Universal Indult, what you said?

[OLRansom]

...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...and be present where Christ is on every Sunday.

IF she fell into such an "utter abyss of liturgical disaster", she would fail in her mission.  Such an occurrence is impossible, for she is divinely established and governed.  All theological opinions I have ever heard of (St. Thomas Aquinas, for example) say that the mere words of consecration do not suffice.  They must be uttered within the framework of a sacrificial rite.

...[T]he liturgy may be abysmal or illicit, but the graces are there.

It is impossible for a liturgy offered within the one, true fold of Holy Church to be "abysmal or illicit".

P. Hermann, Institutiones Theologiae Dogmaticae            (4th ed., Rome: Della Pace, 1908), vol. 1, p. 258:

"The Church is infallible in her general discipline. By the            term general discipline is understood the laws and practices which belong            to the external ordering of the whole Church. Such things would            be those which concern either external worship, such as liturgy            and rubrics, or the administration of the sacraments. . . .

           "If she [the Church] were able to prescribe or command or tolerate            in her discipline something against faith and morals, or something which            tended to the detriment of the Church or to the harm of the faithful,            she would turn away from her divine mission, which would be impossible."

[aquinas138]

It is a mortal sin not to go to a valid mass on Sunday if you are able; if nothing else is available, that includes an Eastern Orthodox Divine Liturgy.  That doesn't mean take communion or support their schism or their illicit actions, that means go to where the valid mass is

This is not true. We're not commanded to "go to a valid liturgical celebration and get a quantity of grace." We are commanded to go to a Catholic Mass, if it is available. If the only church around is a schismatic church of, for example, the Eastern Orthodox, you should absolutely not go. I am sorry to sound harsh, but advocating the attendence at a schismatic Mass is a very bad thing. The martyrs in England suffered horrendous deaths on the scaffold rather than attend, even passively, the new Protestant worship. (And that Protestant worship was, at that time, "valid," because the priests were valid priests, and the Anglican liturgy has the potential to be valid if the priest possesses the orders necessary for validity.) Therefore, according to your logic, they should have foregone the crown of martyrdom and instead visited their very plentiful local schismatic church, "just for the graces."

Bravo, DominusTecum!  Validity is NOT the only consideration; liceity is supremely important, as participation in schismatic worship is also mortally sinful.  There have been cases where Catholics were given permission to seek sacraments from Orthodox ministers in extraordinary circumstances; whether this was a wise course of action is certainly debatable.  Nevertheless, this is not and never was a blanket permission.  

If you cannot attend a valid and licit Roman Catholic Mass on Sunday, you are dispensed from the obligation.  The Church does not bind you to the impossible.  Stay home and stay out of schismatic churches; read your missal, or a breviary, or say a Rosary, and make a spiritual communion!

[Caminus]

On the other hand, regarding a rite born of liberals and modernists, predicated upon false theology and ecumenism, which destroys the supernatural foundations of Catholicism, it can be safely inferred that this does not accord with the will of God. 

There's certainly enough wiggle room there to drive a tractor trailer on through.

I see no wiggle room; the syllogism is sound.  What you mean, I think, is that you disagree with one of my premises.

[Caminus]

...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...and be present where Christ is on every Sunday.

IF she fell into such an "utter abyss of liturgical disaster", she would fail in her mission.  Such an occurrence is impossible, for she is divinely established and governed.  All theological opinions I have ever heard of (St. Thomas Aquinas, for example) say that the mere words of consecration do not suffice.  They must be uttered within the framework of a sacrificial rite.

I deny the consequent.  Nothing in the divine consitution of the Church prevents large quantities of bishops, priests and laity from falling into error and corruption, this includes liturgical disaster.  The empirical evidence also mitigates agains this assertion, namely our senses tell us that we are in the presence of liturgical disaster, but we cannot infer from this that the Church has failed in her mission absolutely speaking.

It is impossible for a liturgy offered within the one, true fold of Holy Church to be "abysmal or illicit".

P. Hermann, Institutiones Theologiae Dogmaticae (4th ed., Rome: Della Pace, 1908), vol. 1, p. 258:

"The Church is infallible in her general discipline. By the term general discipline is understood the laws and practices which belong to the external ordering of the whole Church. Such things would be those which concern either external worship, such as liturgy and rubrics, or the administration of the sacraments. . . .

"If she [the Church] were able to prescribe or command or tolerate in her discipline something against faith and morals, or something which tended to the detriment of the Church or to the harm of the faithful, she would turn away from her divine mission, which would be impossible."

This is the same line of reasoning neo-catholics and sedevacantists make, but it is false.  Even if I granted your interpretation of the above quote, it still remains a pious theological opinion.  What this means is that we do not have any real certainty that the above proposition, as understood by yourself, is true.  It's opposite may be true as well, namely that the Church could theoretically promulgate a rite that is deficient and thus harmful in some way. 

But as to your interpretation, I deny for you misunderstand the nature of the said infallibility.  This is not an active, but rather passive infallibility, which presupposes the cooperation of prelates within the scope of ecclesiastical tradition and general disciplines, not particular rubrics or expressions of the general discipline.  The general body of the faithful participate in a passive infallibility insofar as they acquiesce and submit to tradition, but nothing says that, regarding either category, prelates and faithful cannot remove themselves from this gift of fidelity, for the will remains intact.  It is because the Consilium for instance, wanted to experiment with the liturgy that we have the problem of today -- they chose to ignore tradition.  Not to mention the defect of the promulgation of the new rites, which implies that this fabrication of rites does not come from the Church at all, strictly speaking, but from errant men within the Church. 

We have a unique problem today -- a theory and practice super-added to the true life and activity of the Church, thus masking and obscuring the true Catholic faith.  I hope this helps explain why we can really denounce the new liturgy as a break with tradition and harmful to the general faithful, whilst still holding that the Church has not really failed and that She remains today, though wounded to some extent.       

[OLRansom]

We have a unique problem today -- a theory and practice super-added to the true life and activity of the Church, thus masking and obscuring the true Catholic faith.

We most certainly do.  Are you saying there is some kind of indefinable and indescribably nasty growth upon the Mystical Body?  Is that it?  Maybe we should call 'Toe Doc' to the rescue after all?

How does this jive with the fact that the Spouse of Christ was, is, and always will be immaculate?  

Has something truly heinous been "super-added" to this Immaculate Bride?   If so, is this something alien and native, both at the same time?

Or, in line with the masking idea, are you saying she is presently wearing a veil of, say, diseased animal skin, perhaps covered with putrid refuse?

I hope this helps explain why we can really denounce the new liturgy as a break with tradition and harmful to the general faithful, whilst still holding that the Church has not really failed and that She remains today, though wounded to some extent.

I already know why we can denounce the 'new liturgy', and that Holy Church, being divine, has not failed - nor can she ever do so.

[OLRansom]

...Not to mention the defect of the promulgation of the new rites...

All those learned clerics, with oodles and oodles of titles, degrees, authority, etc., could not even promulgate something correctly?  Are they, learned men that they are, totally unaware of this, even after 40 years, whilst 'armchair theologians' see it for what it is?

You should be on the next plane to Rome so you can straighten them out!

[Traditionalist]

...Not to mention the defect of the promulgation of the new rites...

All those learned clerics, with oodles and oodles of titles, degrees, authority, etc., could not even promulgate something correctly?  Are they, learned men that they are, totally unaware of this, even after 40 years, whilst 'armchair theologians' see it for what it is?

You should be on the next plane to Rome so you can straighten them out!

It is quite true that the liturgical reforms, especially as regards the new Mass, were improperly promulgated, and the Roman Curia knew this at the time, being opposed to th majority of the reforms.  But Paul VI introduced the new Mass anyway, after conferring with the Protestants to see if it was acceptable to their Protestant sensibilities.

[OLRansom]

It is quite true that the liturgical reforms, especially as regards the new Mass, were improperly promulgated, and the Roman Curia knew this at the time, being opposed to th majority of the reforms.

While I am certain you are a man of your word, neither your word nor that of the other gentleman suffices in such a matter.

In the 30 April 1969 Acta Apostolicae Sedis we find the Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum, bearing Paul VI’s signature. Its heading:

“Apostolic Constitution. By which the Roman Missal, restored by decree of Vatican Ecumenical Council II, is promulgated. Paul, Bishop, Servant of the Servants of God, for an Everlasting Memorial.”

[Aloysius]

I believe I stand slightly corrected in that one is dispensed from the obligation when a valid and licit mass is unavailable; but I would argue that that only extends to that the mass is licit according to the law of the Church and, even if it has personal innovations which are illicit, one is not dispensed.  ie, I'm not dispensed from the obligation on Sundays just because the only mass I can get to over-uses Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion.  the whole mass's basis for being celebrated must be licit, ie it must be authorized to be said by apostolic authority, for there to be an obligation in place; but abuses within the mass do not mean one is dispensed from their Sunday obligation.

meaning that it would then all come down, as it always does, to whether there is something inherently illicit about the Novus Ordo Missae; I do not think there is, but do not intend to pursue the matter here.  I still think you put yourself in danger of mortal sin, but your position is much more tenable than I originally perceived it to be.

[lefebvre_fan]

I guess what all this means is that "you're damned if you do, and you're damned if you don't" (literally...).