Universal Indult, what you said?

[Daniel]

Protestant Errors that crept into the Mass at the time of St. Pius V

You've completely lost the plot now mate. I think Marty was right, time for some Benny Hill music:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLN-3rCXHTc

[AndreasAngelopolitanus]

EVERY SSPX mass is valid, but illicit.

EVERY SSPX Mass is illicit?

What, to you, makes EVERY Mass celebrated by a SSPX priest... illicit?
Just seeking "clarity" on your statement.

[Traditionalist]

Current usage of the NO in the Church of course assures that it is licit, i.e. legal, provided it is presided over by a validly ordained male priest.

I disagree: the Protestant Errors that crept into the Mass at the time of St. Pius V (pray for us) would have been considered such as the N.O. is today  aka current usage but they are not licit by any means. Just because something is global, world-wide, or even just wide-spread does not mean that it is licit, legal or right. Must we forget that Vatican Council II was called for a very similar reason that Trent was called for. It was opened to smash "Bugninian" errors and/or secret Modernism but was hijacked instead by those who probably knew very well what they were doing.

What I meant is that the NO is licit insofar as it is the currently accepted, most used order of the Mass approved by Rome.  I suppose that I am using  licit in it's strictest sense, i.e. legal, accepted, permitted, et. al.

On the other hand, the legality of the Novus Ordo can indeed be called into question by virtue of its improper promulgation and the perpetual indult granted by Pope Saint Pius V declaring the [Tridentine] Mass to be forever valid.

The modernist Novus Ordo was anticipated at least as early as 1945; that the modernists knew what they were doing at the Council is without doubt--John XXIII knew Vatican II was a mistake, and on his death bed asked that the council be stopped.

[Caminus]

Padre Pio also verbally complained that they needed to stop the Council.  He knew they were up to no good.

[Aloysius]

In all deference to the authority your confessor has as pastor of your soul, I have absolutely no idea whatsoever why anyone would not go to a mass they know to be valid.  Bring ear plugs and pray the rosary for goodness sake, go ahead and read through the old rite and make a spiritual communion instead of declaring your communion with the other people there, sure, okay, I won't think any less of you.  but if it's valid, then Jesus Christ is physically made present there.  it doesn't matter how illicit it is, if it's valid then there is absolutely no excuse: Jesus is there present in the midst of all those modernists, will you not go and give Him one friendly face?

I posit that it is a mortal sin to miss mass if you have a valid mass available to you, no matter what it's degree of licity.  I hope I do not break those rules aforementioned about not getting on people for choosing to go this or that route in their traditionalism, but I must say you may just follow your confessor straight into hell by refusing to be present where Jesus Christ Himself is present because the mass is being illicitly said.  not that you'd be culpable for mortal sin, necessarily, because you are following your conscience, but because you will be starved of the graces made available NOT THROUGH THE PRAYERS OF THE LITURGY, but through the metaphysical making-present of the Sacrifice of Calvary.


for anyone who thinks the Novus Ordo is invalid, of course, it's a whole different discussion.

[obscurus]

Current usage of the NO in the Church of course assures that it is licit, i.e. legal, provided it is presided over by a validly ordained male priest.

I disagree: the Protestant Errors that crept into the Mass at the time of St. Pius V (pray for us) would have been considered such as the N.O. is today  aka current usage but they are not licit by any means. Just because something is global, world-wide, or even just wide-spread does not mean that it is licit, legal or right. Must we forget that Vatican Council II was called for a very similar reason that Trent was called for. It was opened to smash "Bugninian" errors and/or secret Modernism but was hijacked instead by those who probably knew very well what they were doing.

Can you please cite your sources? I have never read that Protestant errors had crept into the Mass. St. Pius V codified the Roman Missal because he wanted unity in the celebration of this Missal since there were so many local variants of the Roman-rite. He also did away with some minor details. The New Missal is an entirely fabricated work. There is simply no precedent within the Catholic Church.

I am sorry but the Second Vatican Council was not called for a reason similar to Trent's. Aggiornamento was the reason for V2's convening. In other words it was called to bring Church teaching "up to date" to fit in with modern sensibilities. I am not going to get into the debate as to whether it was heretical or not but here are some quotes you should meditate on:

Bishop Rudolph Graber of Regensburg had this to say:

Certainly the texts are formulated orthodoxly, in places nothing short of classically, and it will be our task for a long time to come to arm ourselves with the words of the Council to fight against its being undermined by the famous "spirit" of the Council. But since the Council was aiming primarily at a pastoral orientation and hence refrained from making dogmatically binding statements or dissociation itself, as previous Church Assemblies had done, from errors and false doctrines by means of clear anathemas, many questions now took on an opalescent ambivalence which provides a certain amount of justification for those who speak of the spirit of the Council. (Athanasius and the Church of our Times)

Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre who as you must know was an active member during the Council has said (amongst many other things):

This  is not a Council like the others, and because of this we have the right to judge it with prudence and reserve. We do not have the right to say that the crisis we are undergoing has nothing to do with the Council, that it is simply a bad interpretation of the Council. (A Bishop Speaks)

Pope Paul VI during the General Audience of Wednesday, August 6, 1975:

...differing from other Councils, this one [Vatican 2] was not directly dogmatic but doctrinal and pastoral.

- Quotes taken from Pope John's Council by Michael Davies.

I am sorry I cannot see how your statement that "It was opened to smash "Bugninian" errors and/or secret Modernism but was hijacked instead by those who probably knew very well what they were doing." can be historically accurate. Those periti who were suspect of Modernism were allowed to shine during the Council. The very theologians who were condemned in Mediator Dei by Pope Pius XII were now allowed to influence the texts at the Second Vatican Council. Again the Council was not convened to "smash" any errors and that is simply a historical fact. You draw your own conclusions. The problem in the Church is profound but in the meantime what we can do is pray, study (not in order to win an argument but to enlighten our intellects), be faithful to our duty of state, never become bitter, and strive for perfection. Only the Pope or a future Council will be able to fix this Crisis.

[Caminus]

In all deference to the authority your confessor has as pastor of your soul, I have absolutely no idea whatsoever why anyone would not go to a mass they know to be valid. Bring ear plugs and pray the rosary for goodness sake, go ahead and read through the old rite and make a spiritual communion instead of declaring your communion with the other people there, sure, okay, I won't think any less of you. but if it's valid, then Jesus Christ is physically made present there. it doesn't matter how illicit it is, if it's valid then there is absolutely no excuse: Jesus is there present in the midst of all those modernists, will you not go and give Him one friendly face?

I posit that it is a mortal sin to miss mass if you have a valid mass available to you, no matter what it's degree of licity. I hope I do not break those rules aforementioned about not getting on people for choosing to go this or that route in their traditionalism, but I must say you may just follow your confessor straight into hell by refusing to be present where Jesus Christ Himself is present because the mass is being illicitly said. not that you'd be culpable for mortal sin, necessarily, because you are following your conscience, but because you will be starved of the graces made available NOT THROUGH THE PRAYERS OF THE LITURGY, but through the metaphysical making-present of the Sacrifice of Calvary.


for anyone who thinks the Novus Ordo is invalid, of course, it's a whole different discussion.

Here is another specimen of that anti-liturgical spirit, almost taking rubrics as a hinderance to their personal piety or just simply useless or unimportant.  One wonders why the Church hasn't just had her priests stand up at the altar, utter the words of consecration and be done with it.  But in answer to your question, we do not attend because that fabricated liturgy is repugant to the will of God, it must be because it was born out of uncatholic principles.  Therefore, even though Christ may be there, He in no way would want us to attend and acquiesce something that is harmful to the faithful or injurious to His Church.  We do not agree with gradualist morality, nor can we accept the situational ethics implicit in your post above.    

[OLRansom]

Pope Paul VI during the General Audience of Wednesday, August 6, 1975:

...differing from other Councils, this one [Vatican 2] was not directly dogmatic but doctrinal and pastoral.

This is communist-style double-speak, as the Church cannot err (lead the sheep astray) in doctrine, worship, or discipline.  If she does so, she is not divine; who needs a Church of this sort?

What is doctrine, if not dogma and the things that, both directly and indirectly, pertain thereto?  It is the teaching of the Church, including dogma - but not limited strictly to dogma alone.

Paul VI's quoted statement does not alleviate the problem - it exacerbates it.

[VoxClamantis]

In all deference to the authority your confessor has as pastor of your soul, I have absolutely no idea whatsoever why anyone would not go to a mass they know to be valid. Bring ear plugs and pray the rosary for goodness sake, go ahead and read through the old rite and make a spiritual communion instead of declaring your communion with the other people there, sure, okay, I won't think any less of you. but if it's valid, then Jesus Christ is physically made present there. it doesn't matter how illicit it is, if it's valid then there is absolutely no excuse: Jesus is there present in the midst of all those modernists, will you not go and give Him one friendly face?

I posit that it is a mortal sin to miss mass if you have a valid mass available to you, no matter what it's degree of licity. I hope I do not break those rules aforementioned about not getting on people for choosing to go this or that route in their traditionalism, but I must say you may just follow your confessor straight into hell by refusing to be present where Jesus Christ Himself is present because the mass is being illicitly said. not that you'd be culpable for mortal sin, necessarily, because you are following your conscience, but because you will be starved of the graces made available NOT THROUGH THE PRAYERS OF THE LITURGY, but through the metaphysical making-present of the Sacrifice of Calvary.


for anyone who thinks the Novus Ordo is invalid, of course, it's a whole different discussion.

Here is another specimen of that anti-liturgical spirit, almost taking rubrics as a hinderance to their personal piety or just simply useless or unimportant.  One wonders why the Church hasn't just had her priests stand up at the altar, utter the words of consecration and be done with it.  But in answer to your question, we do not attend because that fabricated liturgy is repugant to the will of God, it must be because it was born out of uncatholic principles.  Therefore, even though Christ may be there, He in no way would want us to attend and acquiesce something that is harmful to the faithful or injurious to His Church.  We do not agree with gradualist morality, nor can we accept the situational ethics implicit in your post above.    

 
Watch this "we" language. Some trads do attend the Novus Ordo Mass believing it to be the obedient thing to do. You may disagree, and that's fine, but don't presume to oust them from the "trad camp," as it were.

[Aloysius]

well, IF the Church were to fall someday into an utter abyss of liturgical disaster and did have her priests do nothing but go up to the altar and utter the words of consecration, it would still be better to go there (preferably a couple hours early to make all sorts of prayers of reparation for sacrilege as well as read through the liturgical prayers yourself) and be present where Christ is on every Sunday.

I do not have an anti-liturgical spirit; I have an "in-case-of-emergency-salvage-whatever-possible" spirit

the graces are there.  the liturgy may be abysmal or illicit, but the graces are there; and you should make yourself present where the graces are present on the Lord's Day; first and foremost find a valid and licit and beautiful liturgy; if not possible, sacrifice licity if you can find a valid and beautiful liturgy; if not possible, sacrifice beauty if you can find a valid liturgy... but to not do that is to mortally sin and endanger your soul.