Must Catholics attend the New Mass?

Must Catholics attend the New Mass?

Must Catholics attend the New Mass?

Q – [a]re we obliged in conscience to attend the Novus Ordo Missae?

A – 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).

Click on the photo to read the entire SSPX article.

Comments (55)

  • Whistleblower

    Look at that picture. Two dentists standing behind an ironing board!

    September 16, 2013 at 8:42 pm
  • Eileenanne

    Catholics are obliged to attend Mass on Sundays unless it is impossible for them to do so. There is a choice of which rite to attend – in some places – but if one’s preferred rite is unavailable, one is still obliged to attend Mass. That is the teaching and discipline of the Church. Any group or individual which teaches otherwise is just plain wrong and may have to answer at their judgement for leading people to think they can pick and choose whether to attend Mass. Catholics risk commiting mortal sin if they deliberately miss Mass when they COULD attend any of the accepted rites.

    September 16, 2013 at 8:42 pm
    • Whistleblower

      Says who? Present your evidence that the New Mass is obligatory? Not interested in your opinion….where’s the official teaching of the Church???

      September 16, 2013 at 8:47 pm
      • Eileenanne

        MASS is obligatory. there is a choice about which form of the Mass we attend, but NO CHOICE about WHETHER to attend. I have never suggested that any one form of the Mass is obligatory and nor does the Church.

        September 16, 2013 at 8:49 pm
      • Whistleblower

        So if someone lives in a rural parish, the parish priest allows outrageous abuses and preaches heresy week in, week out….is that Catholic under an obligation to attend that Mass?

        September 16, 2013 at 9:03 pm
      • Eileenanne

        It is a most unlikely scenario, but if it is not possible to get to another Mass, then yes, he is till obliged to go to Mass. He should, of course, do what he can to have the abuses corrected, but no Catholic may take it upon himself to decide not to attend Mass just becaus the one on offer is not what he wants.

        September 16, 2013 at 9:37 pm
      • Josephine


        I don’t think it’s fair to say “because the one on offer is not what he wants.” That’s not at all accurate.

        If you think about the many facts in the blog article, you have to see that there is a case to answer. The following extract, in particular, stood out for me:

        What is the aim of the Novus Ordo Missae as a rite?

        …the intention of Pope Paul VI with regard to what is commonly called the Mass, was to reform the Catholic liturgy in such a way that it should almost coincide with the Protestant liturgy… there was with Pope Paul VI an ecumenical intention to remove, or at least to correct, or at least to relax, what was too Catholic, in the traditional sense, in the Mass and, I repeat, to get the Catholic Mass closer to the Calvinist mass…*

        Surely, if the Pope wanted to make the Mass more acceptable by removing what was “too Catholic” that could not be pleasing to God and therefore anyone who has a conscience problem with attending it, must be allowed the benefit of any doubt.

        If the Japanese Catholics who had no Mass for 200 years and who kept the faith through praying the rosary and catechesis did not offend God by not going to Sunday Mass (and that would have been the Latin Mass) then why would it be wrong for someone who cannot get to another rite to stay away from the novus ordo? Personally, I do not agree that that would be a sin.

        As it says in the article, once people KNOW about the changes in the new Mass and the reason for them, there is a definite case to be made for them not attending and following the example of the Japanese faithful all those years ago.

        September 16, 2013 at 10:17 pm
      • Miles Immaculatae


        “no Catholic may take it upon himself to decide not to attend Mass just because the one on offer is not what he wants”

        You are absolutely 100% correct.

        Why? Because nobody can miss Mass due to subjective preference. True.

        The thing is Eileenanne, people miss Mass not because of subjective preference, but rather because of what they believe to be objectively True. You don’t seem to have understood this.

        September 17, 2013 at 12:35 am
      • Eileenanne

        I understand it fine, but If the Church approves a particular Rite, Catholics may not reject it. They may PREFER another Rite, but if push comes to shove must attend whatever Mass is available.

        September 17, 2013 at 6:36 am
  • Lily

    I thought this comment from a novus ordo priest on Fr Z’s site was very interesting indeed. He gives his “view from the pew” when he was a member of the congregation, not a celebrant at a Mass

    He found it “painful”.

    September 16, 2013 at 10:09 pm
  • catholicconvert1

    Catholics must without doubt attend the New Mass because it is a valid Mass, and we are commanded not only by the Church to keep holy the Sabbath Day. It says that in the Bible. You may have heard of the 10 commandments. If a Catholic suffers from trauma, or anger due to abuses, they should still go but kneel in the foyer and pray the Rosary, go to receive Communion, say the post communion prayer and then leave. End of. However, for the sake of their conscience and sanity they should try to attend a suitable Mass in the Tridentine rite or the extraordinary form- even if it’s only once a month due to geography or cost. I can say from personal experience that the Novus Ordo causes me stress sometimes, and it can be an ordeal both spiritually and mentally, because on some Sundays there are guitars, but on most Sundays it is traditional hymns set to organ music, reverent and enjoyable. By the way what hymns do you sing at Tridentine Masses? I switch off when the guitars start. Sometimes I don’t even stand up, I just sit and hum ‘Immaculate Mary, Our hearts are on fire’. Then when I go home I whip myself with a leather belt- but I have fulfilled my obligation.

    Looking at that congregation on that picture, it looks poor so I doubt that they could afford a big Church or an ornate altar to use, hence the appearance of a table or the congregation stood around it. Although a Tridentine Mass could be celebrated on it. The appearance of the altar doesn’t matter, it’s what occurs on it, the Eucharistic Miracle, which Editor pointed out on another page still does happen, even in the New Mass.

    Whistleblower, how far away do you live from an EF Mass and do you have a car? Eileenanne, please answer the latter question.

    This is why I wanted His Eminence Cardinal Raymond Leo Burke to be elected Supreme Pontiff, as his support for the Tridentine and celebration of it would cause the EF to grow. He also celebrates reverent Novus Ordo. or You should know that ‘bishop’ Fellay attended a Novus Ordo Mass in a Florentine Monastery, and said if the New Mass was celebrated as Paul VI had intended, as was in this Monastery, without the abuses, the Monsignor Lefvbre would not have broken away.

    Never attend the SSPX. It is illicit and canonically irregular. Try to go to a Diocesan EF, or Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest.

    September 16, 2013 at 10:22 pm
    • Whistleblower

      I’ve never heard so much tripe. Validity is the lowest common denominator. Orthodox liturgies are valid, as are some Anglo-Catholic liturgies. Would you recommend attending those liturgies?

      September 16, 2013 at 10:37 pm
    • Petrus

      Catholic convert,

      You seriously need to read up on the history of the Mass. How any Catholic could use the term Ordinary/Extraordinary form is beyond me. The New Mass was described as a “banal, on the spot fabrication” by Cardinal Ratzinger. Says it all.

      By the way, I know the question wasn’t directed at me, but I live 15 miles away from the closest Traditional Mass. I don’t drive. I travel for an hour on the bus with three young children and a pregnant wife. In fact, sometimes I travel to a city two hours away to attend the Traditional Mass. I think many people use distance as an excuse.

      September 16, 2013 at 10:42 pm
    • vianney75

      “Catholics must without doubt attend the New Mass because it is a valid Mass,”

      Archbishop Lefebvre always maintained that the New Mass was valid but unfortunately a lot has changed since he said that and in many places, because of abuses, it can no longer be claimed that the Mass celebrated is valid. There are cases of Eucharistic ministers concelebrating with the priest. French loaves and fruit juice (and in one case whisky) being used instead of hosts and wine. Priests making up the prayers as they go along, and much more. These Masses are not valid and Catholics should avoid them for fear of loosing their faith.

      Why do you have the word bishop in inverted commas? Are you insinuating that Bishop Fellay is not a real bishop? If you are then you are wrong. The SSPX Bishops are valid Bishops. The Vatican acknowledges that so who are you to say otherwise?

      September 16, 2013 at 11:25 pm
  • Theresa Rose

    The Novus Ordo Mass was the result of a liturgical revolution. In March 1965 Archbishop Bugnini stated:-
    “We must strip from our Catholic prayers and from the liturgy everything which can be a stumbling block for our separated brethren that is for Protestants”.

    There is no comparison between the Novus ordo Mass and the Tridentine Mass. See this link.

    September 16, 2013 at 10:55 pm
  • Theresa Rose

    There is also 62 reasons for not attending the Novus Ordo Mass which has been in print for several years.

    Petrus has quoted Cardinal Ratzinger who said the New Mass was banal, on the spot fabrication.

    September 16, 2013 at 11:09 pm
  • Miles Immaculatae


    You should know that ‘bishop’ Fellay attended a Novus Ordo Mass in a Florentine Monastery, and said if the New Mass was celebrated as Paul VI had intended, as was in this Monastery, without the abuses, the Monsignor Lefvbre would not have broken away.

    I have heard this before. It might be true, but I doubt he said it, or at least not quite like that. Even If he did say it, I firmly believe he is mistaken about the Archbishop.

    Archbishop Lefebvre was not solely concerned about the Sacred Liturgy. He was concerned about the entire deposit of the Faith which he had received. He was alarmed by the various modernist distortions and conciliar ambiguities, and in some instances downright innovations. These include erroneous positions on ecumenism, religious liberty, collegiality, and various ideas in opposition to the Syllabus (check it out) of Pope Pius IX.

    The supporters and members of the SSPX receive a great deal of persecution and I believe this is because people see it solely as a liturgical movement. A lot of Catholics who claim to be Traditionally minded are in fact ‘High Church’ neo-Catholics. They may attend the Traditional Rite but accept some or all of that mentioned in the list given above.

    As far as the SSPX is a liturgical movement, consider that they/we stand for more than just the right to use exclusively the Traditional Rite, but they additionally want to keep it whilst rejecting the position of ‘bi-ritualism’, whereby they would be forced to accept that the Novus Ordo (the ‘ordinary form’), which like the Traditional Mass (the ‘extraordinary form’), comprise two entirely united and legitimate expressions of the one same rite.

    An FSSP priest used the term ‘extraordinary form’ in private correspondence to me. So one can safely assume the false position of ‘bi-ritualism’ has infected a proportion at least of their members. This is also the premiss of the indult Mass. An ‘indult’ priest who offers the Traditional Mass on some occasions, usually offers the Novus Ordo as his normative rite… and the Vatican II office, and the Vatican II calendar, a different lectionary, a different corpus of liturgical plainsong etc.. Thus the occasional use of the Traditional rite is an ‘added extra’, a deviation of the default norm, i.e. it is not integrated into the priests whole spiritual routine. He will often find he observes two, or perhaps even three (I think?) feast days on the same day! He might even find he is in two different liturgical seasons at the same time! I personally think that is incoherent.

    Never attend the SSPX. It is illicit and canonically irregular. Try to go to a Diocesan EF, or Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest.

    I am sorry, I’m am confussed. Are you a troll? You assert this, although previously in this blog you have called the Novus Ordo the ‘Novus Ordeal’ (disclaimer: I now discourage the use of this term on this blog). You have stated you want to recieve conditional confirmation from an SSPX bishop, and you have referred to Pope John Paul II as the Pope who kissed a satanic book. I will assume you are sincere, and are simply not quite sure what you hold to be true yet.

    September 17, 2013 at 12:05 am
  • Miles Immaculatae

    Indeed, Catholic Convert, you have logically contradicted yourself.

    You criticise those who do not attend the Novus Ordo based alone on the fact it is sacramentally valid (true). However, you criticise the SSPX, in spite of the fact they are indeed (as is affirmed by Popes John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and as of yet unchallenged by Francis) valid, with valid priests and valid bishops. Do you understand the difference between validity and licity?

    No Pope has the ability to declare Holy Orders invalid when they were previously judged to by valid. No Pope can undo the action of ontologically changing the spiritual character of a man as performed by the Holy Ghost in the sacrament of Holy Orders. So if Pope Francis did in the future say the SPPX clergy (including their bishops) were invalid, he would be utterly mistaken. Not even the Pope can divorce people. Even if a priest is laicised, he is still a valid preist, for eternity. If a validly ordained priest goes to hell, he is a validly ordained priest even in hell.

    September 17, 2013 at 12:16 am
  • Miles Immaculatae

    Much has been mentioned about ‘validity’.

    Concerning validity: if a form Black Mass were judged to be sacramentally valid by the authority of the Apostolic See (which is hypothetically possible), would we have the moral obligation to attend it if it were the only Mass available?

    A dunt fink so.

    Eileenanne, CatholicConvert?

    There is a lot of hypocrisy about this. Think about it. Think of all the neo-Catholics who would miss Mass in the hypothetical eventuality that the only Mass availible was an SSPX Mass. They would claim there is no moral obligation to attend because it is canonically irregular. But it’s valid!

    September 17, 2013 at 12:29 am
    • Eileenanne

      The Mass in Ordinary Form celebrated in every parish is both valid and licit. Missing mass because that is the only Mass available is NOT the same as missing Mass because only an illicit Mass is available.

      September 17, 2013 at 6:41 am
      • editor


        The new Mass is “licit” only in a very limited way. I have published, more than once, the Vatican’s own response to two dubia (doubts) submitted by a bishop in South America (I think) on behalf of a layman there, asking this very question about legitimacy.

        He asked two questions: (1) is the new Mass “legitimate” in the sense that it is permitted by the Church or (2) is it “legitimate” because it is neither doctrinally unorthodox or otherwise displeasing to God.

        Here, yet again, is the (incredible) response of the Vatican:

        Pontificia Commissio Ecclesia Dei

        Prot. 156/2009

        Vatican City, 23 May 2012

        Your Excellency,

        This Pontifical Commission has received, via your Excellency’s good offices, a copy of a correspondence from [name blacked out] placing before the Commission two dubia as to the interpretation of article 19 of this Commission’s Instruction Universae Ecclesiae.

        The first [dubium] asked whether legitimas in UE, article 19, is to be understood as meaning:

        (a) Duly promulgated by appropriate procedures of ecclesiastical law (ius ecclesiasticum); or

        (b) In accord with both ecclesiastical law and divine law (ius divinum), that is, neither doctrinally unorthodox nor otherwise displeasing to God.

        This Pontifical Commission would limit itself to saying that legitimas is to be understood in the sense of 1(a).

        The second [dubium] is responded to by this answer.

        With the hope that Your Excellency will communicate the contents of this letter to the individual concerned, this Pontifical Commission takes this opportunity to renew its sentiments of esteem.

        Sincerely yours in Christ

        Mons. Guido Pozzo

        In other words, the new Mass is “licit” only because the Church permits it. Not because it is pleasing to God, so it stands to reason that there can be no obligation on Catholics to attend any Mass that even the Vatican will not affirm as wholly doctrinally orthodox and pleasing to God.

        If your local butcher refused to affirm that the meat you are about to purchase is wholly nourishing and free from poison, would you go ahead and buy it anyway?

        September 17, 2013 at 9:05 am
  • Miles Immaculatae

    If a Catholic suffers from trauma, or anger due to abuses, they should still go but kneel in the foyer and pray the Rosary, go to receive Communion, say the post communion prayer and then leave.

    Now that really just is what you call ‘having your foot in both camps’!

    September 17, 2013 at 12:41 am
    • crofterlady

      I know what you mean, Miles, but it’s very difficult when you have a family. We are considering turning up at Mass at the Offertory and leaving after Communion as I learned as a child that the 3 “compulsory” parts of the Mass are the Offertory, the Consecration and the priest’s Holy Communion.

      Are we obliged to hear the Gospel too?

      Desperate times.

      September 17, 2013 at 10:08 am
      • chardom

        YES Crofter Lady You are obliged to hear the reading of the Holy Scriptures as proclaimed at Mass. Holy Mass begins as the Priest walks on to the Altar and ends when He dismisses the congregation at the end. Nothing else is acceptable. For only the gravest of reasons may an individual turn up late/leave early.

        September 17, 2013 at 10:45 pm
      • editor


        We were always taught that if we missed the Gospel, we’d missed Mass.

        However, as others have pointed out, due to the unique circumstances in which Catholics find themselves today, and given the Vatican’s own refusal to endorse the new Mass as “doctrinally orthodox and pleasing to God”, it really comes down to conscience. It’s laughable that the same alleged Catholics who will insist that you follow your conscience if you think contraception or homosexuality is OK, will scream “schism” if you apply the same logic to (new) Mass attendance. We’ve never HAD a new Mass (or, more accurately, a whole succession of new Masses) before in history, so it’s just not possible to quote Canon Law or the Catechism on the Sunday obligation and say “job done”. There’s a whole field of discussion to be had about the nature and purpose of “law” – and Church law in particular – so the matter is not as black and white as the diocesan pew Catholics would have us believe.

        I’m blessed in that I am able to get to the Traditional Latin Mass without too much trouble, but were I in a different situation, I would have a struggle, big time, to sit in front of a sanctuary full of women EMs and altar girls, and suffer the shenanigans that I suffered for 20 painful years before doing what I should have done much earlier, i.e. returned to the ancient Mass which doubled as the Mass of my youth.

        Desperate times, all right – and my heart goes out to parents trying to raise Catholic children these days. Must seem to them like the original “mission impossible.”

        September 17, 2013 at 11:38 pm
  • catholicconvert1

    I don’t see how a black mass can be valid, especially when they ritually desecrate hosts, blaspheme and worship the Devil. No I would not attend an orthodox or Anglo-Catholic Mass, for the same reason I have refused to attend the SSPX. They may be valid but they are illicit. The NO is valid, and licit, and yes it can be an ‘ordeal’ on many occasions, but I am obliged to attend it because it is the only one available to me. I simply cannot afford to travel to Manchester on a Saturday and/ or a Sunday. My student loan doesn’t grow on trees. I could have been clearer. What I should have said if the NO is the only one available in a parish/ diocese, then a Catholic must without doubt attend it.

    I said I wanted to receive ‘conditional confirmation’ until I found that the SSPX was irregular, from my Parish Priest. I still maintain the incident when JPII kissed the Koran as a Satanic event. He shouldn’t have done it. I fail to see what that has to do with the Mass. I support the spread of the traditional mass, under the Diocesan level or Holy See approved group ICKSP, and while I do sympathise with the SSPX for keeping traditional devotions etc alive, I would (personally) avoid them for the reasons stated in previous posts, not least for unsavoury views expressed by members, i.e Fr. Franz Schmidberger about the Jews. I look forward to the day when a personal prelature along the lines of Opus Dei is established.

    September 17, 2013 at 11:41 am
    • editor

      Catholic Convert,

      Did you read what I published at 9.05 about the new Mass and the claim to legitimacy? The Vatican gave a very limited “legitimacy” indeed to the novus ordo. Check it out above.

      And you are contradicting the Vatican about the SSPX. The Vatican has not claimed the SSPX is in schism (the opposite, in fact – they’ve said “no” when asked if the Society is in schism) and we are permitted to attend their Masses. This is all thoroughly documented and I don’t have time to re-post links right now.

      To be logical, you really should not read this blog because a lot of us (myself included) attend the Society Masses every Sunday, so if you wish to protect your soul from our poisonous influence, you really ought not to blog here, whether just to read or to contribute, at all.

      To ask your Parish Priest for his views about the SSPX is like asking David Cameron if you should join the Labour Party. Gerragrip!

      September 17, 2013 at 12:33 pm
  • catholicconvert1

    Nobody has said you, nor the SSPX is poisonous. I’m just concerned about it’s nature as a fringe group with elements of the far right. If you even read my post properly you would know the reason (s) why I don’t attend them, and that I would like to see it become a personal prelature, not only to enable the spread of the Tridentine Mass, but also to get rid of extremist influences. I didn’t even say it was in schism, I said it was illicit. That is true as you darn well know.

    September 17, 2013 at 12:51 pm
    • 3littleshepherds

      You have read about St. Athanasius, right?

      September 17, 2013 at 5:34 pm
    • editor

      How about the extremist influences at the balloon Masses, the clown Masses the “gay” Mass, the you-name-it Masses.

      The faith is being preserved for us today by those wrongly labelled “extremist”.

      As 3LittleShepherds say, check out St Athanasius, twice excommunicated for refusing to go along with contemporary heresies. He’s now a Doctor of the Church.

      Which honour awaits Archbishop Lefebvre, you mark my words.

      September 17, 2013 at 6:47 pm
  • sixupman

    My stance on the NOM is that it is rarely efficacious, but an extension of the argument could well be construed that all Celebrating Diocesan Clergy are quasi religious-charlatans. What say you.

    September 17, 2013 at 7:32 pm
    • editor


      The fact is, there are good priests ordained for the novus ordo who have never known anything else. They are orthodox in belief and have the intention to bring down Our Lord on the altar. We cannot deny any of that. Thus, to call them “quasi-religious charlatans” is unjust, to say the least.

      Despite a youngish priest once telling me not to have too much sympathy for such clergy, because they have the same access to the documents detailing the construction of the new Mass, the history of the Church, the extent and limits of papal authority etc as the rest of us, despite that I do feel a certain sympathy for them. One such priest once said to me: “You’re asking me to believe that the only Mass I’ve ever known, the Mass I was ordained to offer, is a ‘bad’ thing'” – And he added: “I can’t do that”.

      What would you say that priest, Sixupman?

      September 17, 2013 at 7:42 pm
      • sixupman

        As you are aware, I do attend NOM’s and, therefore, clearly I do not adhere to the proposition of the extended argument. But there are those amongst us, who must, by extension, believe such to be the case – if they believe the NOM to be anathema.

        My question is to those people and is clearly not my own view.

        My parish priest. whom I support financially but do hot hear Mass there on Sundays – even though from my box-room cum office I can see the church tower and it is five only minutes walk, I go to a TLM at St. Chads [SSPX out of my reach due to a reliance on public transport]. He, aged and somewhat infirm, gave up Celebrating Masses for the LMS – some oaf opined to him that he felt he had not been to Mass if it was an NOM. My PP saw that as a reflection upon himself. Such is an example of the logic.

        Unfortunately, not all Diocesan Clergy have the willpower of the late Fr. Oswald Baker, that would create problems.

        September 17, 2013 at 8:17 pm
      • editor

        I got it, Sixupman.

        Love your priest’s logic. Classic!

        September 17, 2013 at 11:26 pm
  • catholicconvert1

    Ballon masses etc are not extremism. They are plain evil and sinful, but then again so is having a Priest stood at the Altar who slanders Jews or denies the Holocaust. You know I’m talking about Williamson, Schmidberger and Fellay. They are not extremist for keeping traditional Masses or devotions alive. A personal prelature will be appropriate in the future according to the SSPX’s unique status.

    Would you attend a Byzantine liturgy in one of the Eastern Rite Churches? Think on that they never used Latin in the first place. Do you actually believe a Sacrifice takes place in the NO Mass, and that Our Lord is truly present. Also, do you believe Priestly Ordination post V2 are legitimate?

    You know I have a high opinion of you Editor, and I feel our debates sometimes descend into acrimony. Not intended, nor desired.

    In Domino


    September 17, 2013 at 10:32 pm
    • editor

      Catholic Convert,

      If Balloon Masses don’t represent “extremism” of the “liberal”/modernist/liturgical terrorist variety, then I am the proverbial Dutchwoman.

      About your references to Bishop Williamson and Bishop Fellay & Fr Schmidberger, there are a number of points to make. Firstly, we should always use the titles of professional people – that is a courtesy. Father, Bishop, Holy Father etc. is elementary professional courtesy. Would you address your PP by his surname? Or any of the modernist priests and bishops you may encounter now or in the future? Surely not? So, that’s number 1 – it’s not about “respect for the office” although we should all respect and love the priesthood – it’s about elementary good manners and professional courtesy.

      Secondly, to the best of my knowledge, the only SSPX prelate who has hit the headlines over his comments about the Holocaust, is the former SSPX Bishop, Richard Williamson. Now, even though I think he was very misguided to question the numbers killed in the Holocaust, do you think anyone in the media would have given a toss if he’d questioned the numbers who died in the Irish famine or any other well known atrocity? I don’t think so – not for a second. So, in summary, Bishop Williamson was wrong to offer his opinions about the Holocaust, should have had more sense that to let himself be set up as he did, but it is not a matter of Faith – he didn’t deny any Catholic dogma or campaign for an end to celibacy and the ordination of women, so, really, it’s a media-induced s(p)inful attack aimed at undermining the SSPX in order that the more gullible among us will label the Society as anti-Semitic and “extremist.”

      To answer your points:

      (1) No, I’ve not the remotest interest in attending a Byzantine or any other liturgy. I like the low Traditional Latin Mass, end of.

      (2) My views about the NO are already on this thread. With all the usual conditions fulfilled, yes the NO priest confects the Eucharist, but there is increasing risk of invalidity due to the ever more imaginative liturgical abuses around.

      (3) I didn’t know that you have a high opinion of me but I’d prefer if you didn’t. Shucks, can’t a gal can be slim, glamorous, witty, highly intelligent etc without folks going about the place with a high opinion of her? That can only lead to disappointment at the General Judgment, so … think “low opinion” and things can only improve…

      September 17, 2013 at 11:15 pm
      • Eileenanne

        Some people on this blog who rarely if ever attend an ordinary parish Mass have weird notions about what goes on there. Let me assure you that as one who has attended Sunday Mass in the ordinary form since its inception, that the commonest abuse you might find is over use of Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion. “Balloon Masses” and “Clown Masses” are extremely rare – to the point where I can guarantee that you will not see one at your local parish on Sunday morning – so they are NOT an excuse for missing Mass if only the Ordinary Form is available. With regard to the over use of EMHC, I don’t much like it either, but it is not a reason to miss Mass. The ONLY reason for missing Mass is when it is impossible to get to ANY Mass, either because of illness, or distance or caring responsibilities or for another serious reason.

        To those who prefer the Extraordinary Form – I hope you are always able to have the Mass of your choice, but if you cannot, you are STILL OBLIGED to go to Mass if ANY Mass is possible. Go to your nearest parish church. I guarantee there will be no clowns and no balloons and you will thereby fulfil the most basic obligation of being a Catholic, attendance at Sunday Mass. You will also avoid the possibility of mortal sin. Anyone, priest, bishop or layperson, who tells you it is OK to miss Mass just because the ordinary form is the only game in town is lying and doing the devil’s work.

        (BTW, some of the strange “Masses” on YouTube are in fact Anglican.)

        Right, I have done my duty, and now I’m out of this discussion.

        September 18, 2013 at 10:01 am
      • editor


        Balloon and clown Masses may not be the norm here – I’m sure you are right about that – but there are other silly ways of belittling the Mass that do occur. You are blessed not to have experienced anything worse that the awful and utterly Protestant innovation of EMHCs.

        Importantly, however, I notice you make no comment about the Vatican’s response to the questions about the legitimacy of the new Mass, refusing to say that the new Mass is NOT “doctrinally unorthodox or otherwise wholly displeasing to God”

        That is very serious indeed and should give any Catholic pause for thought, if he/she really does want to please God by properly fulfilling the Sunday obligation.

        I certainly don’t want to risk displeasing God. I’m surprised that you appear not to care.

        September 18, 2013 at 10:07 am
  • catholicconvert1


    Where do you live? St Chad’s sounds familiar.

    I can tell you all, I will start attending a Latin Mass as soon as is feasible. There’s no doubt. But the NO is the only one viable for me and many other likeminded Catholics. I sympathise with many here, but I’m just giving my opinion on why Catholics should attend the NO when it is the only option. I may start attending an SSPX once the problems are over.

    September 17, 2013 at 10:36 pm
    • sixupman

      Manchester – St. Chads aka Manchester Oratory, moved from The Holy Name.

      September 17, 2013 at 10:51 pm
  • scottish priest

    I am interested to know what Paul VI intended as someone above has suggested the Mass could suffer from irregularities and abuses. I have one problem with this in so far as the Church is always catholic and sacred tradition and scripture as a living Church form the Universal Church – to suggest that the Mass is in some way illicit or invalid as some may have inferred is to make a liar out of Christ who said I will be with you until he end of time. Canonically there is a distinction between valid and licit that is not often fully understood. As one who celebrates the sacrifice of the Mass in the New Rite today I used the Roman canon it is practically word for word translated from the Latin and the word sacrifice appears throughout. Now I know there are numerous abuses in the liturgy of today. that’s clear from priests changing words adding words and allowing crazy paraliturgies within the Mass. I do not do any of these things. I read the black do the red as it says. Here is a question for fun. After the distribution of Holy Communion today I left the sanctuary to give communion to an elderly lady who can hardly walk – on the way back to the sanctuary carrying the cioborium with the sacred host inside what reverence should I make before entering the sanctuary – or do I do it after entering the sanctuary and should I make a further reverence after that.

    September 18, 2013 at 10:44 am
    • editor

      Scottish Priest,

      The promise of Christ to be with His Church until the end of time, does not mean that we won’t have bad popes or illicit Masses. That is manifestly not the case. I’m on record saying that, but for the fact that the current crisis in the Church was foretold, both at Quito in the 17th century (“when those who should speak out (popes and bishops) will fall silent”) and later at Fatima in 1917 when the “diabolical disorientation” in the Church was prophesied, I would have been long “outa here”.

      Have you read the response of the Vatican to the questions (dubia – see above) submitted by a bishop from, I think, South America, in which response the Vatican refused to assert that the new Mass is NOT “doctrinally unorthodox or otherwise displeasing to God”?

      Christ IS with His Church – which is why we had Archbishop Lefebvre take an action that got him, like St Athanasius before him, excommunicated (he only managed it once, St Athanasius was excommunicated twice! How did he make it to Doctor of the Church, then? )

      Thanks to God giving us Archbishop Lefebvre, the ancient liturgy has been preserved, despite every attempt of its enemies to kill it off. Similarly, despite the intense lobbying of the “great and the (not so) good” to get pope after pope to permit contraception and women’s ordination, divorce and remarriage, “gay” marriage, you name it, none have done so. THAT’s how we know that Christ has kept His promise to be with His Church until the end of time. That there is a numerical majority going along with the innovations of the past fifty years is only MORE proof that God is with His Church – albeit through the “faithful remnant” – and always will be.

      Now to your “fun” (trick?) question…

      Since you would be carrying the Blessed Sacrament in the ciborium, I would presume that there would be no requirement to genuflect toward the Tabernacle until you had placed the ciborium inside. THEN you would genuflect.

      I have seen parishioners who have just received Holy Communion then genuflecting towards the Tabernacle before returning to their pew, and it doesn’t seem right at all. We ought, surely, to be preoccupied with the glorious truth that we carry Our Lord within us at that time.

      Anyway, do I get ten out of ten for my answer to your “fun” question, or should I sign up for the nearest theology course?

      September 18, 2013 at 2:31 pm
  • catholicconvert1

    To be truthful, I’d never heard of balloon/ clown masses and I can only guess what they are. I would say that Satan’s influence is growing ever greater, and you are probably right that they are extreme. If fail to see what is wrong, or not traditional about the Byzantine rite used by the Eastern Rites, as they, notably the Maronites ran parallel with the Tridentine. They are not inferior because they too use an ancient liturgy and language. Editor, are you saying my opinion of you should stay low in case you are to receive a punishment at the end? OK, I can have a high opinion of your defence of the Church. What would it take to make an NO Mass invalid?


    ‘but if you cannot, you are STILL OBLIGED to go to Mass if ANY Mass is possible’. I agree 100%. I’m sure that you, as well as myself would attend a traditional mass if it was possible. We can only have so much patience for guitars. There’s a beautiful Latin Mass in Paris on youtube. It’s a sung mass.

    September 18, 2013 at 1:55 pm
    • Miles Immaculatae

      You’re right, it is beautiful.

      It’s also at Saint Nocolas du Cardonet. The SSPX de facto French HQ.

      Should you be watching videos like that CC? What would your Parish Priest say?


      I have assisted at the Novus Ordo for most of the time I have been a Catholic. I am fully familiar with what goes on. If that’s the limit of the abuse you have experienced then you are very fortunate. I’ve seem some shocking things.

      The most sacrilegious Mass I ever went to was a Novus Ordo in Glasgow. Here lay women are invited up to ‘break the bread’ at the altar with the priest before Communion.

      I later found out it was a homosexual church. I was only 20 at the time. I wish someone had told me. I remember feeling disgusted after I left. I am ashamed and embarrassed to tell people I went there, even once. I wanted to go to weekday Mass you see, and I was in that area. I was just so completely ignorant.

      Please don’t anybody ask the tiresome question, “what constitutes a homosexual church”. Everybody knows full well what this means.

      September 18, 2013 at 7:42 pm
      • Eileenanne

        There is no such thing in Glasgow as a homosexual Catholic Church. I would be surprised of such a thing existed anywhere. I am aware of the Soho Masses, which do not constitute a “homosexual Church”.

        September 19, 2013 at 10:47 am
    • Eileenanne

      Catholic Convert,

      I COULD attend Mass in the Extraordinary Form if I wished. I prefer not to. I can live with almost any kind of music at Mass as long as it is GOOD. I have no objection to guitars at Mass if they are played well. My parish has a wonderful organ, over 100 years old and recently restored, on which the hymns are usually played at half speed. I’d rather have a well-played guitar or two any day. I have also seen small groups of other instruments provide the music for Mass very successfully. Parishes should have whatever they can provide to a high standard. Good organ players are rather thin on the ground, so aternatives will often need to be found. Occasional Masses with NO Music would prove popular methinks.
      (Dragging hymns seems to be a common fault in Glasgow Catholic parishes. We could definitely learn something from our Protestant neighbours about how to sing hymns.)

      September 19, 2013 at 10:45 am
  • chardom

    What is a homosexual church, or for that matter a homosexual mass. I don’t know what that means????

    September 18, 2013 at 11:16 pm
    • Josephine


      The well known Soho Masses are for homosexuals. This video explains what goes on at these Masses.

      September 18, 2013 at 11:41 pm
      • editor

        Thanks Josephine – I’ll check out that video tomorrow, hopefully.

        I see Martin Pendergast is featured. The one thing with which we do have to credit him is his perfect openness and honesty. He has never pretended that the Soho Masses were for homosexuals seeking to live by the Church’s teaching, which is the falsehood perpetrated by the bishops concerned. So, he deserves credit for that honesty.

        I attended a Mass in Glasgow some years back for members of Quest and the priest concluded his homily by exhorting the homosexual congregation to “go out and spread Quest.” Not spread the Gospel, note, spread Quest – an organisation for LGBT Catholics.

        September 18, 2013 at 11:56 pm
      • Miles Immaculatae

        I am most alarmed by his claim that various person in civil partnerships who are known to him have afterwards had their unions blessed by Catholic priests in a Catholic Church.

        I was unaware this had ever happened.

        September 19, 2013 at 1:08 am
      • editor

        Miles Immaculatae

        Given the fact that a former Bishop of Middlesbrough (Bishop Crowley) had agreed to celebrate Mass to mark the 25th anniversary of Martin Pendergast’s own “partnership”, we cannot be too surprised if individual dissident priests are doing the same sort of thing. Read Bishop Crowley report here…

        Note: Bishop Crowley later left office amidst speculation that he had lost his faith. What a surprise – not!

        The simple fact of the matter is, however, that these priests are NOT bringing down God’s blessing on these sinful partnerships. They are, instead, heaping coals of fire on all concerned – themselves included.

        September 19, 2013 at 10:01 am
  • catholicconvert1

    I personally do not have an iota of respect for the English hierarchy. I wouldn’t have any of them in my garden. It is strange that these masses went on. Did you know the rainbow flag was draped over the altar, and the pulpit was used to denounce Church teaching? Homosexuality can never be holy and relationships between two men can never be holy. I’m sure myself and the other men on this blog have male friends whom we love as brothers, but that is pure love in the Christian sense of the term. Their love is wicked and stunted. Bishops should not be doing these Masses for gay unions. I should be Archbishop of Westminster.

    September 19, 2013 at 11:14 am
  • catholicconvert1


    I’m sorry you had to witness the sacrilege at that Mass. By the grace of God I have never witnessed that. Why didn’t you say something after, or contact your Bishop? I don’t blame you for no longer attending the NO.


    You are lucky. A good guitar is a good guitar, a bad guitar is a bad guitar. The choir at my Church sounds like a cat being run over by a paint stripper. I can’t sing, but I don’t go around pretending I can. You are one very lucky NO Catholic.

    September 19, 2013 at 11:19 am
  • catholicconvert1


    My parish priest wouldn’t say anything. He’d probably give me a bemused look. To be frank I don’t care what they think. I told one of the Priests the guitars etc were not helping be to be prayerful or the be in touch with God, and I explained my sympathies for traditionalists. He had the brass neck to turn around and say ‘it doesn’t matter what you think. It’s approved by the pope’. Yeah right. Paul VI who wrote the new Mass didn’t even intend for that.

    September 19, 2013 at 11:22 am
  • catholicconvert1

    When I watch the Tridentine Mass, I feel like an infant being consoled it’s mother. Is it me, or do you feel the same? I feel spiritually nourished.

    September 19, 2013 at 12:18 pm

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: