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

[Parmandur]

Abp. Lefebvre founded the FSSPX for the formation and preservation of the traditional priesthood.

Well, that's good for a partial answer............but why did he form the SSPX and not just stay in retirement?

It's not the partial answer, it's the answer. Anyone go knows about the liturgical situation early on (the Écône rite, and so on) would be able to tell you so. Doctrine was Lefebvre's priority. This does not mean, however, that te Novus Ordo is okay, for the lex Orlando is the lex credendi.

 Aside from your answer being vague, sorry, but this is not what initially prompted him to head the SSPX.
 

You are trying to argue that Lefebvre founded the SSPX for the old Mass. He didn't. Anyone there in the early days will tell you that the SSPX used a kind of liturgical  smorgasbord. The then Fr. Dolan said in 1983:

      The answer is no. We received no appreciable liturgical training whatever at Ecône, and until September of 1976 the Mass was that of the early years of Paul VI. (Indeed, concelebration was permitted in our first statutes.) The celebrant sat on the side and listened to readings, or himself performed them at lecterns facing the people. The only reason the readings were done in Latin and not French, we were told, is that the seminary is an international one! (Interestingly enough, the Ordinances of the Society, signed by Archbishop Lefebvre and currently in force, allow for the reading of the Epistle and the Gospel in the vernacular — without reading them first in Latin.)

      It would be difficult to say what liturgy was followed at Ecône, because the rubrics were a mishmash of different elements, one priest saying Mass somewhat differently from the next. No one set of rubrics was systematically observed or taught. As a matter of fact, no rubrics were taught at all.

      The best I can say is that over the years a certain eclectic blend of rubrics developed based on the double principle of (a) what the Archbishop liked, and (b) what one did in France. These rubrics range rather freely from the Liturgy of St. Pius X to that of Paul VI in 1968. Jt is simply the "Rite of Ecône," a law unto itself.

Everything I have heard from liturgical expert friends of the Traditional stripe, SSPX Masses are really, really messy to this day.  They are not good examples of the TLM, and never have been.

[Stubborn]

 Aside from your answer being vague, sorry, but this is not what initially prompted him to head the SSPX.
 

You are trying to argue that Lefebvre founded the SSPX for the old Mass. He didn't. Anyone there in the early days will tell you that the SSPX used a kind of liturgical  smorgasbord. The then Fr. Dolan said in 1983:........................

Don't believe +Dolan. I served mass many times for the then Fr. Dolan when he was a new SSPX priest and his Mass was the same as the Masses I served for Fr. Bonfil, Fr. Post, Fr. Sanborn, Fr. Ward and the other new SSPX and Independent trad priests I served Mass for - and is still the same today - so while I could assume why he says such things, out of respect for his office, to remain purposely vague, I'll just say that the chaos of those times have much to do with what +Dolan says.

And I assure you that as a newly ordained SSPX priest trained in Econe, Fr. Ward, who at the time was a close family friend,  spoke often about Econe and the strictly traditional training that Econe offered - and Fr. Ward was ordained in  about1972, only a few years (IIRC) before +Dolan.

I've posted this before, but to give you a little and only partial history -  and a little idea of the times, this CCC  PDF file tells a little of what s small group of people including family were involved in as regards some of the beginnings of the SSPX. FWIW, in those days I knew pretty much everyone of those people and places pictured - for instance, I even know the man who is "unidentifiable" in the first picture on the upper right. I am only saying this to relate to you that there is a history behind today's SSPX that people have no idea about and never give a thought about - yet IMO, knowing why there even is an SSPX, where it came from and why - and why it still is around and growing today could help clear up much confusion amongst those are quick to support the NO and it's mass.

Far as all that goes, "Doctrine" encompasses the whole faith and as such, is not incorrect, but it is only indirectly involved behind the necessity for the formation of the SSPX  - aside from that, it is not the reason +ABL himself has published.

[Nic]

First answer my question - - Why do you think the SSPX was formed in the first place?

That doesn't matter.  It doesn't answer the question, of whether the NO is valid and licit, the Sacrifice of the Eucharist.  Marcel Lefebvre, in your recent post, has to admit as much because it is true.

"That doesn't matter" = you'll always wave both flags till it does matter.

I have no connection with the SSPX, or Lefebvre.  I think they have done as much harm to the cause of the TLM as good, perhaps more harm.  A better question might be, why was the Fraternal Society of Saint Peter formed?  Or the Institute of Christ the King, Sovereign Priest?

Ridiculous!  Without the SSPX and Arcbishop Lefebvre, the TLM wouldn't exist in the mainstream.  If you claim to be a "trad," then you have connections to them and you owe them your respect and gratitude.

Without the SSPX, the FSSP and most likely the ICK would NOT even exist.  The FSSP would definitely not exist because they were a part of the SSPX who took the bait of "Rome" and decided to compromise instead of keeping up the courageous fight.  They took the easy way out, which IMO makes them conciliar Catholics and not Traditional Catholics - they only claim the TLM as their "charism" and are chained and censored by Modernist Bishops.  Their fight for Tradition was over before it began - they are now just a tool of the conciliarist usurpers, to be wielded as the enemies within see fit - and ended also whenever they see fit.  In all reality, there is no place for the TLM in the modern, post-conciliar Church - it is a paradox - the New Order infiltration is too deep, it is too well grounded now.  The only real answer is a public split of the enemy element and the true element into two separate "churches."  Not until the Novus Ordo/conciliar mess is cleaned up will the TLM be at home once again within the "official structure" of the Church.

So you say.  But I don't buy it.  I think Tradition would have survived if either the SSPX had never been formed, or if Lefebvre hadn't crossed the line, and probably better and more mainstream.  I know SSPXers like to oh-so-humbly claim the mantle of Saint Athanasius, but frankly there are better Patristic age models of the SSPX, and they ain't positive examples.

ARCHBISHOP Lefebvre (not just "Lefebvre" - show some respect) never crossed the line - he did what he had to do for the good of the Church - it was just that he was the only one who actually had the intestinal fortitude to do it.  If you think that Tradition would have survived without him and the SSPX, you are probably right in an indirect way.  Traditional Catholicism IS Catholicism, and true Catholicism will never die - but God used Archbishop Lefebvre to ensure that it wouldn't.  The good Archbishop was a major part of God's insurance that the Church will always be - even if those who hold the ecclesiastical structure of the Church do not preach the religion that is meant to be preached there.  So yes, without Archbishop Lefebvre Tradition would have survived - BUT God would have just used Bishop X or Bishop Y to do the exact same thing as Archbishop Lefebvre did.  What I am saying is that without DOING what was done through Archbishop Lefebvre by any ecclesiastical leader, then Tradition would have surely died and the Novus Ordo mission would have fully succeeded.

This whole "neo-trad" incursion totally sickens me.  These types claim to be "trads" yet deny the courage and strong stance that even made the Traditional movement a public reality.  You lack the courage of your conviction and take the wide and easy road.  I will pray that you will open your eyes so as to see what is right in front of your face - and gain the courage to take the true road even if it is windy and narrow.  Do you think it is easy for me not to have a regular parish life at my local "Catholic" parish?  Do you think I enjoy purchasing costly gasoline to drive 4.5 hours round-trip to attend a true Catholic Mass?  Do you think I enjoy being labelled as a schismatic, a rebel, a dissenter and even a sedevacantist by former "Catholic" friends and acquaintances?  Absolutely NOT.  I suffer this things because I know what I am doing is right - even if nobody around me is doing them.  If what I am doing is wrong, then what the Catholics did in similar crises was also wrong - yet history proves that they were correct!  If I am wrong then 2+2=5 and the human element of the Church can do and teach novelty whenever they please and pass it off as "Catholicism."  If I am wrong than the Church of the first 1,930 years was also wrong.

...and there is no better example of parallels than St. Athanasisus and the Arian Crisis compared to Archbishop Lefebvre and the Modernist Crisis.  Actually, the parallels are so close that they are mind-blowing.  When we look at Catholic history in terms of ecclesiastical crisis, we have several examples of what true Catholics, often named saints afterward, behaved concerning the crisis  --  and I will tell you straight up that it is NOT what the neo-con community is doing.  St. Athanasius and the English Catholics of the 16th century were NOT neo-cons, they would rather die than give in to the heretical taint that was infecting the ecclesiastical leadership.  They would rather die than yield on one iota of Tradition and the Faith of all-time.  There was NO spirit of compromise with them concerning such things, but the neo-con community is full of compromise and utter blind obedience to error.

[JayneK]

Do you think it is easy for me not to have a regular parish life at my local "Catholic" parish?  Do you think I enjoy purchasing costly gasoline to drive 4.5 hours round-trip to attend a true Catholic Mass? 

I was thinking about this. When people who are deprived of access to the TLM share their stories, it helps me to better appreciate how much I have been blessed in being able to attend.  Thank you for helping me this way.  I prayed for you.

[Parmandur]

ARCHBISHOP Lefebvre (not just "Lefebvre" - show some respect) never crossed the line - he did what he had to do for the good of the Church - it was just that he was the only one who actually had the intestinal fortitude to do it.  If you think that Tradition would have survived without him and the SSPX, you are probably right in an indirect way.  Traditional Catholicism IS Catholicism, and true Catholicism will never die - but God used Archbishop Lefebvre to ensure that it wouldn't.  The good Archbishop was a major part of God's insurance that the Church will always be - even if those who hold the ecclesiastical structure of the Church do not preach the religion that is meant to be preached there.  So yes, without Archbishop Lefebvre Tradition would have survived - BUT God would have just used Bishop X or Bishop Y to do the exact same thing as Archbishop Lefebvre did.  What I am saying is that without DOING what was done through Archbishop Lefebvre by any ecclesiastical leader, then Tradition would have surely died and the Novus Ordo mission would have fully succeeded.

Asserting that what Lefebvre did was necessary does not make it so, no matter how often you say it to be so.  Saying that if he didn't do it, someone else would have because God decreed it necessary does not prove it so.  You are not God, you do not have a direct line to Divine Providence.  While it is true Providence allowed Lefebvre to do what he did, so too with Bugnini and his ilk.

This whole "neo-trad" incursion totally sickens me.  These types claim to be "trads" yet deny the courage and strong stance that even made the Traditional movement a public reality.  You lack the courage of your conviction and take the wide and easy road.  I will pray that you will open your eyes so as to see what is right in front of your face - and gain the courage to take the true road even if it is windy and narrow.  Do you think it is easy for me not to have a regular parish life at my local "Catholic" parish?  Do you think I enjoy purchasing costly gasoline to drive 4.5 hours round-trip to attend a true Catholic Mass?  Do you think I enjoy being labelled as a schismatic, a rebel, a dissenter and even a sedevacantist by former "Catholic" friends and acquaintances?  Absolutely NOT.  I suffer this things because I know what I am doing is right - even if nobody around me is doing them.  If what I am doing is wrong, then what the Catholics did in similar crises was also wrong - yet history proves that they were correct!  If I am wrong then 2+2=5 and the human element of the Church can do and teach novelty whenever they please and pass it off as "Catholicism."  If I am wrong than the Church of the first 1,930 years was also wrong.

On the olded part, I didn't suspect until you said so, but I haven't seen any evidence that you don't enjoy it.  It's called a martyr complex, and is a real neurosis.  I can neither rule it out or claim it of you, because I don't know you.  I only know your posts on the Internet.

...and there is no better example of parallels than St. Athanasisus and the Arian Crisis compared to Archbishop Lefebvre and the Modernist Crisis.  Actually, the parallels are so close that they are mind-blowing.  When we look at Catholic history in terms of ecclesiastical crisis, we have several examples of what true Catholics, often named saints afterward, behaved concerning the crisis  --  and I will tell you straight up that it is NOT what the neo-con community is doing.  St. Athanasius and the English Catholics of the 16th century were NOT neo-cons, they would rather die than give in to the heretical taint that was infecting the ecclesiastical leadership.  They would rather die than yield on one iota of Tradition and the Faith of all-time.  There was NO spirit of compromise with them concerning such things, but the neo-con community is full of compromise and utter blind obedience to error.

There are much better models, and I almost named them, but that would probably have been rude.

[Stubborn]

ARCHBISHOP Lefebvre (not just "Lefebvre" - show some respect) never crossed the line - he did what he had to do for the good of the Church - it was just that he was the only one who actually had the intestinal fortitude to do it.  If you think that Tradition would have survived without him and the SSPX, you are probably right in an indirect way.  Traditional Catholicism IS Catholicism, and true Catholicism will never die - but God used Archbishop Lefebvre to ensure that it wouldn't.  The good Archbishop was a major part of God's insurance that the Church will always be - even if those who hold the ecclesiastical structure of the Church do not preach the religion that is meant to be preached there.  So yes, without Archbishop Lefebvre Tradition would have survived - BUT God would have just used Bishop X or Bishop Y to do the exact same thing as Archbishop Lefebvre did.  What I am saying is that without DOING what was done through Archbishop Lefebvre by any ecclesiastical leader, then Tradition would have surely died and the Novus Ordo mission would have fully succeeded.

Asserting that what Lefebvre did was necessary does not make it so, no matter how often you say it to be so.  Saying that if he didn't do it, someone else would have because God decreed it necessary does not prove it so.  You are not God, you do not have a direct line to Divine Providence.  While it is true Providence allowed Lefebvre to do what he did, so too with Bugnini and his ilk.

Like ya gotta be God to know right from wrong - sheesh! FYI, go by what the Church has always taught and you'll never speak such foolishness about this subject.

Denying the facts because you refuse to accept them does not change reality. The fact of the matter is that +ABL was the only one to take a stand for Our Lord against compromisers like yourself and against outright enemies of the Church like Bugnini and his minions.

Unlike the surprise attack of the 60s, we are fortunate to have the benefit of hindsight to see the destruction's fruits, and to see what courage in the face of chaotic adversity is thanks to +ABL and the example he gave for us to follow. So you see, there is no need to be God to see what has befallen the Church, who Her hero's and enemies are, how to tell the difference and what one must do to persevere in the faith.

[Parmandur]

ARCHBISHOP Lefebvre (not just "Lefebvre" - show some respect) never crossed the line - he did what he had to do for the good of the Church - it was just that he was the only one who actually had the intestinal fortitude to do it.  If you think that Tradition would have survived without him and the SSPX, you are probably right in an indirect way.  Traditional Catholicism IS Catholicism, and true Catholicism will never die - but God used Archbishop Lefebvre to ensure that it wouldn't.  The good Archbishop was a major part of God's insurance that the Church will always be - even if those who hold the ecclesiastical structure of the Church do not preach the religion that is meant to be preached there.  So yes, without Archbishop Lefebvre Tradition would have survived - BUT God would have just used Bishop X or Bishop Y to do the exact same thing as Archbishop Lefebvre did.  What I am saying is that without DOING what was done through Archbishop Lefebvre by any ecclesiastical leader, then Tradition would have surely died and the Novus Ordo mission would have fully succeeded.

Asserting that what Lefebvre did was necessary does not make it so, no matter how often you say it to be so.  Saying that if he didn't do it, someone else would have because God decreed it necessary does not prove it so.  You are not God, you do not have a direct line to Divine Providence.  While it is true Providence allowed Lefebvre to do what he did, so too with Bugnini and his ilk.

Like ya gotta be God to know right from wrong - sheesh! FYI, go by what the Church has always taught and you'll never speak such foolishness about this subject.

Denying the facts because you refuse to accept them does not change reality. The fact of the matter is that +ABL was the only one to take a stand for Our Lord against compromisers like yourself and against outright enemies of the Church like Bugnini and his minions.

Unlike the surprise attack of the 60s, we are fortunate to have the benefit of hindsight to see the destruction's fruits, and to see what courage in the face of chaotic adversity is thanks to +ABL and the example he gave for us to follow. So you see, there is no need to be God to see what has befallen the Church, who Her hero's and enemies are, how to tell the difference and what one must do to persevere in the faith.

To tell right from wrong, but saying whether or not a particular action was divinely ordained, as Nic dares to do, is no mere judgment.

[Stubborn]

To tell right from wrong, but saying whether or not a particular action was divinely ordained, as Nic dares to do, is no mere judgment.

Well, I will tell you that I agree with what Nic says. I was just a kid and did not really understand what was happening till I was in my late teens - early 20s. If you can believe that there was a genuine bonified bloodless revolution complete with hysteria, chaos and massive confusion after V2, you would have to at least concede that without +ABL, God would have had to choose some other Bishop to do the job that +ABL actually did.

There was no one, I mean no one willing to "disobey" and take the helm for the salvation of souls. The things that +ABL did for Our Lord, for the preservation and promulgation of the faith against such overwhelming opposition is not something any human being could have ever hoped to accomplish without the help of God. That much is, far as I'm concerned, historical fact. 

[Parmandur]

To tell right from wrong, but saying whether or not a particular action was divinely ordained, as Nic dares to do, is no mere judgment.

Well, I will tell you that I agree with what Nic says. I was just a kid and did not really understand what was happening till I was in my late teens - early 20s. If you can believe that there was a genuine bonified bloodless revolution complete with hysteria, chaos and massive confusion after V2, you would have to at least concede that without +ABL, God would have had to choose some other Bishop to do the job that +ABL actually did.

There was no one, I mean no one willing to "disobey" and take the helm for the salvation of souls. The things that +ABL did for Our Lord, for the preservation and promulgation of the faith against such overwhelming opposition is not something any human being could have ever hoped to accomplish without the help of God. That much is, far as I'm concerned, historical fact. 

The problem is in how he ultimately ended his mission, excommunicated and adrift from the Church.  He is still excommunicated; the Pope rescinded the livign bishops setnence, but Lefebvre is still under condemnation of the highest order for *unecessary* disobedience.  You can claim it was necessary till the cows come home, but the FSSP, the Institute, and others continue to thrive after rejecting that final step.

[Stubborn]

To tell right from wrong, but saying whether or not a particular action was divinely ordained, as Nic dares to do, is no mere judgment.

Well, I will tell you that I agree with what Nic says. I was just a kid and did not really understand what was happening till I was in my late teens - early 20s. If you can believe that there was a genuine bonified bloodless revolution complete with hysteria, chaos and massive confusion after V2, you would have to at least concede that without +ABL, God would have had to choose some other Bishop to do the job that +ABL actually did.

There was no one, I mean no one willing to "disobey" and take the helm for the salvation of souls. The things that +ABL did for Our Lord, for the preservation and promulgation of the faith against such overwhelming opposition is not something any human being could have ever hoped to accomplish without the help of God. That much is, far as I'm concerned, historical fact. 

The problem is in how he ultimately ended his mission, excommunicated and adrift from the Church.  He is still excommunicated; the Pope rescinded the livign bishops setnence, but Lefebvre is still under condemnation of the highest order for *unecessary* disobedience.  You can claim it was necessary till the cows come home, but the FSSP, the Institute, and others continue to thrive after rejecting that final step.

Yes, he was excommunicated for doing the job he vowed and swore an oath to do when he himself was ordained - which, thanks to the NO, for the first time rendered him disobedient - even after performing the same ordinations "who knows" how many times over the years prior to then.

Like +Williamson said - follow truth or follow authority, once again +ABL provided the example for us that when it comes right down to it, it is not possible to follow both so long as the NO is in authority - it is truth that we are bound to follow above all else.   

Don't be so naive as to think that he would have been excommunicated if he ordained the NO way. It is tradition the NO hates - always remember that.