Never-Ending Liturgical Abuse – It’s Impossible to Respect the New Mass… Like, REALLY Impossible
That’s how the New Mass concludes – if the priest so chooses …
Can you imagine the above happening at the Traditional Mass?
12May
Related Posts
15May
The World Health Organisation Pandemic Treaty – Groundwork For One-World Government…
Clara on the YouTube Platform writes... "I’m surrounded by madness... My mother…is... read more
28Apr
Pornography in Parliament – So What?
Editor writes... What a bunch of virtue-signalling hypocrites are employed to report... read more
16Jul
New Motu Proprio on Traditional Latin Mass Worse Than Expected – A Shocker!
16 July: Feast of Our Lady of Mount Carmel. Motu Proprio “Traditionis... read more
18Jul
Scottish Bishops Challenge SNP Government on Freedom of Conscience – Letter to First Minister
President of Scotland’s Catholic Bishops asks First Minister to protect freedom... read more
24Jul
Atheist: Pope Destroying The West
Pope Francis ROME, July 12, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) – An atheist philosopher friend... read more
21Sep
Dunkeld Priest: Scottish Catholicism is quite Presbyterian – No surprise then…
The headline of this thread is part of the front page... read more
25May
Is Challenging Covid Propaganda Too “Political”? More Christian To Just Pray? Just Lean On Shovel?
Comment: There is a school of thought among Catholics which argues that... read more
02Aug
Scottish Government Proposals On Buffer Zones Totalitarian: Criminalizes Pro-life Prayer Vigils
From the website of the Society for the Protection of Unborn... read more
29Jan
Una Voce: SSPX “Complicated” the Preservation of Old Mass in Scotland!
From Scottish Catholic Observer, January, 27th 2017... The traditional way to celebrate... read more
Comments (56)
It goes back to what I was saying on the “Vatican II ‘Not From God” thread. – when the camera turns round on the ‘dancing’ video, look at the pews – largely empty, mostly elderly. And I would bet my bottom dollar it would be just as empty without covid restrictions. Those altar servers – obviously poorly instructed, if instructed at all, and clueless, will find their ‘fulfilment’ down the local disco when they get a little older in a couple of years time. Then they’ll be sucked in by the world and lapse completely. The priest didn’t look like a spring chicken either despite his aspirations to be the next John Travolta. He’ll be retired / dead before long and there will almost certainly be no-one to replace him, if the vocations situation in that country is the same as ours. In a weird sort of way (apart from the blasphemy aspect of it) it gives me hope to see things like this. It shows that the VII / N.O. experiment is out of control, desperate, and close to complete implosion. The only people who would want to attend that sort of thing must be insane or suffering from dementia.
In a sense, the ‘reverent’ English or Latin N.O. Masses where everything is done as best it can be under the circumstances, are far more dangerous in my opinion, in so far as they are likely to extend the shelf life of the N.O. for quite a bit longer, as many ‘conservative neo-Catholics’ seem quite happy to attend that sort of Mass. I don’t think perhaps I’ve explained myself very well, but basically what I’m trying to say is the more bizarre the antics at the N.O., the quicker it will implode.
WF,
You’ve explained yourself very well indeed and I believe you are totally correct. No right-thinking person could watch that daft priest literally leading those young people a dance away from reverence and all that is holy, and think “this is pleasing to God”.
The NO IS dying out – that is clear. All that remains is for a good pope to come along and lay down the instructions for the “back to the future” restoration of the ancient rite.
Editor,
I agree about the “good pope” laying down an instruction to rid us of the NO but I would add, that instruction has to be time-limited. “You have three months to ease it out, and bring in the old Mass”. No ifs, no buts.
Westminster Fly,
Your description of that priest’s “aspirations to be the next John Travolta” made me LOL! Doesn’t he realise how stupid he looks?
What on earth possesses these modernists to make them think that what they are doing at the Mass is attractive, beats me.
Fidelis,
Old men generally do look stupid when they try and behave like teenagers. I remember going to the blasphemous ‘rave’ Masses held in Westminster diocese in the 1990’s (strictly as an observer / reporter – not to ‘join in’ as it were!) and saw the priest who helped organise them – he must have been in his late 50’s / early 60’s then, and bald as a coot, bopping around like a teenager. I’ve never seen anyone look so awkward and foolish in my life. I just pity them. They sully their priesthood, and for what? These gimmicks don’t even bring the young into the Church. The members of the ‘congregation’ that I managed to speak with at these ‘rave’ Masses all said that they usually attended their own parish Mass, so it’s not as if these Masses were attracting the totally unchurched – they were merely displacing some young people from the parishes they already attended, to go to a blasphemous travesty of the Mass.
Westminster Fly,
You are right about old men – even middle aged men, because their teenage kids usually get really embarrassed watching their fathers trying to be “cool” on the dance floor. LOL!
I’d love to have had a word with that one and only young boy in the pews after that performance.
Another point is that there are literally thousands of these sort of hideous liturgical dancing abuse videos on YouTube and this serves to accelerate the issue, because you get ‘monkey see, monkey do’ teenage altar servers seeing the videos and thinking ‘hey that’s great! let’s do it in our church!’ and of course the parish priest is usually only too willing to comply, either because (a) he likes that kind of stuff himself, or (b) he’s afraid of alienating and losing the few young people he has who still attend Mass. Hopefully this acceleration will reach a tipping point sooner rather than later, when the only choice left for Catholics will be the TLM or go without Mass. This is why it’s critical in future that if they are offered diocesan parishes, none of the TLM orders like FSSP, ICKSP etc cave in to the bishops and agree to offer the N.O. alongside the TLM so that parishioners can ‘choose’. There is also the ‘lay-led Sunday Eucharist’ brigade to contend with, who seem to prefer priestless parishes so they can strut around doing illicit ‘Holy Communion Services’, but again, these are usually elderly people and so also on the way out.
Westminster Fly,
I agree with both your comments and I honestly didn’t know whether to laugh or cry watching that dancing video. Then when you switch on the second video and see the contrast, there is just no argument. God is insulted in the first Mass and revered in the second.
If that was the way that priest ended his NO can you just imagine what was going on during it? I shudder to think.
I know that there are plenty of videos of dancing at Masses out there, but it always comes as a shock to see them and the masks this time added to the shock-horror. Either dancing at Mass or wearing masks in church are, by themselves, bad enough, but put together they are beyond the pale.
If only we had a sound order of priests, as sound as the Jesuits once were, that we could turn to for Mass and the Sacraments. Maybe God will send us such help soon – things are very far gone now.
Lily,
That “order of priests” is never going to happen now, not until after the Consecration. In the meantime, we’re stuck with what we’ve got and none of them, to my knowledge, stands out.
Fidelis,
I think it has happened – there’s the FSSP and the Institute of Christ the King.
Nicky,
I know about those groups but they’re not in every diocese. I meant it would be great if God would send us a brand new order of priests – but then I woke up, LOL!
I forgot to say that you are right about none of them “standing out” but it’s better than the alternative – the novus ordo in your parish.
They say we didn’t understand the Mass before 1969. Well, we sure don’t understand it now!
It’s going to be essential to give us back the Mass in our parishes. Some of us can’t get to distant parishes on Sundays when there are transport problems etc. People suffer the new Mass or if they’re really ignorant, they just go along to keep the obligation, but there isn’t any spiritual satisfaction, IMHO.
I do wish they hadn’t changed the old rite – I’m not a fan of the 1962 missal. I preferred the previous liturgy, but even so, the 1962 is miles better than the NO.
I tried to find the previous rite on YouTube but only Holy Week services are there. I did find this, though, and I found it enjoyable, so I hope it’s OK to post here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ceE4QCa8alc
I was actually reading about the Pro Choice Garbage coming from Rome to the U.S . Bishops and came across this Dancing Act on LSN . But You have to give the Priest His due as it most certainly took Hours of Rehearsal . In all Honesty Words Fail Me. God Help Our Children.
I think WF makes a very important point: the N.O. as Variety Show is not the most dangerous innovation to the Church: it’s the N.O. in Latin, which belongs in the “lipstick on a pig” genre. People think that it must be holy because it’s in Latin, but that would be like thinking Joke* Biden would be a real President if he started speaking in intelligible sentences.
The principle behind this is that the Devil is the most dangerous when his disguises best imitate truth. That goes for theology, liturgy, and in these times, apparitions.
Editor,
Unless my tin ear deceives me, that music is sung in Spanish. which makes the allegedly superior piety of the Hispanics completely laughable. In fact, it makes you wonder if the “enculturated” N.O. “Masses” in Spanish are the worst of the lot. Along that train of thought, I recall the adoration with which Francis was received during his visit(s?) to South America – except for Argentina, of course! The Pope as pop star…with a red clown nose…ooh, ooh, Papa, give me your autograph! I name my children after you!
My former diocese recently merged an Hispanic parish with another parish where the sacred music choir I belong to has rehearsals. I’ve been able to observe the liturgy sheets left around the pews by the Hispanic contingent, along with guitars and microphones. Full bore charismatic.
Where is the legendary asceticism of the Spanish? Surrendered to the MTV video mentality, it seems.
RCA Victor,
I think that scandalous liturgical abuse took place in a church in Austria. It doesn’t actually say in the introduction on YouTube but I think someone said that in the comments. Unsurprising – like Germany, the Church in Austria is in a very sorry state. And if they’re using Spanish music instead of Scottish bagpipes, that only goes to prove the case 😀
Penultimate sentence – yip. St Teresa of Avila would be horrified. Is, no doubt, horrified!
The Congregation for the Sacraments and Divine Worship (presently called Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments) issued an “authoritative” document on dance in the liturgy in 1975. This document is so full of praise for dance and other forms of bodily movement that by the time it gets around to actually forbidding this, one can fairly conclude that the document is actually a Trojan Horse: the standard M.O. of the revolutionaries. Here is the paragraph forbidding dance, almost at the end of the document:
“For that reason it cannot be introduced into liturgical celebrations of any kind whatever: that would be to inject into the liturgy one of the most desacralized and desacralizing elements; and so it would be equivalent to creating an atmosphere of profaneness which would easily recall to those present and to the participants in the celebration worldly places and situations.”
Read the whole disgraceful thing here: https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/dance-in-the-liturgy-2167
RCA Victor,
I’m not surprised at that sleazy way of avoiding serious action on this nonsense of dancing in the liturgy.
I remember seeing a video of Pope Francis, when he was Archbishop of BA, sitting in the sanctuary watching a couple celebrating their wedding anniversary by dancing a tango, of all things, after Mass in the sanctuary. He’s never going to ban it now – and it shows what kind of mind he has to sit through such a sensual performance.
What a bunch of clowns – they’ve even got the masks to prove it, LOL!
This sort of thing has been going on for decades and I have seen much worse liturgies than this. It doesn’t upset me any more, because I have accepted that these people are not Catholic: they’re Protestant. If Protestants wish to dance during their ‘liturgies’, it doesn’t bother me a jot. What rather does upset me, is that these Protestant took our churches with them when they left the Catholic Church.
Miles Immaculatae,
I’ve seen that stuff loads of times, too, but I think the masks make it even worse, as they’re insulting Jesus on two different levels.
What embarrassing tripe!
And people will still claim with a straight face that the Church is in decline because “we live in a secular age” blah blah. No, its in decline because the mainstream Church serves up this kind of slop in every department.
It would be bad enough if this was spontaneous, but this has clearly been rehearsed and pre-planned. As well as the dance routine, there is someone with a reporter-style camera right at the front waiting to capture pictures (no doubt for the local Diocesan rag).
In a sense this makes it worse, as there must have been plenty of opportunity for someone with half a brain to say “wait a minute…….”. I suppose the half-a-brain qualification rules out the average Bishop.
Even if it was not part of a religious service, you wonder how anyone could think this was appropriate for the environment it is taking place in.
I don’t know which group looks more pathetic, the dancers, or the small group of elderly clapping people comprising the audience.
You could imagine being subjected to this in Hell!
Gabriel Syme,
Hell? No way! That would make Hell fun, fun, fun – and I don’t think that’s the idea 😀
A question: Do those who persist in clinging to the ‘canonically regular’ structures of the Church, for example, by attending the diocesan TLM or FSSP, have a legitimate right to complain about abuses such as these? At this stage of the crisis, aren’t they indirectly supporting these abuses? Are they not hypocritical?
MI,
Sorry, I missed this, until now – at least I did see it, meant to return to answer and … forgot! Mea culpa!
Now, c’mon man – you must know that the answer to that question is YES, of course – we all have a right to complain about such abuses. And YES of course, everyone who continues, in any which way, to contribute to the life (or death) of a diocese, does hold some responsibility for contributing to the crisis in the Church.
However, it’s not always possible to be “squeaky clean” in this regard. We can only do what is within our power to do and not be too hard on those who, for whatever reason, feel the need to settle for what is on offer in their diocese. I, personally, know the temptation… 😀
Scandalous liturgical abuses cannot happen in the Latin Mass? Really? How so?
If this or some other priest said a Latin Mass and then did this goofy dance would that mean “it is just not possible to respect the” Latin Mass? Why not?
Not sure why this posted in the wrong place.
It posted in the wrong place because you didn’t press “reply” at my comment, to which you were replying. Not to worry – I get the gist…
Neptasur,
One of the reasons why the modernist clergy do not like the traditional Latin Mass is because it is impossible to depart from the rubric. Every word and gesture is spelt out.
I doubt if there’s much fun in being “with it” / “cool” in Latin, and dancing to Gregorian chant won’t be quite the same… See what you think…
https://youtu.be/O8W4351sW14
Obviously it is possible to “depart from the rubric” in the Latin Mass. A priest could omit parts, or do silly dances, or say stupid things in a Latin mass just as he could in a “new mass”. Were there no liturgical abuses before 1968? Teilhard de Chardin, or George Tyrell, or Arius could not possibly commit a liturgical abuse?
The “new mass” has rubrics that are spelled out. That is how we know what an “abuse” is. Pointing out that there are abuses and bad priests does not show that the “new mass” is defective or “not worthy of respect”.
Neptasur,
It seems that you are not familiar with the debate surrounding the new Mass (novus ordo) even at the time of its introduction. Two cardinals wrote to Pope Paul VI with their concerns, which included this observation:
… 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 XXII of the Council of Trent. The “canons” of the rite definitively fixed at that time provided an insurmountable barrier to any heresy directed against the integrity of the Mystery.
You can read the entire letter and the accompanying “critical study” at this link https://lms.org.uk/ottaviani-intervention
So concerned was Pope Paul VI after reading the above, that he delayed the introduction of the new Mass for two years. Unfortunately, the architects of the novus ordo won the day. Their motive? To remove from the Mass any “barriers” to our Protestant friends. And of course, the key objection of Protestants to the Mass, is the belief that it is the re-presentation of the Sacrifice of Christ on the Cross at Calvary.
To your point about “liturgical abuses” of the kind witnessed in the “dancing” video above, if you have evidence of any such abuse in the traditional Mass, let’s hear it – or, better still, if you can find a video showing such abuse, let’s see it.
Thanks for the reply. I am not being argumentative; I am merely asking you to present your case because I want to hear it.
That there was debate and concern over the reform of the mass does not itself show that the “new mass” is defective; debate—and outright bitter conflict—is normal course in church history.
There are a large number of points made in the document you linked in your post. For brevity I’ll address but one of them. If you wish to make a narrower point on a specific subject, please do so.
The site you link states that Instruction in the Roman Missal reduces the mass to a mere “supper”, and thereby ipso facto denies the Real Presence, the sacrificial character of the mass, the sacramental character of the priesthood, and other essential points of Catholic doctrine.
However, in the Instruction as found on the Vatican’s website (1), immediately following the sentences cited by your link it states the following in direct contradiction to the claims made by your link:
“For in the celebration of Mass, in which the Sacrifice of the Cross is perpetuated, Christ is really present in the very liturgical assembly gathered in his name, in the person of the minister, in his word, and indeed substantially and continuously under the Eucharistic species.”
Does the document you linked not directly and obviously misrepresent what the General Instruction says?
As the Latin Mass is today much rarer than the “new mass”, it attracts people already predisposed to seek shelter from liturgical abuses and lunacy that happens all to often nowadays. But if it were in common use, you think that all those lax Catholics who stare at their watches if they’re not entertained would somehow shape right up?
Personally I love the silent Canon, but is it not the intent of the “new mass” to bring in the people who would otherwise be daydreaming through the Canon?
Bottom line is abuses don’t prove the rule. To clarify, it is your position that, in principle, it is impossible to commit a liturgical abuse in the Latin Mass? What would happen if someone tried?
(1) http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20030317_ordinamento-messale_en.html#II._THE_DIFFERENT_ELEMENTS_OF_THE_MASS
You mean, this isn’t sufficient to concern you about the dangers of the new Mass?
… 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 XXII of the Council of Trent. The “canons” of the rite definitively fixed at that time provided an insurmountable barrier to any heresy directed against the integrity of the Mystery.
Seriously?
There’s no shortage of documents / statements insisting that the new Mass is “the Sacrifice” etc, but after attending it for the best part of twenty years, and realising that it bore no resemblance to the Mass of my youth, I don’t need any more convincing. I refuse to risk offending God by attending or promoting it. On the odd occasion when I have to attend a wedding, baptism or funeral, I sigh with relief when it’s over.
But, listen, if you’re happy with it, so be it. If you’re not too bothered about having those “insurmountable barriers to any heresy…” so be it.
I’ll post a link which I’ve not had time to study – looks like an interesting side-by-side explanation of the differences between the two Masses.
http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/newmass/comparison.htm
I should add this little nugget of information… I had posted it on a previous thread when a commentator argued that the new Mass is “legal” / “licit” and so, end of discussion, so to speak. My reply…
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
Secretary
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?
Didn’t think so!
“You mean, this isn’t sufficient to concern you”
I understand that you are claiming the new mass is illegitimate. What I’m asking for is evidence that the claim is true. You keep stating your feelings; I’m asking for evidence.
You offered a citation that, as I showed, contained a claim that is factually untrue. The document you cited claimed that the Instruction reduced the mass to a mere “supper” at the expense of being a sacrifice. Yet, the very document in question explicitly states that the mass is a sacrifice. Undaunted, you then merely restated your feelings and attempted to appeal to mine. How I feel about the matter is unimportant. I’m asking for facts.
Now you cite an obscure correspondence in 2012. I don’t know the context of the letter or what issue (in context) it was meant to address, but you are claiming that this statement somehow shows that the Vatican believes the new mass is illegitimate. OK, so why does the Vatican believe (if it does) that the new mass is illegitimate? What objective evidence can be shown? Not what Cardinal Ottovani believed or claimed; not what someone feels about the matter; what objective, factual evidence can be given?
Neptasur,
I haven’t seen Editor speaking about her feelings at all. I haven’t read anything from her about “supper” either.
I have a feeling myself, though, that you are not going to change your mind about the new Mass, no matter what. That will make it hard for you when it is suppressed, as Cardinal Ranjith once said it would – correction, he said it would “die out” in about thirty years. That was said a few years ago now, and we can see the drop in attendance already.
Neptasur
I think Josephine has nailed every one of your false claims (thank you, Josephine!) so I will merely thank you for your interest, and sign off now. If you are happy attending the novus ordo, you go right ahead. Makes no difference to me.
Indeed, since you make unfounded allegations about me (feelings, blah blah) I am not inclined to continue this non-conversation.
I have no obligation to prove anything to you about the new Mass – it’s up to you to make sure that you are worshipping God in the manner which is pleasing to Him.
I did offer some information with the intention of assisting you in your discernment, but you clearly reject that, so it’s shaking off the dust time now, refusal to cast any more pearls.
The Lord be with you!
So the title acknowledges that this is a liturgical abuse but also implies that this **is** the “new mass”. Why?
Editor: I thought that would be obvious – such a scandalous liturgical abuse could not happen in the traditional Latin Mass. Ergo, given all that we know about how the new Mass came into being, and seeing the various liturgical abuses, including these crackpot dances, it is just not possible to respect the new Mass. Does this answer your (rather surprising) question?
Neptasur
Imagine two large taxi firms – one long established with advanced drivers, a strict code and a perfect safety record, the other relatively new but with an on-record history of poorly trained and reckless drivers, flexible rules and multiple car crashes. Would you seriously argue in favour of equally respecting and utilising the latter on the grounds that the former may have a secret boy racer in its team?
The Catholic faithful are not obliged before God to consider the fanciful idea of the odd Traditional priest committing secret liturgicl abuse in the Latin Mass – which is practically impossible anyway and historically unheard of. Rather, it is the duty of all – a very strict duty of charity and faith – to acknowledge the multitudes of real public liturgical abuses recorded since the advent of the New Mass and to do whatever it takes to ensure that we neither attend nor defend so dangerous a usurper liturgy.
There is spiritual safety in antiquity – the Latin Mass of the saints and martyrs – but very great and obvious danger in the New vernacular Mass, whose author, Fr. Annibale Bugnini, went on public record to describe as “a conquest of the Catholic Church”. He was being open and honest about it, though arrogantly so, for he created the New Mass directly from the blueprint of the XVI century Reformation Apostate Archbishop Thomas Cranmer. It was always destined to lead to disaster – and so it has proved.
Hi Athanasius,
I haven’t quite got the ins-and-outs of how the replies work (each forum is different). I have a discussion going with the Editor on this topic above.
Neptasur,
I’d be very interested to read your response to Athanasius. We don’t limit our conversations to thee and to me – we may all pitch in to share our thoughts. So, feel free – I’d like to read your reply to Athanasius.
In practical terms, you just click the “reply” button to answer each blogger. Your reply will than appear under that blogger’s comment or under the last person to reply to him/her.
Sure, Athanasius can add as he sees fit. I was implying that having the same conversation in two different places is unnecessary.
Tying the ability or inability to commit abuses as an argument for legitimacy is just a non-sequitur–an “abuse” is, after all, an abuse. If the same priest said a Latin Mass and then did a goofy dance, that would not prove the Latin Mass illegitimate. That we live in a different milieu with different heresies and behaviorisms and that those behaviorisms manifest in different ways from the past (and the fact that there were not cameras then) does nothing to show that the Latin Mass cannot suffer abuse. And even if it could show such, it is still a non-sequitur that this would be an argument for or against legitimacy.
Neptasur,
I’ve read the comments from you and Editor on this and she hasn’t said anywhere that because of the dance the Mass is illegitimate. You are missing the point. Before there was any dancing, the new Mass was “off” – it’s definitely not Catholic. Some of us are forced to attend it but we know it’s not right.
All Editor was saying is that that stupid dance + the face masks emphasises that the new Mass is just impossible to respect.
If you watch the other video of the young priest offering the Latin Mass, maybe you would tell me at which point he would be likely to break off and dance – LOL! I can’t imagine it!
Neptasur,
It’s not “the same conversation in two different places”, it’s the same conversation with a few different people! That’s what happens here all the time. I’ve popped in to join the conversation, that’s what we do here.
I’ve already said below that you have misunderstood the issue. Nobody is saying that “dancing = illegitimacy” just that the dancing is more evidence, if we needed it, that the new Mass is open to all sorts of abuses. It’s people-centred, not God-centred which is why we get all those variations to make it fun for people. That priest and servers were having plenty of fun, LOL!
Josephine,
Thank you for all your comments on this topic – much appreciated.
Josephine,
The mass being “people centered not God-centered” would certainly make it “illegitimate”, no?
I really don’t want to play word games.
Neptasur
The legitimacy of the New Mass is ultimately a matter for the Church to formally decide in saner times. Given, however, that it was constructed by one who called it “a conquest of the Catholic Church” and was imposed with the intention of placating Protestants and facilitating ecumenism, a condemned heresy, I think it fairly certain that the Church will condemn and abolish it one day, restoring the Latin Mass of the ages to its righful place.
Suffice it to say in the meantime that from the Catholic faithful’s viewpoint it is sufficient to know that this new rite undermines the integrity of the Holy Sacrifice in an unprecedented way and is extremely dangerous to faith by its Protestant construction.
Thousands of incidents of liturgical abuse and sacrilege are associated with this new rite, not to mention a universal decline in vocations and Mass attendance since its imposition on the Church some 50 years ago.
Some people prefer to blame this deterioration on external forces from the modern world, but that argument doesn’t hold water when we consider that at the same time Traditional seminaries and religious orders are filling up, as are the pews in churches where the Mass of the saints and martyrs becomes available again.
No, Paul VI was right when he lamented abuses associated with the new Mass as far back as 1971 and spoke of the “smoke of Satan” having entered the Church. It’s just a pity he remained blind to his part in the tragedy.
In fine, if we judge by Our Lord’s own admonition: “by their fruits you will know them”, it is clear to all who maintain even a modicum of a sense of the faith that the New Mass is utterly destructive, a usurper rite remarkably similar in construction to the Protestant meal service created by the Reformation apostate Archbishop Cranmer some 450 years ago. In fact the New Mass today is almost identical to Cranmer’s poisonous invention. Coincidence? I don’t think so.
Athenatius,
Lots of question begging assertions there. No evidence on why the new mass is illegitimate. Abuses don’t make it illegitimate; lack of “saner times” doesn’t make it illegitimate; that the Latin Mass is something unique that draws the attention of conscientious people doesn’t make the new mass illegitimate (orders like the Legionaries of Christ, the whole continent of Africa, the World Youth days under JPII all use the new mass and are booming); that people are seeking authenticity and the treasures of the ancient faith doesn’t make it illegitimate; that circumstances of the modern world are make it not a good time for the Church doesn’t make the new mass illegitimate.
Look, you don’t like liturgical abuses. That’s fine, I get it. But you all really can’t distinguish between essence and accidents. I ask for a coherent argument (which means with evidence) and all you give is how you feel about things: the world is a bad place and it’s all because of the new mass. Ok, if you had an argument you would have given it by now. Thanks for the discussion.
Neptasur
The New Mass is indeed illegitimate for the following reasons:
1. It does not flow naturally from the ancient liturgy of the Church, which, until this new rite was created, had not changed in its essentials in nearly 1500 years. It is, in fact, identical to the new Protestant meal service created in the XVI century by the apostate Archbishop Thomas Cranmer.
2. Its principle author, Fr. Annibale Bugnini declared without hesitation that his new rite was “a conquest of the Catholic Church”. This tragic soul actually employed six Protestant ministers to help in the formation of his new Mass, which is why it is so heavily influenced with Protestant theology. This was noted by many prelates who wrote to Pope Paul VI begging him not to promulgate Bugnini’s Mass because “it represents in whole and in part a grave departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as codified in Session 22 of the Council of Trent…” You can read in full what these prelates had to say by Googling “The Ottiavani Intervention”.
3. The new rite was first celebrated before the bishops gather in Rome for the Bishops’ Synod. These overwhelmingly rejected the rite, yet Paul VI still imposed it.
4. When the first missals were issued it is recorded that Paul VI broke down in tears when it was pointed out to him that Bugnini had referred to the new rite in its preface as “the meal or supper of the Lord”, a clearly Protestant heresy. The Pope had to recall all the new missals and have the preface amended, although this did not amend the Protestant poison within the rite itself.
5. The New Mass, by the multitudes of abuses, sacrileges, heresies and apostasies it has given rise to, represents a clear danger to the integrity of the Holy Sacrifice and to the faith of Catholics. This is what was noted in the Ottaviani Intervention. This one reason alone renders the New Mass illegitimate, though not necessarily invalid. So long as the words of consecration remain and the priest has the mind of the Church to consecrate with the correct matter, then the New Mass is valid, though always dangerous and illicit because of the poisonous Protestant theology surrounding it
6. Paul VI abused his Papal authority by imposing this dangerous new rite against the advice and pleading of many eminent prelates and theologians, though he never went so far as to formally abrogate the ancient Mass of the saints and martyrs – a clear sign that God protects His Church by not permitting any formal endoresement of errors by Popes.
One day the Church will formally declare this Mass to have been illegitimate and will condemn both its author and its facilitators for the grave harm they have done to the integrity of the Holy Sacrifice and the faith of millions of Catholics.
The document you are getting this information from was already discussed above (thus my comment that having the same conversation in two places is unnecessary). As I pointed out above (and will now have to restate again) the supper thing is just factually wrong (see above). One might even think that the author of the document you are using is intentionally lying. IN any case it is a flat misrepresentation.
Given the mixture of outright falsehood and mere question begging assertion, on what basis should I invest energy into examining what little remains?
This was already discussed above, which is why I said we don’t need to have the same conversation in two different places.
Neptasur
And I’m sure you noticed a few comments from other bloggers saying that we don’t run the same conversation in two places, we merely participate at different times in the same conversation. It sometimes means repeating responses but we believe in sound and clear Catholic education here, so we’re always happy to keep repeating the same truths.
Athanasius,
Thank you for your efforts with this new blogger, but I’m not convinced that he/she is in good faith so – unless you feel compelled – I’d leave him to it.
Editor
Yes, I tend to agree.
Comments are closed.