldn't two brothers living together get the benefits of gays in civil unions? He went on to say it's a slippery slope that has no end if we allow one thing.
So, I really can't bring myself to go to a NO Mass. For me, the NO Mass is appropriate because the NO Mass is no Mass. I know many will disagree with this and that is fine. But when you have 54% of Catholics that voted for the most pro abortion candidate ever you can tell that the smoke of Satan has entered the NO Church.
You might be asking if I even believe the NO Mass is a valid Mass. My answer is that would depend. In order for a Mass to be valid it needs to have 3 things. Propper Matter, Propper Form, and for the priest to intend to do that the Church says, namely confect the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Our Lord.
I have been to NO's where propper matter have not been used. Such as leavened bread, grape juice (which I believe would be allowed in the case of alcoholic priests who are in recovery with a dispensation from the Bishop) I have seen improper form being used. Such as priests add libbing the words of the consecration. In fact, when you look at the NO Missal and the Latin Missal almost all the prayers have been removed or watered down and all but 2 genuflections have been removed and the priest hardly ever makes the sign of the cross whereas in the Latin Mass the Priest makes the sign of the cross 54 times. So I have a big question about proper form.
As for the priest intending to Consecrate the Eucharist. I know there are a lot of priests that don't even believe the bread and wine is the actual Body and Blood of Our Lord so how can the priest be intending to do what the Church says?
I know there are a lot of good and Holy NO Priests that are very reverent. But the problem with the NO is as Forest Gump would say, it's like a box of chocolates, you never know what you are going to get.
This is something I believe and is an answer to a question about whether the NO is a sacrelige as answered by Fr. Peter Scott, SSPX. Now before anyone goes off and says "They are excommunicated!" Let me remind you, they are not. The Vatican currently has what can be described as a "working relationship" with the SSPX and they are working diligently towards a full reuniting. Archbishop Lefebvre was unjustly and illegally excommunicated and I say this because anyone who is excommunicated is entitled to an appeal and this was never granted to Archbishop Lefebvre. In fact it was never a pope who excommunicated him. It was a Cardinal who wrote a letter and said "If you don't do X then you can consider yourself excommunicated." There is rumors that by Christmas an important announcement about the SSPX could be released by the Vatican. So with our prayers maybe something positive can happen!
Anyway, this sums up my feelings about the NO Mass by Fr. Peter Scott...
http://www.sspx.org/Catholic_FAQs/catholic_faqs__traditional.htm#attendnovusordo
The validity of the reformed rite of Mass, as issued in Latin by Paul VI in 1969, must be judged according to the same criteria as the validity of the other sacraments; namely matter, form and intention. The defective theology and meaning of the rites, eliminating as they do every reference to the principal propitiatory end of sacrifice, do not necessarily invalidate the Mass. The intention of doing what the Church does, even if the priest understands it imperfectly, is sufficient for validity. With respect to the matter, pure wheaten bread and true wine from grapes are what is required for validity. The changes in the words of the form in the Latin original, although certainly illicit and unprecedented in the history of the Church, do not alter the substance of its meaning, and consequently do not invalidate the Mass.
However, we all know that such a New Mass celebrated in Latin is an oddity, doomed to extinction by the very fact of the reform. The validity of the New Masses that are actually celebrated in todays parishes more than 30 years later is a quite different question. Additives to the host sometimes invalidate the matter. The change in the translation from the words of Our Lord, "for many" to the ecumenically acceptable "for all" throws at least some doubt on the validity of the form. Most importantly, however, is the fact that the intention of the Church of offering up a true sacrifice in propitiation for the sins of the living and the dead has been obliterated for 30 years. In fact, most liturgies present the contrary intention of a celebration by the community of the praise of God. In such circumstances it is very easy for a priest to no longer have the intention of doing what the Church does, and for the New Mass to become invalid for this reason. The problem is that this is hidden and nobody knows. Whereas the traditional Mass expresses the true intention of the Church in a clear and unambiguous manner, so that everyone can be certain of the priests intention, the New Mass does no such thing. Consequently, the doubt of invalidity for lack of intention, especially in the case of manifestly modernist priests, cannot be easily lifted or removed.
Clearly, an invalid Mass is not a Mass at all, and does not satisfy the Sunday obligation. Furthermore, when it comes to the sacraments, Catholics are obliged to follow the "pars tutior," the safer path. It is not permissible to knowingly receive doubtful sacraments. Consequently nobody has the obligation to satisfy his Sunday obligation by attending the New Mass, even if there is no other alternative.
However, even if we could be certain of the validity of the Novus Ordo Masses celebrated in todays Conciliar churches, it does not follow that they are pleasing to God. Much to the contrary, they are objectively sacrilegious, even if those who assist at them are not aware of it. By such a statement, I do not mean that all those who celebrate or assist at the New Mass are necessarily in mortal sin, having done something directly insulting to Almighty God and to our Divine Savior.
Sacrilege is a sin against the virtue of religion, and is defined as "the unbecoming treatment of a sacred person, place or thing as far as these are consecrated to God" (Jone, Moral Theology, p.108). The moral theologians explain that sacrilege is in itself and generally a mortal sin (ex genere suo), but that it is not always a mortal sin, because it can concern a relatively small or unimportant thing. Here we are speaking of a real sacrilege, the dishonoring of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, by the elimination of the prayers and ceremonies that protect its holiness, by the absence of respect, piety and adoration, and by the failure to express the Catholic doctrine of the Mass as a true propitiatory sacrifice for our sins. Here there are varying degrees. Just as it is a grave sacrilege and objective mortal sin for a lay person to touch the sacred host without reason, so it is, for example, a venial sin to do the same thing to the chalice or the blessed linens, such as the purificator or pall.
Likewise with the New Mass. It can be an objectively mortal sin of sacrilege if Holy Communion is distributed in the hand or by lay ministers, if there is no respect, if there is talking or dancing in church, or if it includes some kind of ecumenical celebration, etc. It can also be an objectively venial sin of sacrilege if it is celebrated with unusual respect and devotion, so that it appears becoming and reverential to Almighty God. This in virtue of the omissions in the rites and ceremonies, which constitute a true disrespect to Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament and to the Blessed Trinity, and of the failure to express the true nature of what the Mass really is. In each case, the subjective culpability is an altogether other question that God only can judge.
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. For the end does not justify the means. Consequently, although it is a good thing to want to assist at Mass and satisfy ones Sunday obligation, it is never permitted to use a sinful means to do this. To assist at the New Mass, for a person who is aware of the objective sacrilege involved, is consequently at least a venial sin. It is opportunism. 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 ones own Faith (as in an older person, for example), and even if it is the only Mass available. [Answered by Fr. Peter R. Scott]
(and since this is part of a larger list of FAQ's this should meet the no more than 20% rule)
Anyway, before I get into any trouble (if it's not already too late) I will end this by saying I know not everyone is going to agree with everything I say. Probably most people on here are NO people and even my own parents are NO people and I respect that.