Name change?

[StrictCatholicGirl]

What if you have yet to attend Mass at 3pm on Sunday and the only Masses left in your area are Life-Teen Novus Ordo Masses? Complete with electric guitar, drums, tambourines, altar girls, communion the hand, 100 EM's, glass vessels for the Eucharst, heterodox homily, immodestly dressed teens & EM's, handholding, clapping, etc.

As I said in my last post, and to Marybonita earlier, if your conscience convicts you, stay home.... Don't go. But wouldn't it be better to travel just a little further in your car and see if there's not a NO Mass that doesn't feature the above? Or maybe attend an earlier than 3pm Mass? Wouldn't it be better to write to your local bishop? You asked earlier where McMaster would draw the line. May I ask you where you would draw the line? If your church got rid of the EMs, the drums, the handclapping, and the glass vessels (which are a violation btw), but kept the altar girls, would you stay? Yes or no? 
 
- Lisa

EDITED

[StevusMagnus]

That would leave altar girls, electric guitars, tambourines, communion in the hand, heterodox homily, immodestly dressed teens & congregation, & handholding. Plus I left out risifix, banners, & tabernacle hidden or off to the side.

No, I don't think I could attend....

Would that still fall under "conscience"?

[StrictCatholicGirl]

No, I don't think I could attend....

Would that still fall under "conscience"?

That's a question only you can answer, and you just did.
 
- Lisa

[PeterII]

The Holy Ghost will only protect the Church insofar as its clergy makes use of the means given it to ensure that protection.  No new formal doctrinal statements were made at V2, hence no infallibility.  The Council was only infallible insofar as it taught previously defined dogmas.

The First Vatican Council said something very different: (Dogmatic Constitution on the Faith (1870), DZ 1792.) “Further, by divine and Catholic faith, all those things must be believed which are contained in the written word of God and in tradition, and those which are proposed by the Church, either in a solemn pronouncement or in her ordinary and universal magisterium to be believed as divinely revealed.”
So you see that the Church is also be infallible in Her ordinary and universal magisterium not just Her Extraordinary Magisterium. Otherwise "things must be believed" which may not be infallible. So the Council was and is also infallible on all those undefined Catholic doctrines which the Church has constantly taught though has yet to define solemnly and dogmatically.

Yes, this is true, although in practical terms it did not manifest itself in every statement of Vatican II, where novelty was introduced, nor where ambiguity was present, for no one can be certain what was taught. 

[Marybonita]

But wouldn't it be better to travel just a little further in your car and see if there's not a NO Mass that doesn't feature the above?
 
Did that. It's a matter of degree: no Sister Gaia at this church but there is liturgical dance - move on - no liturgical dance at this church but the clapping and cheering is deafening - move on .... etc.

Furthermore there are many factors which can change; the priest for example, or a more liberal Bishop. In the end it's a free-for-all.

Wouldn't it be better to write to your local bishop?
 
Did that. Argued with his chancellors. Talked to the priests. In the end it's useless because they are allowed to do it.

There is something about the NO liturgy which invites or at least allows novelty since there are very few corrections made. It's better to remain at home and perform various devotions - thereby keeping the day holy - than to attend something arguably unholy.

God will provide the means to get to a traditional Mass if you have the desire. I've seen veritable miracles over the past many years while attending the Society Masses.  Trust in Him.

~In JMJ

[Arun]

Labour in prayer and penance for the Mass. Don't attend the NO under any circumstance; it's counterproductive, and the homily will probably be full of modernist propaganda. We get the SSPX Priest once a week where I live, yet the Trads still stay strong. In time, I'm sure it will grow.
I would attend a non-SSPX Tridentine Mass out of neccesity, but never the NO.

On days when there is no Tridentine Mass, even the occasional Sunday, one must sanctify the day, read from the Missal etc, and do the best one can. I would suggest not wasting time on the NO Mass tho.

[StevusMagnus]

Wouldn't it be better to write to your local bishop?
 
Did that. Argued with his chancellors. Talked to the priests. In the end it's useless because they are allowed to do it.

BINGO! The Bishop is part of the problem! He's on their side! They are all infected with Modernism and novelty. It is useless.

[Orville_B_Croft]

Wouldn't it be better to write to your local bishop?
 
Did that. Argued with his chancellors. Talked to the priests. In the end it's useless because they are allowed to do it.

BINGO! The Bishop is part of the problem! He's on their side! They are all infected with Modernism and novelty. It is useless.

Not all is lost.
Age is on their side.

[Sonoman]

Not all is lost.
Age is on their side.

Ah, but does the current winter of the Modernists' hopes really equal the proverbial "Cold Day in Hell?"

Ah, now, there's a question worth pondering!

[McMaster]

Don,

Where exactly did you state that you were referring to "comparatively reverent" NO Masses?

Post #27, page 2.

Obviously St. Pius X never [e]nvisioned the current state of affairs.

Maybe not--but he, St. Paul, and St. Thomas Aquinas have given us the principles we need in the current state of affairs. Evil must not be done that good may come [Romans 3:8, quoted in S.T. II-II, Q. 64, Art. 5, reply obj. 3]; no one should participate in any sin for any purpose, including the purpose of receiving Holy Communion. But a person who can receive daily Communion without sinning should do it--because, among other reasons, it's very helpful in avoiding sin.

We are currently living in the midst of a crisis where sacrileges abound in NO Masses. In fact I'd argue they exist in a vast majority of NO parishes in the US.

Name one or two of the most common ones, and explain how you think Catholics are unavoidably guilty of the sin of sacrilege (or any other sin) when they attend these Masses and receive Communion at them--if you really think so.

Where then do you draw the line?

You draw it between sinning and not sinning, keeping in mind that you don't participate in other people's wrong or defective actions merely by observing them.

If the priest is dressed as a clown, do you follow St. Pius X's admonition for frequent communion? What if that is the only Mass for you to attend during the week or on a given Sunday? If not, why not? You would still be receiving the body and blood of our lord (if the clown priest used the correct matter, form, and intent), right?

That's a very interesting theoretical question, though one of very little practical importance. If you'd really like to discuss it ... keeping in mind the canonical requirement that priests must wear the prescribed sacred vestments, not clown suits [1983 Code of Canon Law, Canon 929] ... what would you say? What sin would a Catholic commit by doing so? (That's not a rhetorical question; rather, it's one to be answered on the basis of faith, reason, and authoritative Catholic teaching.)

Blessings,

Don McMaster