Who would attend the NO?

[catholicresistence]

A few things to ponder (I take no "official" position):

 

 

World Trends, Special Edition March 1976

Anna-Katarina Emmerick (19th century).

"I saw again the new and odd-looking Church which they were trying to build. There was nothing holy about it....People were kneading bread in the crypt below...but it would not rise, nor did they receive the Body of Our Lord, but only bread. Those who were in error, through no fault of their own, and who piously and ardently longed for the Body of Jesus were spiritually consoled, but not by their communion. Then, my Guide [Jesus] said: ‘THIS IS BABEL’. [The Mass in many languages].

(CR note-this may mean the One World Religion of AntiChrist and not NO-hard to fully say)
Catholic Prophecy, Yves Dupont. Page 116

St. Thomas’ Apocalypse - Apocrapha (1st century).

"Every man shall speak that which pleaseth him, and my priests shall not have peace among themselves but shall sacrifice unto me with deceitful minds. Then shall the priests behold the people departing from the House of the Lord and turning to the world. The House of the Lord shall be desolate and her altars will be abhorred. The place of holiness shall be corrupted, and the priesthood polluted."

Catholic Prophecy, Yves Dupont. Page 114

Holzhouaser (17th century).

"The Great Monarch will come when the Latin Church is desolated, humiliated, and afflicted with many heresies ... The Mohammedans will come again." (Note: "The Latin Church," which presumably, excludes the Eastern-Rite Churches.)

Catholic Prophecy, Yves Dupont. Page 114

Bl. Rembordt (18th century).

"These things will come when they try to set up a new kingdom of Christ from which the true faith will be banished."

Catholic Prophecy, Yves Dupont. Page 115

Oba Prophecy

"It will come when the Church authorities issue directives to promote a new cult, when priests are forbidden to celebrate in any other, when the higher positions in the Church are given to perjurers and hypocrites, when only the renegades are admitted to occupy those positions."

Catholic Prophecy, Yves Dupont. Page 116

Marie-Julie Jahenny (June 1881).

"In their [priests] aberration, they will break their oaths. The Book of Life contains a list of names that ‘rends the heart.’

"Because of the little respect it has for the apostles of God, the flock grows careless and ceases to observe the laws. The priest himself is responsible for the lack of respect because he does not respect enough his holy ministry, and the place which he occupies in his sacred functions. The flock follows in the footsteps of its pastors; this is a great tragedy.

"The clergy will be severely punished on account of their inconceivable fickleness and great cowardice which is incompatible with their functions.

"A terrible chastisement has been provided for those who ascend every morning the steps of the Holy Sacrifice. I have not come on your altars to be tortured. I suffer a hundredfold more from such hearts than any of the others. I absolve you from your great sins, My children, but I cannot grant any pardon to these priests."

She [Marie-Julie Jahenny] says that "those who govern the Flock", will be responsible for the coming crisis. Apparently, Communism would not have triumphed if the Church had remained faithful. She mentions the growing freedom enjoyed by priests and bishops and how badly they will use it.

She mentions a pope who, at the last moment, will reverse
his policies and make a solemn appeal to the Clergy.
But he will not be obeyed;
on the contrary, an Assembly of bishops will demand even
greater freedom, declaring that they will no longer obey the Pope.

Marie-Julie then goes on to say that the Red Revolution will then break out. She speaks of a "horrible religion" which is to replace the Catholic Faith, and she sees "many, many bishops" embracing this "sacrilegious, infamous religion."

World Trends, 1976

 

Yves Dupont:

The traditional liturgy, it must be recalled, goes back to apostolic times, and its definitive

form was codified by Pope St. Pius V, who, in his Bull Quo Primum, gave it force of

law until the end of time. The New Missal, however, was deviously introduced,

arbitrarily imposed, and the Bull Quo Primum (which St. Pius V forbade to be abrogated)

was quietly dropped from the opening pages of the official Altar Missal.

The New Mass was opposed by the Synod of Bishops in 1967, but some Vatican Officials,

in contempt of the will of the bishops, and enlisting the help of six non-Catholic ministers,

went ahead with the final version of their work. (The non-Catholic ministers were Dr.

George, Canon Jasper, Dr. Shephard, Dr. Konneth, Dr. Smith, and Br. Thurian,

representing the World Council of Churches, the Church of England, the Lutheran Church,

and the Protestant community of Taize. Their photograph was published in Issue No. 20 of

World Trends.) With devilish cleverness, they stopped just short of outright heresy, and

abusing the trust which their position entailed, they prevailed upon Pope Paul to ratify it.

The New Missal is indeed a radical attack on our Faith. It will destroy the Mass more

effectively then Luther’s brutal efforts. Having destroyed the Mass, it will

inevitably destroy the Church. Having destroyed the Church, it will

inevitably again, destroy the world. For when the Blood of Christ is no

longer offered on the Altars of our churches, then the blood of men will

have to be spilled on the asphalt of our streets.

Catholic Prophecy, Yves Dupont. Page 115

The following are quotes from non-Catholics about the New Mass.

"One of the fruits (of the New Ordo) may be that non-Catholic communities may be

able to celebrate the Last Supper with the same prayers as the Catholic Church.

Theologically, this is possible" Brother M. Thurian of the Protestant Community of Taize. Printed

in "La Croix" of May 20th 1969.

"Nothing in the renewed Mass can now embarrass the Evangelical Christian"

Professor Siegevalt of the Protestant Faculty of Strasbourg, in a letter to the Bishop of the same city. In

"Le Monte", November 22nd, 1969.

And if this should be insufficient, here is Bugnini himself:

"The image of the liturgy as given by the Council is completely different from what it

was previously." In Documentation Catholique No. 1491 of Jan. 4th 1967.

Bugnini is quite open about it, and the quotes given above were taken from papers which are all

progressive, that is, happy that the Protestants should find it so easy to use the Catholic N.O.M.!

World Trends, Special Edition March 1976

Anna-Katarina Emmerick (September 27, 1820).

"I saw deplorable things: they were gambling, drinking, and talking in church; they were also courting women. All sorts of abominations were perpetrated there. Priests allowed everything and said Mass with much irreverence. I saw that few of them were still godly, and only a few had sound views on things. I also saw Jews standing under the porch of the Church. All these things caused me much distress."

Catholic Prophecy, Yves Dupont. Page 66

Anna-Katarina Emmerick (October 1, 1820).

"The Church is in great danger. We must pray so that the Pope may not leave Rome; countless evils would result if he did. They are now demanding something from him. The Protestant doctrine and that of the schismatic Greeks are to spread everywhere. I now see that in this place (Rome) the (Catholic) Church is being so cleverly undermined, that there hardly remain a hundred or so priests who have not been deceived. They all work for destruction, even the clergy. A great devastation is now near at hand."

Catholic Prophecy, Yves Dupont. Page 66

Anna-Katarina Emmerick (June 1, 1821).

"Among the strangest things that I saw, were long processions of bishops. Their thoughts and utterances were made known to me through images issuing from their mouths. Their faults towards religion were shown by external deformities. A few had only a body, with a dark cloud of fog instead of a head. Others had only a head, their bodies and hearts were like thick vapors. Some were lame, others were paralytics; others were asleep or staggering.

"I saw what I believe to be nearly all the bishops of the world, but only a small number were perfectly sound. I also saw the Holy Father ---- God-fearing and prayerful. Nothing left to be desired in his appearance, but he was weakened by old age and by much suffering. His head was lolling from side to side, and it dropped onto his chest as if he were falling asleep. He often fainted and seemed to be dying. But when he was praying, he was often comforted by apparitions from Heaven. Then, his head was erect, but as soon as it dropped again onto his chest, I saw a number of people looking quickly right and left, that is, in the direction of the world.

"Then, I saw that everything that pertained to Protestantism was gradually gaining the upper hand, and the Catholic religion fell into complete decadence. Most priests were lured by the glittering but false knowledge of young school-teachers, and they all contributed to the work of the destruction.

"In those days, Faith will fall very low, and it will be preserved in some places only, in a few cottages and in a few families which God has protected from disasters and wars."

Anna-Katarina Emmerick .(1820-1821, no precise date)

"I see many excommunicated ecclesiastics who do not seem to be concerned about it, nor even aware of it. Yet, they are (ispso facto) excommunicated whenever they cooperate [sic] enterprises, enter into associations, and embrace opinions on which an anathema has been cast. It can be seen thereby that God ratifies the decrees, orders, and interdictions issued by the Head of the Church, and that He keeps them in force even though men show no concern for them, reject them, or laugh them to scorn."

Catholic Prophecy, Yves Dupont. Page 69

"For when the Blood of Christ
is no longer offered on the Altars of our churches,
then the blood of men will
have to be spilled on the asphalt of our streets."

Yves Dupont

 

[thetimman]

 

I guess it comes to down one of a few different positions:

 

1) The Old Mass is nicer than the New, and so we should go to the Old Mass once in a while so as not to lose touch with our heritage, but we should attend the New more regularly

 

2) The Old Mass is better than the New, and so we should go to the Old Mass instead of the New if we have the option; if we don't, it's off to the New Mass

 

3) The Old Mass is far more superior than the New, and so we should go to the Old Mass instead of the New if we have the option; if we don't have that option, we will go to the Byzantine Rite before we go to the New Mass, and in fact, we'll pack up the family and move across several states in order to live where there is an Old Mass available

 

4) The Old Mass is the only Mass, period, and so we should not go to the New Mass at all, even if that's our only option; we'll stay home and pray the missal and just wait until the situation gets better

 

Put me down for number 3.

[lumengentleman]

The idea that I should go "just because I have an obligation" is preposterous. I wouldn't go to an Eastern Schismatic Church if I was in Greece and there were no Catholic Churches around, and their sacrament is assuredly valid.

 

Point #1: you compare the Novus Ordo to the Eastern Orthodox liturgy; this is a false comparison, because one is Catholic and the other is not.

 

Would you have thought to to go the heretical Anglican services at the time when the priests still had valid orders?

 

Point #2: you compare the Novus Ordo to the Anglican liturgy; another false comparison, and for the same reasons. 

 

Too, as Sophia points out, if one continuously does this, it is more than simply conceivable that one might lose the faith little by little, as the parishioners at the NO in the 60s/70s did.

 

Again, I challenge that assumption; the folks who lost their faith in the 60s and 70s lost it for the very same reasons why some Trads will lose and have lost their faith: because they don't take it to heart.  And no, the intellect is not the same as the heart.

 

We are afraid of breaking the Church law, but the Church law assumes that the Mass we will be attending will help us to save our soul, not to damn us, cause us to lose the faith, be infected with heresy, scandalize our children, go to the opposite extreme of despair, etc.

 

The Church cannot give us that kind of Mass.  A rogue priest could certainly botch it up pretty good, and I think we've all seen examples of that.  But that's not saying the same thing. 

[catholicresistence]

 

 

I guess it comes to down one of a few different positions:

 

1) The Old Mass is nicer than the New, and so we should go to the Old Mass once in a while so as not to lose touch with our heritage, but we should attend the New more regularly

 

2) The Old Mass is better than the New, and so we should go to the Old Mass instead of the New if we have the option; if we don't, it's off to the New Mass

 

3) The Old Mass is far more superior than the New, and so we should go to the Old Mass instead of the New if we have the option; if we don't have that option, we will go to the Byzantine Rite before we go to the New Mass, and in fact, we'll pack up the family and move across several states in order to live where there is an Old Mass available

 

4) The Old Mass is the only Mass, period, and so we should not go to the New Mass at all, even if that's our only option; we'll stay home and pray the missal and just wait until the situation gets better

 

Put me down for number 3.

 

We helped to start a Byzantine mission church and left due to fact of Priest (theologically sound, but with character faults of non-salcious manner)

[Marybonita]

"4) The Old Mass is the only Mass, period, and so we should not go to the New Mass at all, even if that's our only option; we'll stay home and pray the missal and just wait until the situation gets better"

 

This is how our family operates and we have done this for years.  The few times that I have been forced to attend a NO service have been, as Kathy confirms, awful. 

 

Jacob raises the probable question of a laxness setting in and it's a serious situation. Of course laxness is always a threat even while regularly attending Mass which may become more of a habit than a devout act. An irony I have discovered is that if you accept the fact that you are weak and will fall by the wayside then the battle actually becomes clearer - not necessarily easier though.

 

So we draw a line defining how to persevere. It's the virtue which closes the Rosary: the fruit of contemplating the fifth Glorious Mystery. I've always taken that to mean that it is the one which attains the crown of salvation.

 

The way to persevere is to at least be consistent in our practices. We are obliged to keep the Sabbath holy - so we dress appropriately, don't shop or do unnecessary labour, treat Sunday as a feast day, do our reading etc at some time during the day, attend the Tridentine Mass if one is available but most of all we observe the Sabbath - each Sabbath is patterned the same without exception.

 

It's always been my understanding of the basis of our religion that we do what we are able. If the local church provides us with a sacrilegious service which undermines our faith and that of our children we are under no obligation to attend that service in the eyes of God. If a good and excellent service were offered and we didn't attend - yes, that would be a most grave and serious sin.

 

A further point: One of the riches of our Church is it's diversity in sacramentals. As we develop spiritually we find ourselves drawn to a particular one. Some like the Sacred Heart, for some it's Our Lady, for some it's the scapular, for some it's the Divine Office and others pray the Rosary devoutly. What's interesting is that any one of those as well as all the others promises help and salvation.

 

I have been drawn to the Passion - not even being aware of the promises attached I do daily (except Sunday) the Stations of the Cross. I am consistent with them and believe that that is what will save me if I am saved. One of the reasons I like them is because they are doable. Whether in public at a beautiful stone Cathedral or in the privacy of my home they can be done. Because so much is involved in the Mass the obligation to attend is much more complicated. I may be sick or there may be no Mass. But the sacramental I choose can be done with relative ease. There is the virtue of perseverence. And that may be what is rewarded by God.

 

IMHO

 

~In JMJ

 

 

[lumengentleman]

Jacob raises the probable question of a laxness setting in and it's a serious situation. Of course laxness is always a threat even while regularly attending Mass which may become more of a habit than a devout act. An irony I have discovered is that if you accept the fact that you are weak and will fall by the wayside then the battle actually becomes clearer - not necessarily easier though.

As usual, you are dead-on correct.

[DominusTecum]

Yeah... you're right, one is Catholic and another is not. The schismatics' Divine Liturgy is a whole lot more Catholic than a Novus Ordo Mass. We of course would not go, however, because they are in schism. If I want to assist at a protestant "Mass," I will go back to the Anglicans, where at least they knelt for "communion" and had their "mass" ad orientam instead of versus populum. This is a very simple principle. There is very legitimate doubt as to whether the Novus Ordo was truly "promulgated" by Pope Paul VI, due to his very vague language. This can easily be seen as Divine Providence at work to protect the indefectibility of the Church. Furthermore, even if he DID promulgate it and it is therefore binding that it be a Holy Mass and not just a Mass, when is the last time you saw a reverent, Ad Orientam, Latin, "pro multis," Communion railed, roman-Canon'd, Novus Ordo Missae? It practically does not exist. Therefore, even if Paul VI DID truly promulgate the Novus Ordo, I have every reason not to attend pretty much every Novus Ordo in the world, because trying to find one that is in Latin, is reverent, and above all, has a non-heretical homily/atmosphere, is like trying to find one needle in 10 or 20 thousand haystacks.

 

 

 

 

[Sophia]

 

 Would you really worry about losing your own Faith?

 

Yes.

 

  Can you honestly see yourself ever, for example, eventually thinking "hey, maybe Communion in the Hand isn't such a bad thing after all"? 

 

Probably not right off the bat, but I know that we would make compromises. 

 

 I have to say that I have never met an ex-Catholic who was an educated Catholic.  I have never met someone who lost the Faith who ever really knew it to begin with.  Those who take the Faith seriously, study it, live it, pray it on a regular basis ... I wonder if they're really in danger of losing the Faith, regardless of what Mass they attend?

 

I disagree vigorously on this point.  How could I be so presumptuous that I think myself invincible to temptation?  We all have our weak points.  The devil has seen it all before.  He exploits everything.

 

On the contrary, I believe that those who have taken the Faith seriously and have studied it and try to live it and pray on a regular basis are particularly susceptible to temptations against Faith.  It is they who know their Faith the best, I believe, who have to be the most vigilant against sins of the intellect.  When the mighty fall, they fall low and hard, and usually bring the rest of us with them.  Consider the case of Martin Luther.

 

As for the children - doesn't the same thing apply? One thing that Michael Matt has continually written about in The Remnant is the fact that he sees Traditional Catholic youth losing the Faith all the time, regardless of the fact that their parents take them to the Tridentine Mass, homeschool the kids, etc.  If the youth end up losing their Catholicism, it is inevitably because they weren't living like Catholics; they were living like Moderns, immersing themselves in the modern culture (rock-and-roll, television, style of dress, dating habits, etc.) Monday-Saturday, and then going to the Tridentine Mass on Sunday

 

Yes, despite assisting at the traditional Mass, unless we live the Faith we will lose it.  The Mass, however, is the cornerstone of the Faith.  You undermine your Catholic life if you begin with a compromised foundation.  It is a dangerous position to place yourself in. 

 

[Paul]

Furthermore, even if he DID promulgate it and it is therefore binding that it be a Holy Mass and not just a Mass, when is the last time you saw a reverent, Ad Orientam, Latin, "pro multis," Communion railed, roman-Canon'd, Novus Ordo Missae? It practically does not exist.  

Absolutely none of which are required for reverence or even a non-offensive Mass. Versus populum and communion rails are good, pious practices, but not something that makes a Mass without them sacrilegious. If the only Mass within a couple hours features the priest dresses as a clown and women giving homilies on how wonderful feminism is, then, yes, stay home. But it's possible to find a NO that's mostly follows the Rubrics, and you can spend the entire Mass kneeling and praying the TLM silently if you want. I'd prefer to attend the TLM exclusively, but right now, there isn't one around, and I'm not going to risk a mortal sin for skipping Mass on Sunday. And offer it up as penance for all those who offend God at Mass.

[gladius_veritatis]

We know from the Gospels that it is necessary to eat the flesh of the Son of man to have life within you.

We also know, from Holy Church, that this obligation is only binding one time in each year.