“He humbled himself, becoming obedient unto death, even to the death of the Cross”

69 thoughts on ““He humbled himself, becoming obedient unto death, even to the death of the Cross””

1. I forget how many times Scripture says fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. I thank God for letting me, an uneducated nobody, understand and embrace the truths I read here and at Ann’s site.
   Thanks to both of you for putting into words what is in our thoughts and hearts.
   Unam Sanctam Catholicam.

   Reply

2. Let me shortly answer this one as it is important to me.
   I occasionally read Hillary White in the past but mostly because of her garden stuff. Didn’t know she is back. I also avoid Dr Taylor Marshal for reasons that are not important here. I do read Ann. Stating that for clarity only as I want to focus on main topic alone: to attend to Novus Ordo Mass or not attend.
   I must say that I struggled with this question for quite some time. It was struggle not caused by anybody’s post but by search of truth, of what is the right thing to do. Although I’m not 100% convinced yet, I strongly, very strongly, lean to position that if Mass (Roman Rite, or other licit Mass if necessary) is not available for you (me), you (I) should not substitute it with NO. Fortunately I wasn’t in position yet to be tested because I always found Sunday Mass within reach distance from my location, even if it was hours away, but this day will come.
   Now, I read with great interest Ann’s article and must say that she doesn’t convince me a bit, she uses false reasoning (again: this is not against Ann but for the truth). I gladly share my thoughts about this and dive into this topic more deeply, if anyone interested.

   Reply

   1. Okay, go ahead and lay it out for me.

      Reply

3. Very well then.
   Because this is big subject that many books can be written about, to make it fit into combox form I have to be very brief. Please, keep in mind that importance of particular topics are not related to number of words I use. Also I have to skip some. My believe is that I can do that here, as audience of “non veni pacem” is quite knowledgeable. I also plan to use to Ann’s post as reference framework to explain some things.
   For start let’s take a quick look why we have a Mass in the Church. After Pentecost apostles, guided by Holly Spirit, started to act upon His words and upon His actions. I heard that different rites originated from individual apostles who remembered events of Last Supper slightly different – but didn’t find solid confirmation of this thesis. Anyway, rites were enriched over time, along with development of theology (work of Holly Spirit) and external circumstances but it was never just simple invention inspired by imagination of leaders. That process lasted for centuries and, most certain, there were periods where it was abused and periods where even smallest changes weren’t at all allowed.
   Reformation with its theology started to make very serious thread for salvation of souls and those threads were spread through liturgy. Note that every schism in Church was accompanied by changes in liturgy as Church’s liturgy expresses Church’s teaching. In response to Reformation, Church by means of ‘Quo primum”, in 1570, codified liturgy, inhibiting any rites younger than 200 years (or so) and establishing Roman Missal as obligatory for roman rite and optional for other rites (if catholic priest from other rite wants to use Roman Missal he has right to do so even against his superiors explicit will). From now on Mass was fixed not only by Tradition but also by Teaching. Note that Pius V did not created rite there, he only formalized what was already well established Tradition. I mention it because I had discussion with some priest who argued that if Pius V could create liturgy of the Mass then Paul VI also could do the same.
   Roman Missal was to be in use to the end of the time, but in 1959 P IV created New Roman Missal (NO). There are many stories, horror stories, associated with this event but I leave them out as they don’t have any decisive weight in answering question to go or not to go to NO Mass.
   Ann in her writing starts with correct diagnosis: NO is valid but not licit. I agree with her, and this diagnosis is the base of my don’t go. There are also other opinions. For example Micheal Davis recognized dangers of NO but he gave you can go to NO, but you should not kind of answer. He said, correctly, that it is impossible for Church to gave her children poison as a food. My answer to this argument is that NO is not Mass given by the Church. Yes – it was promulgated, yes – Catholic Mass was suppressed, but those were not actions of the Church. This make NO illicit. This is very important fact to understand but because Ann recognizes it, I wont spend time elaborating on it. We can expand on this thought in the future if needed.
   Now, where Ann is getting astray is where she say NO is ok (kind off) because it is valid. No, validity of NO Mass (validity that is not always clear) is not enough to say you can go there. Consider Russian Orthodox. If you happen to travel through Russia and find yourself without catholic Mass you can not go to Russian Orthodox Church for Sunday obligation. Yes, their Mass is valid but attendance there can put your soul in danger of loosing the faith (damnation) and Mother Church can not expose you to such a danger – and she does not: you can not go to Russian Orthodox Mass. To see more clearly this valid-licit issue think of Black Mass. If Black Mass is performed by a priest in a right way (means right matter and intention) this BM is valid. Do you really think you can go there because it is valid? No, you cant.
   Status of NO is the same as BM or Russian Orthodox. Valid, not licit. Danger of loosing faith is more severe in NO then in Russian Orth. and I’m not talking about “circus masses” but about NO ‘by the book’: ad orientem, in latin etc.
   Also Ann is not correct when she suggest that skipping NO equals breaking of Forth Commandment (Ann said Third, but I assume she meant Forth). It doesn’t. You are obliged to keep Sabbath holy but obligation to make it holy by attendance to Sunday Mass is Church’s Commandment. It is almost the same but not quite… Church has to provide you Mass to attend (which doesn’t mean it has to follow you on Himalayan trip – you have to take care of that). If it doesn’t, for example if there is not enough priests, you have to keep Sunday holy, but don’t have to attend Mass. Russian Othodox, Blk Mass or NO won’t do.
   This is basis of my thinking. I understand it won’t be easy accepted if you didn’t think about it before. Thinking is not easy. I’m not very good at it and I’m asking to be corrected if I’m wrong, but be aware that I rarely accept emotional arguments on the long run. You can use others argumentation but, please, bring it here, don’t assume I know them already.
   I also want to mention one question that comes out often when I talk with various people. If I attended all my life to NO does it mean I’m damned? I only say that this is different question from what I tried to address here and I don’t want to split our focus.

   Reply

   1. You lost me a little when you wrote that a Black Mass is “valid”. But I will let that pass.
      I am well aware of Quo Primum and the dictate from Pius V that it be in perpetuity. But a pope does not have authority over his successors. A future pope can and did promulgate the new Mass. It’s valid, as you seem to admit.
      The third Commandment (in the Catholic numbering) is to keep holy the sabbath. If you are physically able to attend a valid Mass, you are obliged to do so.

      Reply

      1. My apologies to everyone for bad formatting.
         Mark, valid means “takes place in reality” . Valid Mass means Mass on which transubstantiation takes place. For that to happen three factors are necessary: priest (valid priest), matter (bread of defined kind) and intentions (“to do what Church does”). If Black Mass is done by a priest, with right matter and right intentions (to consecrate like Church does), that Mass is valid – means transubstantiation takes place the same way as take place during Orthodox, NO and roman Mass. All above are valid masses.
         Licit means legal, done according to law. From four above only Roman Mass is licit.
         This is main line of my position. It if unthinkable (for me) that illicit Mass can fulfill your holy obligation. What’s more, NO is not only illicit but is also dangerous to your salvation. Ann said IF you understand these things to any extent whatsoever, and IF the Novus Ordo Mass is all you can possibly attend, then you ABSOLUTELY MUST go to the Novus Ordo. That means she says you absolutely must expose yourself to danger of damnation to be saved. Hmmm… Later she explain how to cheat, how to participate by not participating. To use her analogy with eclipse – if you want to benefit (to get tan or to perform photosynthesis or produce electricity via solar panels) you move or wait for full sun.
         What is the difference between NO and RO (Russian Orthodox)? Both are valid and illicit. NO being illicit can not be given by the Church (other way it would be licit). So… what is the difference? Popularity? Location?
         Remember that I do not write against AB. I want to correct where I think she is wrong or be corrected myself.
         I know that you and your readers know “Quo Primum”. I mentioned it with intention to expose illicitly of NO.
         To your statement that pope has no authority over other pope…. It depends.
         In matter of administration this is true. Future pope can change previous pope’s decisions.
         In matter of faith and morals this statement is false. As simple example think of dogma of Immaculate Conception announced by PXII. Do you think that BXVI or any other pope can change that? No, such statements simply reflect Truth and can not be changed by anybody (even by Him) because the Truth can not be changed.
         ‘Quo Primum’ relates to faith in direct way as liturgy is the expression of the faith. Thus PV by his document blinded whole Church forever (as also stated in QP itself), like PXII did with dogma of Immaculate Conception. “Quo Primun wasn’t administrative document and it was clear for everybody even for Protestants. All popes after PV recognized that fact until 1969 (not 1959 of course).
         Re Third Commandment. I screw up, you and Ann are right. Shame on me.

         Reply

         1. Let’s just start by saying that it is preposterous that a priest “celebrating” a black Mass does not confect the Eucharist. Christ does not come down on that false altar. Even the satanists know this, which is why they have to steal a real host from a valid Mass, where the Eucharist was really confected, to use in their satanic rite. Let’s start with that.

            Reply

      2. binded ofc.
         Pius V binded the Church forever with his document “Quo Primum”.

         Reply

         1. I knew you meant “binded,” of course. Yet, he did not. He didn’t have the power to do so.

            Reply

      3. One more comment.
         This should be known from post above but let me answer in direct way. You said:
         A future pope can and did promulgate the new Mass.
         No, no pope has authority to create new Mass. There can be some small changes, for example in some prayers. This was done in the past and always with recognition and with confirmation that such changes didn’t contradict “Quo Primum”.
         If you look into details you will notice that Paul VI did not promulgate NO in proper way (because he could not, he hadn’t authority to do so). All promulgation and Roman Rite suppression was done through “back door”. As an exercise, if you have time – try to find valid Church document introducing NO (you will break my main line about illicity of NO).

         Reply

      4. He didn’t have the power to do so.
         Mat.18:18
         What other power do you expect? What about other binding statements? Do you believe in Churche’s dogma? Why? What power was used to establish them?

         Reply

   2. Let’s just start by saying that it is preposterous that a priest “celebrating” a black Mass does not confect the Eucharist. Christ does not come down on that false altar. Even the satanists know this, which is why they have to steal a real host from a valid Mass, where the Eucharist was really confected, to use in their satanic rite. Let’s start with that.
      This is not true. If elements I mentioned are present transubstantiation takes place. Other circumstances does not matter (for validity). Black Mass, Roman Mass, circus Mass – consecration takes place in the same way.
      Satanists steal consecrated hosts because they don’t have priests to do that for them.

      Reply

      1. They most certainly do have real Catholic priests to do that for them. Quite a few, including, it seems, a certain deceased Chicago Cardinal.
         However, it may not be possible for a valid priest at a Black Mass to have the intention that the Church does at that time, by definition of the situation. I do not know. I do know that while a Black Mass is said backward, the words of Consecration are said correctly. So the quesion is, why?
         Certainly if a group did not have a priest, they would have to steal a valid Host.

         Reply

4. Francis is the guy in charge. Who is pope, I have no idea. All of that is beyond my pay grade as a sheep, third-class.
   I do know this: the Novus Ordo is a terrible ceremony and liturgy, not much more than Lutheranism. But the Eucharist is valid. I go for that reason. But please, God, end this terible ceremony.

   Reply

5. This is certainly a very thorny topic that can leave many more hopelessly confused than before. As a Priest I personally cannot celebrate the N.O.M. in good conscience, despite its validity. Why? Because I would be contributing to the destruction of the Faith in souls–Lex orandi, lex credendi (The Law of Prayer is the law of believing). Let me provide a couple of examples.
   1) Back in the 70’s, in conjunction with the introduction of the N.O.M., priests were teaching from the pulpit and catechisms in schools were spouting this as well, that it was the faith of the congregation that made Christ present at the Consecration of the Mass. And this heresy was built right into the N.O.M. As was customary in the past, the priest was referred to as an “alter Christus” (another Christ). This was because by virtue of his Ordination and the Character imprinted on his soul, as Fr. Garrigou LaGrange taught, the priest participated in the Hypostatic Union of Christ, that union by which the Divine and Human natures were united in Christ. Hence, the priest acts “in persona Christi” (in the person of Christ), and by pronouncing the words of Christ at Mass, the bread and wine are changed into the Body and Blood of Christ. Those familiar with the Old Mass know that the priest goes through the very motions that Christ did at the Last Supper, as he reads the scriptural description of the actions of Christ at the Last Supper, “He took bread into his holy and venerable hands,” “with his eyes lifted up to heaven” He gave thanks to the Father, “He blessed, broke and gave it to His Disciples….” Then the celebrant bows down and in a subdued voice says the words of Consecration. The same is done for the Consecration of the wine. The rubrics of the Mass are very precise and prescribe that the Priest do precisely what Christ did. Then, having uttered the words of Consecration, both of the bread and the wine, each time he genuflects to the Body of Christ, he then raises the Host, for the congregation to adore, and then genuflects again; the same with Chalice after the words of Consecration.
   In the N.O.M. that which is a reminder of what Christ did and an instruction for the Priest as an “alter Christus”, in the Old Mass is now referred to only as the “Institution narrative.” The idea is that the faithful are only being reminded of what Christ did in the past. The priest, having read the “narrative” and taking the host, without bowing down, says the words of Consecration in the same tone of voice as when reading the “narrative”, almost as if this were still part of that historical narrative. Then, and this is is in the rubrics of the N.O.M., the priest shows the Host to the congregation–WITHOUT GENUFLECTING FIRST!!! And only after showing the Host and the Chalice to the congregation does he genuflect. DO YOU GET THE POINT HERE? The new theology is imposed upon the faithful. which says that the faith of the congregation makes Christ present, and only then can the priest genuflect!!! Lex orandi, lex credendi; as the new theology is practiced, the new teaching becomes believed.
   2) In one of my Scripture courses at the Angelicum University in Rome, the Dominican University, the professor told us that Christ did not raise physically from the dead; no, his resurrection was what he called a meta-historical event, an event beyond space and time, and that he ascended into heaven on Easter Sunday. The appearances of Christ to the Apostles and Disciples during the forty days after his Resurrection, said this professor, were only “grace events,” or were written into the Gospel as the faith of Christians developed!
   So what’s been done since the Council? Ascension Thursday has been transferred to Sunday, practically universally in the N.O.M. as if to identify the Ascension with the Resurrection, for it was on Sunday that the Resurrection occurred. And in the Rubrics, the Easter Candle is not to be extinguished on Ascension Sunday; no, it is extinguished on Pentecost Sunday! Hence, that “Easter Candle” is no longer a sign of Christ’s physical presence on earth for forty days, but rather of God’s ABSENCE from earth from Easter Sunday to Pentecost Sunday, when the Holy Ghost comes to earth!!! But the question must be asked: what is the new idea of the Holy Ghost?
   3) Kyrie, Christe, Kyrie eleison has been reduced to three pairs, instead of three triplets. Those three triples following the Gloria of the Mass signify the nine choirs of Angels. We don’t say “Lord, have mercy on us,” But in the Old Rite we join our voices with the Angels of each Choir, with the ending proper for those in heaven and for us on earth being implicit: “have mercy on (them),” “have mercy on (us).” Since six (3 X 2) is the number of man, man being created on the sixth day, it is almost as if there is a denial of angels, or at the least that the angers are not interceding for us along with us.
   I could go on and on, but this should provide some idea of how the faithful are being made to adjust to heresy through the N.O.M. But beyond that, since the changes were intentional, being made by those who do not or did not have the Catholic Faith, and as such there are an implicit a mockery of the “Old” Church and a certain blasphemy of God Himself. And the ones most susceptible to being indoctrinated with the new theology are the children, who, for the most part, are not properly catechized wither at school or at home. So, I would not make take it upon myself to judge those who avoid the N.O.M. with the proper intention. A positive command does allow for a certain “disobedience” when there is just cause (a cause that destroys the very intention of the command) or through impossibility–as for instance when one is sick in bed, or prevented on account of some other serious reason beyond their control. Nor can one be held accountable for protecting himself from losing the faith, which no one can argue is not happening today–LEX ORANDI, LEX CREDENDI. And the modernists knew this long, long ago!

   Reply

   1. Frdbelland, thanks for examples with clear explanation. I imagine how hard present situation must be for priests with your conscience. I have contact with few. I remember once I was warned before publicly asking question to one, very knowledgeable, priest. Honest answer might put him in trouble with bishop. Strange? Not really, this is normal. I was advised to ask him privately and nothing on writing…
      As per NO Mass I tend to agree with priests saying that NO is not catholic. They provided long list of items, similar to yours, to back that statement. They were liturgy experts, I remember one pointing out that new missal is not just a bunch of rubrics but also treaty of new theology where new concepts are introduced and explained (like priest being just a leader of worshipping for congregation or ‘spiritual drink’ etc.). As I remember correctly we have 6th version of MO missal in use. Theologies in each version differs, like some concepts are still in development phase.
      I have another one in my reach I’m looking forward to talk to. He is specializing in new liturgy, and what some say he is quite modernist. Unfortunately he is very busy. I’m patiently waiting. 🙂
      From what I read here inferiority of NO don’t have to be proven here in extended length.

      Reply

   2. Thank you for delineating these differences, Father. It’s critical that people approach these issues in context. God bless and you’ll be in prayers.

      Reply

6. Hilary is either a narcissist, or at the very least raised by one. She needs psychological help. That guy from One Peter five is one too. Barnhardt? She seems to know a lot about narcissism, as she correctly recognized it in Bergoglio. Very bad disorder, never marry one, date one or elect one as pope.

   Reply

7. I agree with MC who shows a kind of humility in his writing and thinking I respect quite a lot, not that Mark doesn’t, after having agreed with AB after having followed the link to her given by Mark (!) I find i respond more to a male for sheer reason usually – Ann is about the most masculinely intelligent person i know of, but she is subject to emotion ultimately, I believe, knowing how females operate being one myself. From the tenor of the discussion between Mark and MC I think both are male.
   Picked up on details MC mentions, through other reading and studying. I’m protestant convert. Yes, to exactly what he says… Paul VI went through the back door with the ‘new mass.’ So…. I’m without a TLM here in Honolulu and approaching a VII Carmelite Monastery I recently learned exists here, and trying to figure out whether I could handle VII were I even admitted – “VII” means, aspects of what I am pretty sure goes on with whatever form of the mass is used in the monastery. It won’t be ad orientem. I wonder whether I’d have the strength to regard it as a sacrifice to do so; I’m about the most old fashioned person imaginable and have ‘always’ been though how much has only become clear with the passage of time and experience. So… we shall see. I’ve offered various traditional resources by copy pasting from old texts, notably Fr. de Caussade’s marvelous Letters of Spiritual Direction, which one can find in back of Abandonment to Divine Providence. The sisters welcomed what they had not known of… such is the poverty of resources they have for their prayer life…. I feel for them and have sent them prayers given to St. Gertrude by Our Lord, too.

   Reply

   1. Nandarani33, thank you for kind words. I must worn you though that there is a lot of snake oil sellers out there. You must do your own research.
      I don’t envy your situation, I can’t tell you what to do. In your situation I’d (probably) work hard to make sure that decision I’ll make is the right one. Daily Rosary, asking for intercession from your angels, your favourite saints. Seeking spiritual advice from priest (not easy task but you have to try – for example go to SSPX retreat for a week). Look for people with similar problems and ask your bishop for help or even find willing priest to come and serve your group.
      I afraid that sooner or later most of us will find ourselves in similar situation. I’d like to be ready. Easy way is to seek answer through one’s comfort: if my decisions implies great inconvenience, like long travel, then I’d rather stick with NO option. I’m of opinion that long exposure to NO will take it’s tall, and you pay with your faith. Ann says you can resist.
      And of course you are right about EF communities. Starting one does not automatically solve all your problems. Sometimes it creates new ones.

      Reply

8. This excerpt from a blog whose author I don’t recall posted this, which sometimes helps me through these issues:
   God looks at the state of your soul upon death – Do you love God? Did you love your neighbor as yourself? Are you baptized? Did you belong to the Church that He founded and obey its precepts and confessed them to God when you failed? – and makes the decision that He deems to be just. He does not play some silly gotcha game with the precious immortal soul of a person that He loves so much.

   Reply

9. I know Miss White personally, and consider it a duty to say publicly that Miss White attends Mass, including Masses celebrated in the “Ordinary” form (i.e., according to the Novus ordo Missae); recognizes the validity of the Novus ordo Missae; and acknowledges the obligation to attend Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation.

   Reply

   1. Her own words contradict your testimony, in this blog post and elsewhere. How else to interpret “it’s a different religion,” and “deadly poison,” in reference to the entire post conciliar milieu?

      Reply

      1. The only Mass available to me where I live is the NO. So I go to the NO every Sunday and holy day of obligation. I wish I had a nickel for every time someone has told me I shouldn’t, but you got to do what you got to do.
         Again, anything anyone wants to know about what I do I can clarify in a second if asked.
         But strangely no one ever seems to be interested in just asking. I guess it’s more fun to write a thousand word blog post about my wickedness than just shoot me an email.

         Reply

         1. It’s not fun.It’s very uncomfortable. But I think you and I both know how you would have responded to an email.

            Reply

      2. Hilary,
         Wondering if you’ve overcome this, posted on your blog ARSH 2013:
         “I’m also the sort of person who fights depression and anxiety all the time anyway. My brain has been my mortal enemy most of my life.”
         I know far too many who also battle depression/anxiety/mental illness and they are quite unstable. Wondering if you would like to maybe offer public apology for your public calumnies against Ann last December?

         Reply

10. I am not a theologian or an expert on anything and I don’t want to discuss this subject because I’m afraid of infecting others with what may be diabolical reasoning. I don’t think I’m right about this but I can’t find any way around it and I hope someone will be able to help me find a path through it: The new rite is definitely valid, but offensive and I can’t take seriously a God who finds it pleasing. More accurately I can’t believe in a God who finds it pleasing.
    For some time I tried to put myself in the position of being with Our Lady during Our Lord’s Passion watching the trials, scourging and crucifixion. Eventually it was the jeering crowd that influenced me rather than the other way around.
    The best analogy I can come up with is rather bad. Consider a birthday party where every decoration is borrowed from people who don’t like you, everything is done on the cheap and the games and music aren’t only for other people but are actively disliked by you. Most of the attendees don’t love you and the people who do are disgusted by its cheap and tawdry “spare every expense” nature. It’s obvious the party isn’t for you. Technically it is a birthday party and you are there but the only people having any fun have forgotten why they’re present.
    I know it doesn’t hold together very well but there it is.
    Yes, the “Eucharist is valid” argument is real and effective. The Orthodox and various schismatic groups have valid liturgies but they don’t possess the authority to command our attendance. Does lawful authority have the legitimate right to command our attendance at a Mass that we know by experience is a danger to the faith of almost everyone present? That last question usually generates a lot of heat when I bring it up but it probably is the bottom line. “Man up” doesn’t help me because I am a sheep watching the rest of the flock dragged away by the powerful current of a river while the hireling shepherds play dice. I’m not smarter than anyone else and I don’t have any unique insight. The only thing I do know is if I walk out into this river I will die.
    All that being written, don’t anybody take it too seriously. This is probably the diseased thinking of a madman, I can’t be right and the whole Church be wrong.

    Reply

    1. I empathize, and your birthday metaphor is quite good. I would suggest focusing on the title of this post, and meditating on Christ as the model of humility par excellence, in his Incarnation, his Crucifixion, and in the Eucharist… specifically, the validly confected Eucharist of the valid Novus Ordo. He still comes to the party, despite the tawdry decorations. You need to do the same.

       Reply

       1. Boredoftheworld, good that you see the problem. Keep eye on it, pray, think, listen to others and consider their arguments. Solution my came to you and you will see it so clearly that you will explain everything to us.
          You said: Yes, the “Eucharist is valid” argument is real and effective.
          I’m not sure if I follow your argumentation but if you repeat Ann’s argument that validity is enough to attend NO, I think you are wrong. You can imagine priest consecrating in bathroom or in the middle of party – just for fun. Those are another examples of “valid but not licit”. You can not attend, and your bishop can not force you to attend (beside special cases which we are not taking about). I mean he can but he has no right to do so. Church forbids attendance not only to illicit liturgies but also to doubtful – and with NO you can’t always be sure that you deal with valid consecration (fe. all-many issue).
          “Man up” doesn’t help me because I am a sheep watching the rest of the flock dragged away by the powerful current of a river while the hireling shepherds play dice. I’m not smarter than anyone else and I don’t have any unique insight.
          I only encourage you to give it a try. Do what you can.
          “I can’t be right and the whole Church be wrong”
          No, of course not. Church can’t be wrong. Simple solution: discern what is Church’s teaching and what is not.

          Reply

11. The Black Mass has not the right intention, so it is invalid. The Black Mass’ intention is the worshiping of satan. The Holy Mass is the sacrifice of Calvary occurring for our benefit every single time the Holy Mass is celebrated. The Russian Orthodox and all other heretics/schismatic rites are a grave danger to our souls and to be avoided at all cost, even if they are valid. The many errors plaguing them render them a no-no.
    The Novus Ordo Mass, despite its many abuses, is still valid (a valid priest, proper matter and correct intention) so Our Lord is present in the consecrated eucharist.
    I think a helpful way to think about the necessity to go to NO Mass if it is the only option is to remember two very important points of the traditional teaching of the Church: the possibility of “baptism of desire” and the “spiritual communion”.
    It is the obligation of ALL of us to preserve and defend Holy Mother Church from heresy and error for the salvation of souls. It is OUR duty to work on our salvation as individual human beings following our Lord Jesus Christ every single day.

    Reply

    1. Cristina: “The Black Mass has not the right intention, so it is invalid. The Black Mass’ intention is the worshiping of satan.”
       Intention is transubstantiation of bread and wine into Lord’s Body and Blood. I can be present in botn masses (it can also be absent from both). You can think that intention of NO is unification with other ‘religions’.
       “The Russian Orthodox and all other heretics/schismatic rites are a grave danger to our souls and to be avoided at all cost, even if they are valid. The many errors plaguing them render them a no-no.”
       ditto NO
       “The Novus Ordo Mass, despite its many abuses, is still valid (a valid priest, proper matter and correct intention) so Our Lord is present in the consecrated eucharist.”
       see above
       “I think a helpful way to think about the necessity to go to NO Mass if it is the only option is to remember two very important points of the traditional teaching of the Church: the possibility of “baptism of desire” and the “spiritual communion”.”
       How so? How baptism of desire relates to exposing soul to damnation?
       “It is the obligation of ALL of us to preserve and defend Holy Mother Church from heresy and error for the salvation of souls. It is OUR duty to work on our salvation as individual human beings following our Lord Jesus Christ every single day.”
       Amen

       Reply

       1. hi MC. is it correct for me to say that I am NOT OBLIGE to ATTEND a NO Mass (even if sometimes the consecration is valid) because of the FEAR of losing my soul for eternity as inscribed in canon 1323 ?
          Can. 1323 No one is liable to a penalty who, when violating a LAW or PRECEPT:
          4° acted under the compulsion of grave fear, even if only relative, or by reason of necessity or grave inconvenience, unless, however, the act is intrinsically evil or tends to be harmful to souls;
          Can.14 Laws, even invalidating and disqualifying ones, DO NOT OBLIGE when there is a DOUBT about the law.

          Reply

          1. Just remember that you will be required at your Particular Judgment to back this up. You were too scared to attend a Mass you know to be valid. That’s a big chance to take.

             Reply

12. Personal thoughts so idk how applicable it is.
    1) God shows up. We can’t support the abuses but we should be there for Him.
    2) EF communities are necessary and desirable. The old Mass is real in a way the NO is not. The more I attend NO masses the more I see how intrinsically disordered and perverse they are.
    3) Walls are equally necessary and desirable. ‘Walled gardens’ like EF parishes, SSPX, contemplative monasteries are vital to the Lord’s ultimate victory; Mary has the better part. However EF parishes can easily become ‘gated communities’. One of the best homilies I have ever heard was at an EF oratory, where the priest began with the words, “We are the modern-day Pharisees.” The comparison holds water.
    4) We are the salt of the earth. We have the blessing and privilege to have been instructed in the truth in a way most people and most Catholics are not. That means we have an obligation to proclaim the Gospel to them. Who, going to a NO parish, does not understand in his heart the truth of the Gospel words, “And seeing the multitudes, he had compassion on them: because they were distressed, and lying like sheep that have no shepherd.”
    Just my 2c.

    Reply

    1. I think we are all in unique situations which is why I try to keep my thoughts on this mess to myself. As long as people are trying to form their consciences according to the mind of the Church I can’t fault whatever position they stake out for themselves on this spectrum of weirdness.
       I wonder about your first point. How much is “showing up” also “supporting the abuses”? We can’t wear “I’m here under protest” buttons and handing out manifestos before Mass would make us look like the cranks people already think we are.
       Cristina pointed out that we can’t go to the Orthodox or other schismatics/heretics even when validity isn’t a question because they are a “grave danger”. How do we reconcile that with the new rite of Mass also being, manifestly, a grave danger? Correlation is not causation, but something is turning millions into heretical, unrepentant sinners who call good evil and evil good; and the new rite is unquestionably at the center of it.
       I can’t take much more fear and trembling.

       Reply

       1. The schismatic/heretic sects are for many reasons in opposition to the Roman Catholic Church. That by itself renders them a forbidden option for us. The NO, still at least, hold the Truth of our faith to be so. That is why I think we should be present with our Lord during the sacrifice of the mass. I do not doubt the time is coming to an end for us to go to the NO mass considering the new satanic/masonic drift of the next synod, for example.
          It is also worthy to remember that the Church has never asserted its knowledge regarding the true state of the soul of its members. That only God knows. That is why I brought up the baptism of desire and the spiritual communion, two things that the Church accept as true and possibles. If Our Lord is present in the eucharist in the valid but illicit mass of the NO Church, we must, in good conscience, be there with him if the mass of all times is not available to us.

          Reply

       2. Cristina, forgive me shortness of my answer. Look my other post for more details.
          You said:
          “The schismatic/heretic sects are for many reasons in opposition to the Roman Catholic Church. That by itself renders them a forbidden option for us.”
          Generally, yes.
          “The NO, still at least, hold the Truth of our faith to be so.”
          Doubtful. There are evidence that it is not so. As a small example read frdbelland’s post above.
          “That is why I think we should be present with our Lord during the sacrifice of the mass. I do not doubt the time is coming to an end for us to go to the NO mass considering the new satanic/masonic drift of the next synod, for example.”
          I think it is contradictory to what you said before. Why you think about stopping going to NO after next synod? Will our Lord wont be present there anymore? Why? Or you just set yourself limit of abuses you can tolerate?
          “It is also worthy to remember that the Church has never asserted its knowledge regarding the true state of the soul of its members. That only God knows. That is why I brought up the baptism of desire and the spiritual communion, two things that the Church accept as true and possibles.”
          I think I understand your intention. In my opinion those things are different (attending NO and desire of baptism). You are right about Church not judging state of the soul, just actions of a person.
          I agree that it is quite possible for person to attend NO with nothing but good intentions especially if NO is in decent form (as much as it can be). I’d question good intentions after seeing person attending and assisting mocking our Lord for years without any reflection, but even that can be possible in particular circumstances (imo).
          “If Our Lord is present in the eucharist in the valid but illicit mass of the NO Church, we must, in good conscience, be there with him if the mass of all times is not available to us.”
          I answered this in other comment in more logical manner. Here I’ll use different approach. If you reject logic and attend valid and illicit NO Mass with all conscience but also with great inner convince that it is an act of your love it may be not such a bad thing.
          But it can be.
          If you are aware of law, of the fact that Mass you are attempting is illicit and yet still do it, it may mean that you are putting your personal feelings above the Church’s Law. This is bad. Many schisms started this way. Read first quote Mark quoted in opening post.
          I’m not saying that this is the case, but I hope you at least admit distant possibility that something may be going on here.

          Reply

13. “This is an attempted justification for ditching the Third Commandment. What she is saying is that, if all that is available to you is the Novus Ordo, you shouldn’t go to Mass, because the Novus Ordo is poison. It’s deadly.”
    This is fun. Just making stuff up out of whole cloth now huh?
    Funny, I didn’t remember getting the email asking, “Hey, is this what you meant?”
    Must have missed it.

    Reply

    1. I did think about emailing, but it would not have been for clarification. Given your overarching mantra, “It’s a different religion,” the plain meaning of the arsenic analogy is that even a tiny drop of anything in the post conciliar milieu is deadly poisonous. That is the plain meaning of the words you wrote, in the context of your worldview.

       Reply

14. In regards to MC, am I correct in the assessment that the Third Commandment obliges us to do one of three things in order of ability:
    1). Go to a valid and Licit rite of mass or Divine Liturgy. By this, we mean one that is licitly in union with the Church and derives organically from the Apostles, such as the Tridentine Rite, Ambrosian Rite, Sarum Use, and the Liturgy of St. John Crystostom / St. Basil.
    2). Go and assist a valid mass if a fully licit one is not available. That means going to a Novus Ordo mass if none else is available. That would be a similar situation to being on an island where the only apostolically valid Divine Liturgy is one offered by a Church not in union with Rome such as the Russian Orthodox Church.
    3). If no such option is available, one should still offer prayers in reparation for the sins that caused the situation, and make a fervent spiritual communion.
    Does that seem correct, or have I missed something?

    Reply

    1. Steven, I have no idea where you get those points from.
       Third Commandment doesn’t say anything about going to Mass. It says that you are obliged to remember Sabbath and to make it holly. First Church commandment precises that you should attend to Mass and refrain from work on this day.
       I’ve never seen distinction between licit-illicit in a sense you are allowed to anything illicit. My understanding is that attending illicit liturgy simply is not an option. Nobody even considered such a thing. I imagine your points are result of peoples adaptation to existing conditions. One doesn’t want to be bothered with all that jazz and introduces illicit Mass as alternative.
       On contrary, to my knowledge Church forbids participation in illicit, even in doubtful sacraments – meaning if we are not sure if given sacrament is valid or licit we can not participate. This is logical and practical and pastoral approach.
       If on Sunday, not by your fault or neglect, you have no Mass to attempt to or you are not able to participate (sickness) or if travel to Mass can put your life in danger (icy roads) – you do not have to go you are relieved from this obligation. No sin. But you are not relieved from Third Commandment and you are obliged to make this day holy by other means fe. by extra prayer time, by spiritual reading or something in that manner.
       Hope this is clear.

       Reply

15. Okay as long as everybody is weighing in, here are my two cents, which are probably worth one.
    I can see feeling responsible for past recommendations to others.
    The Catholic world that we currently live in is nothing but chaos and panic. But why not, evil people are at the helm and driving the ship onto the rocks. Many people are looking for answers and guidance and there is none to find, so we are in a position where we feel we have to be our own theologians, identifying who is pope and who is not and what Truth is True and what is from the evil one.
    For our part, here is what we are doing, because the above can lead to madness.
    I do not believe God expects us non-theologians to know all the answers, since even the theologians don’t know. I do not believe God expects us to spend our waking moments trying to sort these issues out. We already have as much Truth as we need to get through life. We have Jesus Christ, Our Lady, the Sacraments, Scripture, and for the moment, the Holy Mass. Now the Holy Mass may disappear. For our part, we attend only the Latin Rite and have no interest in going back to the NO.
    When we are at the point where the pope recommends pagan worship, lady deacons, dialoguing with “spirits” and cultures that practice sex with children as well as suicide, also worship of Creation and “elder” priests, then we conclude the apostasy has so changed the Catholic Church we cannot participate but must still remain faithful to our Catholic faith outside of that evil institution. We will give no financial support at all. Catholics are caught in a terrible spot. We see the church is nothing but a Pederasty Club and that the church is being raped and murdered, but we must not stop enabling it because we are Catholic and must remain faithful to her?
    That’s not Catholicism that’s torture.
    If that is apostasy to some, so be it. I must work out my salvation in fear and trembling, I allow others to do the same. That is their business, not mine. Hillary White is a terrific writer. She is a private person and entitled to her privacy. I do not judge her nor feel it is my job to judge her. Read her writing or don’t.
    We should realize we are all under significant pressures of all kinds today, as our culture devolves and where church leadership once was there is not even a black hole but an evil force. In our fear we sometimes turn on each other because we are scrambling for a haven of what we know to be true.
    Just stay the course fellow Catholics, be at peace that God sees all and will answer in the fullness of time. It’s bumpy right now, this is a hard time to be Catholic, there is merit in this, we didn’t live during easy times. Just keeping the faith is heroic in these days, that gets harder every day, so it seems best to make that our goal, just keeping the simple faith. The rest we cannot sort out.

    Reply

16. “Miss White, if you are reading this, my Mass and Rosary were offered for you today”
    Thanks.

    Reply

17. However we feel about the New ™️ Mass, or whether Bergoglio is or is not the valid Pope, we should always approach these topics amply humble, in all fear and trembling. The times are demonstrably unlike any other in Church history and anyone who thinks they have it all figured out had better be careful of Nemesis’ corrective, such as that Taylor Marshall fellow.
    After 6 years I have arrived at personal convictions. I act accordingly. I am willing to be persuaded and modify my actions and intermediate beliefs.
    So many of this generation of Clerics have left Tradition. I stand with Tradition, wherever I can find it, not with the living who have left it. Because only that is True. The resignation was not in accord with Tradition. The resulting antipope and his evil, revolutionary innovations is not in accord. The New Mass is not fully in accord. Important parts of Vatican II are not in accord.
    And so, I don’t excessively worry about the current deviations. The Church I belong to transcends this moment in time. And to the best of my ability, in fear, trembling, exceedingly careful and cautious, I conform my will, thoughts and actions to belong to that eternal Church that never changes nor can change. Even (esp) when so much of the living, visible Church has departed from it.
    St. Peter is my true Pope, as are all other Popes who ever lived, in accord with him … in Christ Jesus.

    Reply

    1. Aqua, well said, as usual. I think God calls us to action in different ways.

       Reply

18. My advice to everyone is turn your internet off , stop quibbling and pray the whole rosary 15 decades every day . Our Lady will triumph but she needs our prayers . St Dominic prophesied that one day through the rosary and the scapular she will save the world . In the meantime pray and do penance .

    Reply

19. Here in my country, the Philippines, only a few archdioceses and dioceses allow the TLM whilst the rest, including here in Mindanao, are against it. There is only one priest in the Archdiocese of Davao who is celebrating the TLM aside from the SSPX, whilst the rest of the dioceses here in Davao region are against the TLM.

    Reply

20. –
    THE ROMAN RITE AND THE EXTRAORDINARY FORM, FAQ, SANCTA MISSA
    –
    VATICAN II, POPE JOHN PAUL II, POPE BENEDICT XVI AND THE TRADITIONAL LATIN MASS, FAQ, SANCTA MISSA

    Reply

    1. The first did not hyperlink:
       – THE ROMAN RITE AND THE EXTRAORDINARY FORM, FAQ, SANCTA MISSA

       Reply

       1. Link works for me

          Reply

          1. Thank you and thank you for your article. Plus both you and Miss White have interacted charitably in your comments.

             Reply

21. “What you are about to read is not calumny. Neither is it detraction…”
    Yes it is. You are taking things, building inferences, and presenting them as facts to your audience in a way designed to inform them about those inferences.
    They happen to be wrong, this happens to be damaging, and no disclaimer you put at the beginning is going to mitigate it.
    If you feel justified in violating the 8th Commandment, at least be honest enough not to deny it.

    Reply

    1. Even Hilary did not accuse me of that. Neither did Chris Wells.

       Reply

       1. There is a fine line between fraternal correction and detraction, especially in a public forum, and largely comes down to the intentions and prudence of the corrector. I have nothing but respect for our host’s prudence and his charity is apparent.

          Reply

22. I would encourage all here to go read Skojec’s piece about Maximum Beans, not so much for the content, but to compare writing styles.
    Neither article could be accused of detraction, because both pieces use their object’s (other Catholic writers) own words against them….yet I detect a mean-spirited tone in the “Bean” article that is not evident here in Mark’s piece.
    Go read it and see for yourself.

    Reply

23. Mark, did you start blocking my comments?

    Reply

    1. The one where you said it was a sin for people to attend the Novus Ordo? Yes, of course I blocked that.

       Reply

       1. Mark, as said before, I wont comment on your blog anymore but you publicly said something about my writing that is false. I have no easy way to straight it up it. Regardless of reason you did this, I expect some form of correction of your misleading statement that puts me in bad light. Apology is not necessary.

          Reply

          1. Go ahead and correct it then.

             Reply

       2. I wont be proving I’m not a camel.
          You said that I said that going to NO Mass is a sin. Show, where i did that
          ( and maybe explain why did you stopped me rather than correcting my said mistake for common good, so it will be clear for everybody from now on that NO Mass is ok to go).

          Reply

          1. I can’t show it because I deleted the comment. It was something about NO being illegal, and we can never be allowed to take part in a illegal act. You’re right, it may have been a translation error.

             Reply

    2. Wery well then. I will write it again maybe in a form of short summary. Can’t do it now, will try tomorrow.

       Reply

24. Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre has already replied to this question decades ago in An Open Letter to Confused Catholics.
    “may I assist at a sacrilegious Mass which is nevertheless valid, in the absence of any other, in order to satisfy my Sunday obligation? The answer is simple: these Masses cannot be the object of an obligation; we must moreover apply to them the rules of moral theology and canon law as regards the participation or the attendance at an action which endangers the faith or may be sacrilegious.
    The New Mass, even when said with piety and respect for the liturgical rules, is subject to the same reservations since it is impregnated with the spirit of Protestantism. It bears within it a poison harmful to the faith.”

    Reply

    1. I have the book, I’ve read it, and he was wrong, though his view was understandable at the time he wrote it. The New Mass is valid, which means Christ Himself is there. This is a fact. If He is there, how can anyone be excused for not going to meet Him there, if that is all you have available to you. He goes, He is there. Keep repeating this to yourself until you understand.

       Reply

       1. thanks mark.
          but i’m confuse more than ever. if Arch. Lefebvre “was wrong” then but understandable “at the time he wrote it” but not now, then can 14, can. 1323.4 & Can. 1248. 2 are to be disregarded as it does not apply to an illicit yet valid NO Mass. those canons speaks of one is not oblige to attend mass if it is impossible due to GRAVE REASON, GRAVE FEAR, GRAVE INCONVENIENCE, NECESSITY. what is more GRAVE than losing one’s soul for eternity, right? isn’t the salvation of souls the supreme law of the Church, can. 1752? is Our Lord not bound by these canons or my understanding of it is just plain wrong and that i should just stop reading materials from faithful catholics like the Archbishop, Mark & Ann or just turning off the internet?
          is Arch. Lefebvre & MC wrong and Mark & Ann is right?
          please help. thanks.

          Reply

25. Since Ann Barnhardt keeps writing about how we should go to the Novus Ordo because it’s “valid”, and that we should “comfort Him” and be “willing to suffer with Him in His Passion”, can she please answer why she herself wouldn’t choose to do this for Jesus each and every chance she gets, regardless that there is the TLM within walking distance for her? Why does Ann avoid that option to be the Angel who comforted Our Lord?

    Reply

    1. Interesting take. Are you saying that the logical progression would suggest there are additional graces available by attending the NO precisely because of the sacrifice one makes by going there?

       Reply

       1. No, quite the opposite, actually. I could never argue that attendance at the NO could ever provide souls additional graces over the TLM for any reason. My point is, if there is this insistence being made that one must attend the NO to fulfill their obligation (when no TLM option is available), and at the same time it is being presented as this almost heroic virtue to do so, then logically we can conclude that the person presenting it as such, would therefore strive to do that which isn’t easy or pleasant to endure — because it would seemingly demonstrate just how much they love Our Lord when making such a ‘sacrifice’.
          However, I disagree with this entire premise, because it is precisely in the proportion in which we love Our Lord, that we don’t ever desire to partake in a sacrilege. For example, if the NO is indeed valid, that would make it objectively worse — by being a valid (rather than invalid) sacrilege. A valid sacrilege even more strongly calls down the wrath of God because a valid sacrilege compels God Himself (Sacramentally present) to take part in the sacrilege. Validity entails particles of Jesus being present all over the floor from Communion in the hand. Even if you receive on the tongue, He is still being trampled upon. If that doesn’t constitute a sacrilege, then what does? The more an informed Catholic loves Our Lord, the more he finds places of sacrilege to be abhorrent, and doesn’t wish to give scandal by being present there.

          Reply

          1. I disagree with your line of reasoning, but greatly respect your long history of commentary here. It’s a complicated situation, to say the least.

             Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.