My Journey out of the Lefebvre Schism

Envoy Magazine ^ | Pete Vere, JCL/M (Canon Law)

[Pyro7480]

Thanks for posting about this beautiful Eucharistic miracle. We ARE on God's time, and we must be patient for HIM.

[Pyro7480]

No need to apologize. I probably would have answered similiarly, and again, I totally agree with what you have said in this regard. :-)

[ultima ratio]

A denial may be public or it may be in practice. The Real Presence is never openly opposed. Yet Rome takes no steps to shore up belief in this dogma and does not institute or foster devotions which shore it up. Catholics instead are prohibited from showing outward adoration. That is every bit a denial of a dogma as making a public announcement. These people know what they are doing. They are subverting the Catholic faith for ecumenical reasons. The plan is to institute a homogenized faith that embraces all Christians. The fight is over our Catholic identity--it's a war actually.

[ultima ratio]

"And the problem with this is?"

No problem. It just shows where the faithful are coming from as opposed to those who really hold ecclesiastical power.

[Desdemona]

Catholics instead are prohibited from showing outward adoration.

Of all the looney things you've said today, this takes the cake. Are you kidding? I went to the pro-life Mass Saturday morning at the Cathedral and practically tripped over people making a two kneed geneflection.

Eucharistic Adoration has NOT been prohibited. I don't know where you got that. In the diocese with newer archbishops, like mine, it's required.

Communion on the tongue has NEVER been recinded.

Where are you getting this stuff?

[ultima ratio]

"it is up to US to stand up for what is beautiful and true and our Church, not merely denounce the misguided leaders of the Church on Earth and claim they're not Catholic"

I never said they are not Catholic. They can be Catholic and wrong. Some, though, are heretical and therefore not Catholic.

As for standing up for what is beautiful and true--what do you think I am doing? Catholics are obliged to resist. That is what I am doing.

[ultima ratio]

Come on, you've read my arguments in the past. You understand the issues. You've even agreed with them in the past. Now you call me looney. Read the above posts. Connect a few dots.

[Desdemona]

I've agreed on certain points of liturgial practice regarding the Mass and on church renovation, not on denial of adoration or of the Real Presence.

And I do think that protesting by having as a mentor someone who has been declared in schism IS looney.

[ultima ratio]

From SSPX website:
___________________________________________________________
WHY SHOULD CATHOLICS HAVE NOTHING TO DO 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.

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 THIS 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 (Dec. 19, 1993) Apropos (17) p. 8f [Christian Order, Oct 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, p. 137 (cf., p. 149), [ APPENDIX II ]).


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 ).

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’s Sacrosanctum Concilium) had his own ideas on popular involvement in the liturgy (La Riforma Liturgia, A. Bugnini, Centro Liturgico Vincenziano, 1983), and the Protestant advisors had their own heretical ideas on the essence of the Mass.

Bugnini (as an archbishop in this image), 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 constitution Missale Romanum (Apr. 3, 1969).

OR DID POPE PAUL VI REALLY DO SO?
In the original version of Missale Romanum, signed by Pope Paul VI, no mention was made either of anyone’s being obliged to use the Novus Ordo Missae or when such an obligation might begin.

Translators of the constitution mistranslate cogere et efficere (i.e., to sum up and draw a conclusion) as to give force of law.

The version in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis has an added paragraph “enjoining” the New Missal, but it is in the wrong tense, the past, and reads praescripsimus (i.e.., which we have ordered) thereby referring to a past obligation, and nothing, moreover, in Missale Romanum prescribes, but at most permits the use of the “New Rite" (The Angelus, March 1997, p. 35).

Can it be true that Pope Paul VI wanted this Missal but that it was not properly imposed (it is known moreover, that Pope Paul VI signed the Institutio Generalis without reading it and without ensuring that it had been checked out by the Holy Office).

C) JUDGMENT ON THE NOVUS ORDO MISSAE

Judging the Novus Ordo Missae in itself, in its official Latin form, Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci wrote to Pope Paul VI:
...the Novus Ordo represents, both as a whole and in its details, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session XXIII of the Council of Trent (A Short Critical Study of the Novus Ordo Missae, Sept. 25, 1969).

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 II ]).

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.


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.

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:
Is not forced upon the Church, as the Traditional Latin Mass can always be said ( PRINCIPLE 19 ),

Is not promulgated regularly (cf., [ vi ] above),

And 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 [Dz 1839]. But as regards the Novus Ordo Missae, Pope Paul VI has stated (Nov. 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."


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:

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) is deliberately mistranslated as for all. Some argue that this is of such importance as to render these Masses invalid. Many deny it; but this change does add to the doubt.

E) ATTENDANCE

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).

FOR MORE INFORMATION ON THIS TOPIC
A SHORT CRITICAL STUDY OF THE NEW ORDER OF MASS
Commonly referred to as the Ottaviani Intervention, this excellent and well known study on the Novus Ordo Missae was actually commissioned by Archbishop Lefebvre!
THE PROBLEM OF THE LITURGICAL REFORM
This excellent book on the problems of the Novus Ordo Missae was recently published in English by the Angelus Press and is now available online in a PDF format.
This file is almost 1mb (118 pages), so it may take up to 10 minutes for the file to download completely. If you do not have PDF reading software, then click on the icon for a free version of Acrobat Reader.

[TotusTuus]

Anyone got a bridge I can sell. I got a live one?

Well, I own some "land"....

[tiki]

Separation is the only way to preserve the Faith.

Could you cite me canon law or something from the Bible or Tradition that tells you that?

SSPX is the living memory of the old Faith, pure and simple. It is exactly what the Church had always been, no more and no less.

I beg to disagree with you, from the histories I've read there have always been heresies and disagreement in the Church and the Holy Spirit has never failed it yet.

If it ever died, the old Church would have to be reconstructed out of books, rather than out of the living actions of living men.

How can it die unless it isn't the True Church to begin with?

I believe its destiny is to preserve the Catholic Church for saner times when future generations will understand better what went wrong and how to get back on track.

You believe.... And you will save the day right? Where is God's will in this? Where is His power that He can't save the Body of Christ from within? Have you given up on the Power of God?

What if Peter and Paul had thought that way? Even in Apostolic times there were disagreements in the Church and the Holy Spirit was allowed to triumph over egos and human selfishness. I lay my hope in God's hands and I believe He will solve the problems of this day. He, alone, can make it right.

[Desdemona]

The Rubrics:

The celebrant facing the people from where the tabernacle was formerly kept.

The celebrant may face the people (everyone faces the Concecration), but he stands before the Tabernacle when this happens. This is in the new Roman Missal. If the Tabernacles haven't been moved back, this is an error.

Just after the consecration, all acclaim He “will come again.”

True enough. I did know that this was an addition, but don't we also say that in the Creed?

Sacred vessels are no longer gilt.

Say what? All the ones I've seen are 24k gold. Just like they are supposed to be.

Sacred particles are ignored (vs. PRINCIPLE 15 )

Post-Vat II brat that I am, I'm not sure what this refers to.

The priest no longer joins thumb and forefinger after the consecration.

Again, ???

The vessels are not purified as they used to be.

You've lost me here.

Communion is most frequently given in the hand.

People's choice.

Genuflections on the part of the priest and kneeling on the part of the faithful are much reduced.

Not where I live.

The people take over much of what the priest formerly did.

Like what?

[Pyro7480]

I am glad you are brave enough to speak out concerning your opinions in these chaotic times, and I admire your steadfastness in argument. However, from a lot of what I have seen, you seem to sympathize with those who are defiant concerning the leadership of Pope John Paul II. I think this is an unfortunate development in the history of our Church. I support these grassroots efforts to advance the traditions of the Church, and I think this is the best way to do so. St. Francis de Sales, one of my patron saints, who I admire greatly, said to ordinary things extraordinarily well. These grassroots efforts are merely doing ordinary things, but they are having an extraordinary impact on our Church. I think we should support such efforts, and concerning our discussions among ourselves, whether with Catholics or non-Catholics, we should remember to maintain decorum and stay respectful. I think the two of us have done this very well, and I am glad the discussion has stayed civil between us. Thanks for a good argument. :-)

[Pyro7480]

Sacred particles are ignored (vs. PRINCIPLE 15 )

Post-Vat II brat that I am, I'm not sure what this refers to.

The priest no longer joins thumb and forefinger after the consecration.

Again, ???

The vessels are not purified as they used to be.

You've lost me here.

All of the above refers to the ritual cleansing of the paten and chalice after Communion has been distributed. Particles of bread are ALSO the body of Christ, so they must be dusted into the chalice, then water poured in while the priest puts his thumb and forefinger in the chalice, and the contents are consumed. This is ritual purification of the vessels. I have witnessed many priests do this after Communion, as an altar boy, and as a young adult. It is still done. Next time you go to Mass, be observant of what the priest does after Communion. You may like to pray during this time, but it is an educational opportunity.

[Desdemona]

All of the above refers to the ritual cleansing of the paten and chalice after Communion has been distributed. Particles of bread are ALSO the body of Christ, so they must be dusted into the chalice, then water poured in while the priest puts his thumb and forefinger in the chalice, and the contents are consumed. This is ritual purification of the vessels.

Oh, THAT. Oh, that's still done.

I'm enough older than you, ehem, that there was no such thing as girls on the altar in my youth. That was the privelege of the boys.

[tiki]

The chapel you mention and other devotions such as a restoration of Benediction--are grassroots reactions by the faithful, sometimes with the help of pious priests. These initiatives do not come from the bishops or from Rome who continue to whittle away at Catholic Traditions.

Did you forget the Will of God? Aid from the Holy Spirit? You seem to think that God has abandoned us as well as the SSPX.

[tiki]

Our priest does it and all the priests where I have attended Mass do it.

[ThomasMore]

If the Novus Ordo Missae is not truly Catholic (SSPX talk), 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.

Anyone arrogant enough to believe this needs to go to confession. If this obstinate state persists they should leave the Church because they are already not in communion with her. (the problem with the SSPX). I will pray for your return. (to the flock and to your senses.)

[Polycarp]

Catholics instead are prohibited from showing outward adoration.

Of all the looney things you've said today, this takes the cake.

Amen! I better go tell my Novus Ordo pastor that UR says he now has to close his Perpetual Adoration chapel! LOL!

[Polycarp]

Anyone arrogant enough to believe this needs to go to confession.

About a year ago, when the schismatic /sedevacantist so-called SOVEREIGN ORDER OF SAINT JOHN OF JERUSALEM came to my hometown to set up its schismatic /sedevacantist local chapel, I attended the meeting at the local hotel (as a sinister "neo-Catholic spy," no less, I am told) just to hear what they were up to.

Good faithful Catholics attended this meeting, as the misleading newspaper advertisement failed to mention that the group is rabidly schismatic /sedevacantist.

The priest said that anyone joining their merry band must first confess their sin of partaking in the Novus Ordo liturgy and its sacraments, and that they would not be admitted to the sacraments otherwise in this Holiday In hotel conference room "chapel."

Being the quiet, non-confrontational type myself, but not being the type to let such claims go unchallenged, I promptly engaged the "priest" in further debate on this point and many others. At this juncture the meeting departed from their set schismatic script, to their consternation, and most Catholics left this charade and refused to support this effort to bring back "The Mass of All Times" to Johnstown.

If I had not attended or spoken up, more faithful Catholics would have been sucked into this sinister schismatic /sedevacantist black hole.

Black Elk,

This recent event is one reason I think it may be prudent to partake in a limited engagement with the schismatics, because innocent faithful Catholics might otherwise be deceived by their sinister and seductive rhetoric. But I vaccilate back and forth on this.