Is the New Mass Displeasing to God when it is Valid?

[Guardian]

Don't know how you can be sure. Personally, I cannot say one way or the other.

The word "Valid" Is really "MInimilist-speak. The fact that the TLM. represents ALL of Catholicism, That it's uplifting, it's beautiful, it's awe-inspiring, it's fed both the poor & rich Catholics, those who are saints & those who are sinners for 1650 yrs. The TLM. has lasted through MANY wars, much upheaval. Today we honor St. Patrick, who attended that very mass. I"m not settling for "valid"    

That type of "rah rah" speach is hardly a decent argument for shunning the NO altogether, especially in a situation when there is no other option. 

Thank you Sciptorium and Parmandur for providing logical, well thought out arguments.  God Bless you both.  You have much more wisdom, not to mention patience, than I do. 

[Parmandur]

All I can say is that if whoever cannot tell the difference between the Institution Narrative of the NO and the TLM's Consecration  should go get their eyes examined.

It's not that I can't tell the difference.  But the NO video you posted is clearly the Eucharist, as it follows the form and matter of the Sacrament.  The hosts so Consecrated are the Body and Blood, the Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ, offered by His priests as a Sacrifice, deserving of worship and adoration.  For Heaven's sake, the voice over in the video even makes this clear.  Maybe you need to get your ears examined?  

[Parmandur]

He is arguing a position that the Novus Ordo is illicit and that Paul VI, whom he acknowledges as pope, somehow invalidly promulgated the Novus Ordo. What a nice get out of jail card!

I have heard this argument from several a trad of good will, including a prominent Canadian friend of mine. It just doesn't hold up. Unless one thinks that Paul VI was not the pope, it is impossible to say the Novus Ordo is illict or not pleasing to God. See:

http://iteadthomam.blogspot.com/2011/02/disciplinary-infallibility-of-church.html

Indeed, this is why the NO is both licit and pleasing to God, insofar as it is the Eucharistic sacrifice promulgated by His Holy Church.  If not, then the whole Catholic religion is a filthy lie.  Thinking otherwise, logically it must end in acknowledging that there never was a Pope, at least as understood by Vatican I.

[Phillipus Iacobus]

Indeed, this is why the NO is both licit and pleasing to God, insofar as it is the Eucharistic sacrifice promulgated by His Holy Church.  If not, then the whole Catholic religion is a filthy lie.  Thinking otherwise, logically it must end in acknowledging that there never was a Pope, at least as understood by Vatican I.

The second part is invalid, illogical reasoning. The possibility of a pope falling in to heresy and losing office is possible.

[Parmandur]

Indeed, this is why the NO is both licit and pleasing to God, insofar as it is the Eucharistic sacrifice promulgated by His Holy Church.  If not, then the whole Catholic religion is a filthy lie.  Thinking otherwise, logically it must end in acknowledging that there never was a Pope, at least as understood by Vatican I.

The second part is invalid, illogical reasoning. The possibility of a pope falling in to heresy and losing office is possible.

Eh.  I don't buy it.  If I thought that way, I wouldn't stick it out with the Catholic Faith, as it clearly wouldn't be true.  Stubborn's position, though somewhat self-contradictory, still tries to preserve the appearances.  Going further destroys the Faith.

[Phillipus Iacobus]

Indeed, this is why the NO is both licit and pleasing to God, insofar as it is the Eucharistic sacrifice promulgated by His Holy Church.  If not, then the whole Catholic religion is a filthy lie.  Thinking otherwise, logically it must end in acknowledging that there never was a Pope, at least as understood by Vatican I.

The second part is invalid, illogical reasoning. The possibility of a pope falling in to heresy and losing office is possible.

Eh.  I don't buy it.  If I thought that way, I wouldn't stick it out with the Catholic Faith, as it clearly wouldn't be true.  Stubborn's position, though somewhat self-contradictory, still tries to preserve the appearances.  Going further destroys the Faith.

The Church has had many crises occur in the past. Could you imagine a 70 year absence from Rome, followed by 30 years of two and later three papal claimants? All the while, one of the worst epidemics is ravaging Europe and the two most powerful nations at the time, France and England, are fighting a war that lasts over a century?

[Parmandur]

Indeed, this is why the NO is both licit and pleasing to God, insofar as it is the Eucharistic sacrifice promulgated by His Holy Church.  If not, then the whole Catholic religion is a filthy lie.  Thinking otherwise, logically it must end in acknowledging that there never was a Pope, at least as understood by Vatican I.

The second part is invalid, illogical reasoning. The possibility of a pope falling in to heresy and losing office is possible.

Eh.  I don't buy it.  If I thought that way, I wouldn't stick it out with the Catholic Faith, as it clearly wouldn't be true.  Stubborn's position, though somewhat self-contradictory, still tries to preserve the appearances.  Going further destroys the Faith.

The Church has had many crises occur in the past. Could you imagine a 70 year absence from Rome, followed by 30 years of two and later three papal claimants? All the while, one of the worst epidemics is ravaging Europe and the two most powerful nations at the time, France and England, are fighting a war that lasts over a century?

While it's true that the Church has had crises before, they have never destroyed the Church, and never shall.

[Phillipus Iacobus]

Indeed. The Church shall stand until the end of time!

[Stubborn]

http://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Apologia/Vol_two/Chapter_40.htm

Archbishop Lefebvre
8 November 1979
The New Mass and the Pope

How often during these last ten years have I not had occasion to respond to questions concerning the weighty problems of the New Mass and the Pope. In answering them I have ever been careful to breathe with the spirit of the Church, conforming myself to her Faith as expressed in her theological principles, and to her pastoral prudence as expressed in moral theology and in the long experiences of her history.

I think I can say that my own views have not changed over the years and that they are, happily, those of the great majority of priests and faithful attached to the indefectible Tradition of the Church.

It should be clear that the few lines which follow are not an exhaustive study of these problems, The purpose, rather is to clarify our conclusions to such an extent that no one may be mistaken regarding the official position of the Society of St, Pius X.

It must be understood immediately that we do not hold to the absurd idea that if the New Mass is valid, we are then free to assist at it. The Church has always forbidden the faithful to assist at the Masses of heretics and schismatics, even when they are valid. It is clear that no one can assist at sacrilegious Masses or at Masses which endanger our faith.

Now, it is easy to show that the New Mass, as it was formulated by the officially authorized Conciliar Liturgical Commission considered together with the accompanying explanation of Mgr. Bugnini, manifests an inexplicable rapprochement with the theology and liturgy of the Protestants. The following fundamental dogmas of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass are not clearly represented and are even contradicted:

    - that the priest is the essential minister of the Rite;

    - that in the Mass there is a true sacrifice, a sacrificial action;

    - that the Victim or Host is Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself, present under the species of bread and wine, with His Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity;

    - that this Sacrifice is a propitiatory one;

    - that the Sacrifice and the Sacrament are effected by the words of the Consecration alone, and not also by those which either precede or follow them.

It is sufficient to enumerate a few of the novelties in the New Mass to be convinced of the rapprochement with the Protestants;

    - the altar replaced by a table without an altar stone;

    - Mass celebrated facing the people, concelebrated, in a loud voice, and in the vernacular;

    - the Mass divided into two distinct parts: Liturgy of the Word, and Liturgy of the Eucharist;

    - the cheapening of the sacred vessels, the use of leavened bread, distribution of Holy Communion in the hand, and by the laity, and even by women;

    - the Blessed Sacrament hidden in corners;

    - the Epistle read by women;

    - Holy Communion brought to the sick by laity.

All these innovations are authorized. One can fairly say without exaggeration that most of these Masses are sacrilegious acts which pervert the Faith by diminishing it. The de-sacralization is such that these Masses risk the loss of their supernatural character, their mysterium fidei; they would then be no more than acts of natural religion. These New Masses are not only incapable of fulfilling our Sunday obligation, but are such that we must apply to them the canonical rules which the Church customarily applies to communicatio in sacris with Orthodox Churches and Protestant sects.

Must one conclude further that all these Masses are invalid? As long as the essential conditions for validity are present (matter, form, intention, and a validly ordained priest), I do not see how one can affirm this................

[Stubborn]

All I can say is that if whoever cannot tell the difference between the Institution Narrative of the NO and the TLM's Consecration  should go get their eyes examined.

It's not that I can't tell the difference.  But the NO video you posted is clearly the Eucharist, as it follows the form and matter of the Sacrament.  The hosts so Consecrated are the Body and Blood, the Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ, offered by His priests as a Sacrifice, deserving of worship and adoration.  For Heaven's sake, the voice over in the video even makes this clear.  Maybe you need to get your ears examined?  

You've been to too many NOMs is my guess. Why do you think the SSPX was formed in the first place?