1st Sunday in Advent, 2019: 50th Anniversary of the Imposition of the New Mass… Is Anybody Celebrating?

From Rorate Caeli

Fifty years ago this weekend, the Catholic Church debuted a new version of Mass following reforms made by the 1960s’ Second Vatican Council. From the use of vernacular language instead of Latin, to the priest facing the people instead of the tabernacle, the changes became mandatory at all parishes on the First Sunday of Advent 1969.

There was high-level resistance to replacing the traditional Latin Mass with a new version. Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani, who headed and served for 32 years in the highest doctrinal office at the Vatican (later succeeded by Joseph Ratzinger, who would become Pope Benedict XVI), wrote an intervention in 1969 entitled “Short Critical Study on the New Order of Mass.” In it, he, joined by another cardinal and several liturgical experts, warned “fresh changes in the liturgy could lead to nothing but complete bewilderment on the part of the faithful.” [link to Ottaviani Intervention added – Editor CT]

The Pope at the time was convinced radical liturgical innovation was needed. Addressing his Mass alterations in November 1969, Pope Paul VI stated: “The results expected, or rather desired, are that the faithful will participate in the liturgical mystery with more understanding, in a more practical, a more enjoyable and a more sanctifying way.”

Pope Paul VI with the six Protestant Ministers who actively contributed to the creation of the new Mass…


The results were the opposite. Since the 1960s, Mass attendance has plummeted, from around 70% of U.S. Catholics every Sunday and Holy Day

before the liturgical changes, to 21% of U.S. Catholics currently attending weekly Mass. In other countries, including much of Western Europe, the number can be in the single digits.

But after five decades of experiments and decline, there is some growth to be observed within the Catholic Church. Ironically, it is with traditionalists joining the priesthood, entering convents and attending parishes that offer the very Latin Mass that was replaced 50 years ago.  

One such society of clergy, the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter, has seen growth even in the otherwise turbulent past year, including a doubling of

attendance at its Los Angeles parish, with new churches being established each year that quickly fill up with hundreds of families attending the old Mass. Its seminaries, completely full, often turn away applicants — a challenge shared by almost no diocese or religious order in 2019.

Interestingly, this growth in tradition — particularly among young Catholics — has occurred while Pope Francis has moved in the completely opposite direction during his nearly seven years in Rome. The Jesuit pope has chastised traditionally minded Catholics numerous times, including saying: “I always try to understand what is behind those individuals who are too young to have lived the pre-Conciliar liturgy, and who want it nonetheless.

“I have at times found myself in front of people who are too rigid, an attitude of rigidity. And I ask myself: how come so much rigidity? You dig, you dig, this rigidity always hides something: insecurity, at times perhaps something else.” This was said by the same Francis who, when asked about homosexual priests, replied “Who am I to judge?”

The resurgence of the traditional Latin Mass started before Francis, but has seen unprecedented growth during his papacy, a counterrevolution of sorts that some (both admirably and critically) call an alternative Francis effect. Even bishops and priests who were not ordinarily interested in the traditional Latin Mass have been much more generous and vocal in offering additional such liturgies. Two distinct wings of the Catholic Church have emerged. Often, the new versus the old Mass is a defining characteristic of the opposing coalitions.

The past 50 years have not been good ones for the Catholic Church. Pope Benedict saw this when he wrote, of the new form of Mass, “we abandoned the organic, living process of growth and development over centuries, and replaced it — as in a manufacturing process — with a fabrication, a banal on-the-spot product.”

How the hierarchy of the Church deals with “those individuals who are too young to have lived the pre-Conciliar liturgy, and who want it nonetheless” is a question they have not yet begun to answer.  Source – Rorate Caeli

Comment: 

We’d dearly love to hear from those of you who are still attending the new Mass, despite the manifest evidence that it cannot possibly be pleasing to God.  Those involved in creating this new Mass made clear that their aim was to remove everything that would be an obstacle to Protestants (like, for example, the very idea that the Mass is a re-presentation of the Sacrifice of Calvary). Having made the Mass palatable to Protestants, then, nobody should be surprised at the prospect of making  it pleasing to pagans as well, by including the pagan rituals dear to the indigenous population in the Amazon region. What’s the bet that you will see the fruits of this latest blasphemy in a parish near you, Scotland, England, Wales, Ireland, USA – you name it – before you’ve had time to Google “Amazon Synod”… 

On this terrible anniversary, the book Open Letter to Confused Catholics, written by Archbishop Lefebvre, one of the few prelates at the Second Vatican  Council who acted to protect the traditional Mass, is well worth reading. Events have shown his analysis to be truly prophetic and it is to this Archbishop that we owe the growth of the movement to restore the ancient Mass and Faith.  Click on the image to reach an online copy which you really ought to add to your “must-read” list immediately, if not sooner 😀 

Finally… well… is anybody celebrating the anniversary of the imposition of the new Mass?  If so, we’re jes dyin’ to hear from you…  

61 responses

  1. I had to attend it due to physical disability and inability to go far away. I have not been to Mass for six weeks now because I reached an apex of sorts. Celebrating with tears! The music, the women on the altar … some with those tight pants and low cuts and my self consciousness about wearing my veil , sitting in the front row directly in front of the priest as I have to sit in the handicap seats. And communion! They can’t seem to get it right giving communion on the tongue. I remember the first Novus Ordo. It was like a dream. Not a good dream. Unreal. It was in the school auditorium on the stage. They actually had guitars at my first Novus Ordo … the first ever when Pope Paul VI declared it legal. Now there’s a problem of all problems! There’s no doubt that particles of the host fall on to the floor and the rug. It occurred to me just six weeks ago that I could never step into the church again. Sad ending! Poor God! His power will soon be seen! Christus Vincit! Christus regnat! Christus imperat!

    • Mary Anne,

      It is very painful for any Catholic to conclude that they cannot attend weekly Mass – the “Sunday obligation” habit is deeply ingrained in us from the earliest days.

      Yet, once we become clear in our minds that it is a false obedience to do something which is not pleasing to God, then it is easier to see why – if we cannot get to the traditional Latin Mass – we will please God more by praying the rosary, reading our catechism and other spiritual reading (lives of saints perhaps), and, if possible, following the Mass using a missal; Our Lord has said, in private revelations to various saints, that he is pleased with Spiritual Communions when we cannot – for whatever reason – receive a Sacramental Communion.

      Here is a link to a very useful article on the subject
      http://archives.sspx.org/SSPX_FAQs/q5_novus_ordo_missae.htm

      And here is a link to a previous blog discussion, in which, if you scroll down, you will see that I reproduce a letter from the Vatican, pointing out that the new Mass is licit only in a very limited way…
      https://catholictruthblog.com/2013/09/16/must-catholics-attend-the-new-mass/

      Prior to the ecumenical madness, Catholics were prohibited from attending Protestant services (exceptions could be made for wedding and funerals) because that would possibly endanger the Faith and displease God. Now that the Mass has been changed for the express purpose of making it acceptable to Protestants, the logic has to be that it cannot command obedience from the faithful.

      So, hang on in there! I think (sincerely hope) that the above links will help to confirm your decision.

      • Thank you so much for your supportive comment. I will study the links. I do the Little Office of the Blessed Virgin Mary and have the St. Andrew Missal. Last Sunday I used it to go through the whole Mass and found peace. I have empathy for the parish priests who struggle so. The thought of stepping on a particle of the Host horrified me. It alone should be enough for anyone. Thanks again. God Bless you in your work. I am sorry to hear about your Mother. You were good to take care of her so well…

  2. Believe it or not, the likes of Monsignor Loftus and other modernists will be celebrating, they think the new Mass is the best thing since sliced bread. They blame the lapsation on “secular society”.

    Mary Anne, I think you are to be commended for abandoning it six weeks ago and I hope you don’t return. It’s true what you say about the novus ordo priests not knowing how to give Communion on the tongue – I’ve experienced that loads of times at novus ordo Masses but never at the traditional Mass where they know what they are doing, how to place the Host downward on the tongue instead of throwing the Blessed Sacrament onto the tongue.

    I think you’re right that God will act soon. This chaos can’t go on much longer.

    • Laura,

      Yes, you are right. The fact that the usual suspects, the notorious dissenters who make clear their hatred for the traditional Mass and Faith, will, indeed, celebrate the 50th anniversary of the imposition of the new Mass, should give any thinking person pause for thought.

  3. Where we live there is no option to attend anything but a Novus Ordo Mass so we looked around and found a Benedictine Parish where the music is mostly plainchant, the sermons are good, and the liturgy is performed with great reverence. No guitars!
    Now as far as I understand it, though we may very much dislike the new Mass it is still a valid Mass and therefore the Holy Eucharist is also valid. I do not think that taking it upon ourselves to replace the serious obligation to attend Mass by saying private prayers at home is at all permissible. I just cannot imagine going for weeks without receiving Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament. That is disobedience to me.

    • I agree with Elizabeth but I can’t say I’m surprised, after everything I’ve read on here over the last few days (the Pope being denounced as an apostate and an anti-Pope, alongside savage attacks on Catholic Education which would make the worst Anti-Catholic and the denunciation of Scottish Catholics Schools etc…)

      I cannot say I’m remotely shocked to now read that the Mass is invalid. This for example, is without authority and very dangerous indeed –

      “once we become clear in our minds that it is a false obedience to do something which is not pleasing to God, then it is easier to see why – if we cannot get to the traditional Latin Mass – we will please God more by praying the rosary, reading our catechism and other spiritual reading”.

      I sincerely hope all those choosing to attend and speaking at the upcoming Catholic Truth Scotland conference fully appreciate the highly irregular standing and true nature of this organisation.

      • Sorry but you’ve certainly got the wrong end of the Stick. I take it that you yourself are a Catholic if not why would you be on here. But to let Francis run rough shod over My Faith
        ( Not His) is not on. As far as Catholic Schools are concerned in Scotland anyhow there is a problem if you cannot see that then your blind to The Faith. No one is saying that the New Mass is not Valid, and may be IF Like me you attended a Latin Mass you would see the Difference in Reverence, especially in receiving the Eucharist Kneeling down. After all We as Catholics believe that we’re receiving the Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ untouched by Human Hands except for The Priest. As for Francis if you believe that he is a Catholic your entitled to your opinion. Certainly there is no Doubt that the Man is a Marxist. And am sure that at least we can agree that one cannot be a Marxist and a Catholic at the same time.

        • Well no, the Pope is clearly not a Marxist, since Marxism is often communistic and totalitarian and has no spiritual dimension, being ultimately materialistic and atheistic in its philosophy.
          [Editor: er… you don’t think that description fits Papa Francis? He would be annoyed to know that…]

          In an economic sense the Pope may well be leftwing and socialistic but so what? A living wage, decent welfare state, healthcare system, schools, public services etc…all good.
          [Editor: creating a brave new world is not exactly on the Pope’s job description. Oh, and it is Catholic teaching that it is not possible to be a true Socialist and a Catholic – here’s a very good summary of the Popes’ traditional teaching on this…
          https://taylormarshall.com/2017/09/can-christian-socialist-popes-say-no.html ]

          In his essay, “Europe and Its Discontents,” Pope Benedict XVI wrote: “In many respects, democratic socialism was and is close to Catholic social doctrine and has in any case made a remarkable contribution to the formation of a social consciousness.”
          [Editor: And Benedict also said that it was OK for Prostitutes to use condoms. You need to stretch back in Tradition to be certain of authentic Christian teaching. Don’t rely on the recent modernist popes – always check, as St Vincent Lerins, Father of the Church, said, to discover what all Christians have always believed, everywhere, and at all times. Not just since 1965. ]

          • Oh, and did you not know that the UN Charter was written by Communists, and that the UN is a Communist front? Apparently not – but Pope Francis has repeatedly surrendered the Church to this evil organization and its “sustainable development” goals.

            “…the great UN Charter, so reverentially extolled by all internationalists, is a purely Marxist-Leninist blueprint. But you needn’t take our word for it; that’s the assessment of former top Communist Party member Joseph Z. Kornfeder.

            In his sworn testimony before Congress in 1955, 10 years after the founding of the UN, Mr. Kornfeder stated:

            ‘I need not be a member of the United Nations Secretariat to know that the UN “blueprint” is a Communist one. I was at the Moscow headquarters of the world Communist party for nearly three years and was acquainted with most of the top leaders…. I went to their colleges; I learned their pattern of operations, and if I see that pattern in effect anywhere, I can recognize it….

            From the point of view of its master designers meeting at Dumbarton Oaks and Bretton Woods, and which included such masterful agents as Alger Hiss, Harry Dexter White, Lauchlin Currie, and others, the UN was, and is, not a failure. They and the Kremlin masterminds behind them never intended the UN as a peace-keeping organization. What they had in mind was a fancy and colossal Trojan horse…. Its [the UN’s] internal setup, Communist designed, is a pattern for sociological conquest; a pattern aimed to serve the purpose of Communist penetration of the West. It is ingenious and deceptive.’

            Kornfeder’s evaluation of the UN is backed up by no less an authority than former UN Secretary-General U Thant. Mr. Thant was a Marxist, winner of the Soviet Union’s Lenin Peace Prize.

            “Lenin was a man with a mind of great clarity and incisiveness,” Thant said, “and his ideas have had a profound influence on the course of contemporary history.”

            The Burmese Marxist continued:

            “[Lenin’s] ideals of peace and peaceful coexistence among states have won widespread international acceptance and they are in line with the aims of the U.N. Charter.”

            https://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/un_exposed/un_exposed04.htm

          • Editor,
            I am not sure quoting the awful Dr Taylor Marshall represents ‘a stretch back into tradition’. Of course he would hold a very pro-market position, especially since his entire business model is based on the pursuit of profit.
            Editor: I posted Dr Marshall’s article because it contained various links to the papal encyclicals on the subject, which I see you dismiss anyway.

            Taylor Marshall, Tim Gordon, Zuhlsdorf, Voris etc. all have numerous books, subscriptions, podcasts. mickey mouse online college certificates and various other tat to peddle, from coffee mugs to cheap caps and t-shirts. Indeed, a liberal Pope is great for business!
            Editor: without evidence, I am dismissing your allegations of “mickey mouse online certificates” – what about your qualifications, if any? Frankly, no offence intended, but you’re not coming across as the most independent-minded intellectual in the land. Any land.

            Marshall’s very crude cut and paste effort from various Papal Encyclicals posted here, is deeply unhelpful and inaccurate.
            Editor: I have a feeling that if there were anything in any of those encyclicals which supported Socialism, you’d have quoted it. The Church’s teaching is clear. Go and read the encyclicals right through and come back with any “cut and paste” job to show us that it is permissible/possible for a Catholic to be a true Socialist. Not just a Labour voter (once they ditch their pro-abortion policies). The Church permits us to hold views on the “Capitalist” side and “Labour” side but we cannot be full-blown Socialists. If you can prove otherwise from any encyclical written by a pre-Vatican II pope, go ahead – you know it makes sense.

            For example, if you watch these folks numerous videos, you’ll notice that they consistently describe the likes of Jacques Maritain as socialists when they are in actual fact Christian Democrats. The same with Catholic Action and De Gasperi.
            Editor: I don’t have the time (or interest) in discussing individual philosophers. I included the Taylor Marshall article purely on the basis that it seemed to have gathered the various papal encyclicals on the subject in one place.

            They have no grasp of Europe or the social market and often come at these economics questions from a deeply biased US perspective. Rerum Novarum for example, is a document which is principally concerned with the approval of labour unions.
            Editor: Goodness, what a narrow reading of Rerum Novarum. No wonder you didn’t like Dr Taylor Marshall’s analysis of that encyclical! It is about the relationship between worker and employer, yes, but much more – state interference in the family etc.

            Editor, I assume that during your illustrious teaching career (In state funded schools paid for through taxation, yes?) you did not chose to politely decline the improvements in your pay and conditions secured for you by your Teaching Union? I assume you did not chose to work for free on Saturdays? This kind of collective bargaining is a form of socialism no matter how we chose to dress it up.
            Editor: don’t talk to me about unions. I could write a book on the subject. Again, though, you seem to be unable to see the distinction between the rights of workers, dealt with in Rerum Novarum and true Socialism. Pity, but keep working at it. You’ll get there.

            Editor: Now, I just do not have the time to respond to each and every post on the blog, and I certainly don’t have the time to answer, personally, those – like yours – which are placed in moderation for whatever reason. For the foreseeable future, I will be away from my computer so anything you post from now on will remain there until I see it and have some time to respond. I honestly do not think this blog will benefit you. It is intended for “informed Catholics” – which means, at least, those who recognise that a pope who publicly prays before a statue of a pagan “goddess” and who rebukes a young man who removed pagan statues from the Vatican and various surrounding churches, is a tad problematic. You are not there yet, so I suggest you read this blog if you wish, of course, but don’t bother to comment. With all due respect, you really do not have anything worthwhile to teach us.

            God bless you.

            • Dear Editor,
              Sadly, it is not I who misunderstands the distinction between the rights of workers, dealt with in Rerum Novarum and what you describe as ‘true Socialism’ as I am not advocating for Communism or Leninism etc..

              Please remember, the suggestion being made here is that Pope Francis is a Marxist despite the fact that he appears to espouse mainline Catholic Social Teaching which includes …a living wage, decent welfare state, healthcare system, schools, public services etc…

              Can you please provide one unambiguous quotation which conclusively proves that Pope Francis is unequivocally Marxist in his outlook? Just one single quotations?

              With regards to – ” a pope who publicly prays before a statue of a pagan “goddess” and who rebukes a young man who removed pagan statues from the Vatican”.

              While I am not Scottish and nor do I live in Scotland, I have noticed that none of your own fellow Scottish Catholics believe any of the trash being written about the Pachamama or the Amazon Synod.

              For example, Justice and Peace Scotland is approved by the Bishops Conference so I guess that even your Bishops must agree with this very insightful reflection on the whole debacle https://www.justiceandpeacescotland.org.uk/Blog/itemid/2947/amid/676/symbols-an-exploration-by-ross-ahlfeld

              • One thing at a time: regarding Pope Francis being a Marxist,
                you seem to be missing, or avoiding, the obvious: if Pope Francis were to come out of the closet, as it were, and overtly declare himself to be a Marxist, there would be outrage throughout the Church (and hopefully some appropriate action finally taken against him by the hierarchy).

                But Francis is too clever and devious for that, as he has demonstrated throughout the dark years of his pontificate. I’ve already posted about the true Marxist/Communist nature of the UN. I follow that up with links to two Francis quotes, the first calling for obedience to the UN as the appropriate international court, the second calling for a “supranational, legally constituted body” to enforce United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals and implement “climate change” policies.

                1. “I would like to repeat the doctrine [sic] of the Church , that international organizations, when we understand we give them the ability to judge internationally. We think for example to the international court of AJA, and many times also the United Nations, when they speak. If we are a humanity we should obey. It is true that things do not always seem right for all humanity, they are right for our pockets, but you should obey international institutions, the United Nations was created for this, the international courts were created [for this]. Because when there is an internal flight between countries it should be resolved as civilized brothers.”

                https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/full-text-of-pope-francis-in-flight-press-conference-from-madagascar-82402

                2. https://catholiccitizens.org/news/86646/pope-francis-calls-for-new-supranational-authorities-to-enforce-un-goals/

                So you have two choices: either Francis is a Marxist covertly obeying the agenda (“sustainable development”) of his master, while concealing his true beliefs under a thin veil of liberal Catholicism (which is not Catholicism at all), or he is a useful idiot being deceived by his advisers and associates, who assure him that he must seek out the likes of Jeffrey Sachs and his fellow travelers. Which is it?

              • Dale,

                RCA Victor has “gotcha” on the Marxism question, which is also well covered in this One Peter Five article
                https://onepeterfive.com/pope-communists-think-like-christians/

                I looked at your link to the Justice & Peace site and it is a nonsense to claim that it is evidence that we’ve always allowed images of false gods in Catholic churches. A Celtic cross (for starters, I’ve never seen one in any Catholic church in Scotland) but it is just a version of the Cross of Christ so that’s hardly breaking the First Commandment. I’ve seen crucifixes with flowers on them – flowers pre-date Christianity so does that mean it’s a pagan idol ? I don’t think so.

                It is worrying enough that Catholic schools are doing such a bad job, but for someone not to know the difference between a pagan symbol and a pope publicly praying before that pagan symbol – which is an image of a “goddess”, is very concerning.

                Lifesitenews reported at the time that a grandson of a former witch doctor from the Amazon was present at the prayer / worship meeting in the Vatican gardens and he confirmed that the Pope had attended a pagan ritual, and he was shocked, rightly so.

                I have a question for you. Why are you, supposedly an informed Catholic, so keen to defend the Pope even in such an obvious breaking of the First Commandment?

          • I’d like to know what you are doing here. In your first post, you expressed your disapproval of our treatment of the Pope, the new Mass and Catholic schools in Scotland, as the basis for attempting to discredit this blog and discourage those who plan to attend the upcoming CT conference. In other words, you portrayed yourself as a Catholic, gravely concerned about what you found here (although, as I’ve already pointed out, what you claim to have found doesn’t, in fact, exist). Are you a Catholic?

      • Have you really read this blog “over the past few days,” or did you just read a handful of words and jump to predetermined, incorrect conclusions? For example:

        1. No one here has ever called Francis an anti-Pope.
        2. We have indeed described him as an apostate, but not to denounce him. In fact, this label is delivered with great sorrow and bitterness. And who but an apostate would denounce, as a recurring theme of his pontificate, faithful Catholics and faithful clergy? Have a look at these quotes, direct from his mouth:

        http://popefrancisbookofinsults.blogspot.com/

        3. No here has stated that the Novus Ordo is invalid. Given the heterodox nature of the rite, in combination with the typical (and encouraged) “creativity” of Novus Ordo priests, however, the question of validity cannot be dismissed.

        4. Since when is telling the truth about the state of “Catholic” schools “savage”?

        You leave the impression that you are someone who does not like to hear the truth, so you stop your ears and attack the messenger. You remind me of the fate of St. Stephen, the Protomartyr.

        • RCA Victor,

          Two great posts – spot on, each time.

          You have assessed Dale perfectly. He is not interested in the truth, just wants to attack us. Hatred of the “old Faith”, goes hand in hand with hatred of those, like our humble selves, who seek to defend and promote it.

          As for the question of validity – that’s not the issue. Monsignor Klaus Gamber, the well known and respected liturgist dealt with this in his hugely important book, The Reform of the Roman Liturgy… (Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger wrote the Preface to it in the French edition, where he described the New Mass as a “fabricated, banal, on-the-spot production”).

          Monsignor Gamber said in the above work that while it would not be right to say that the new Mass was, per se, always invalid, there is undoubtedly the danger that more and more Masses are/will be invalid.

          In any case, the key question isn’t about validity but about true worship. Throughout the Old Testament we find a primary concern, revealed by God, is the central importance of true worship.

          • Editor,

            I agree about the real issue. If I can find it, there’s a very interesting section from Martin Mosbach, in his book “The Heresy of Formlessness,” which exposes “validity” as a distraction.

    • If you think validity is all that matters, then that’s fine. I always found it disconcerting at the new Mass to find the priest looking at me during the consecration (and I’m no beauty, honest!) but they do seem to find it difficult to concentrate, and no wonder, they are facing an audience.

      Even so, I had to presume that they said the proper words of consecration and used the proper matter, which is all that is required for validity.

      That seems a minimum requirement and if I am not very comfortable with it, I wonder how God feels about it?

    • Elizabeth,

      This five minute video clip, a short talk by a Dominican priest answering the question of attending a “reverent” novus ordo Mass, might help clarify the issues for you.

        • It is now here and I have watched it. I’m afraid that for me the choice between staying at home and saying prayers or going to church to receive Our Blessed Lord is still not a choice that I could accept with a clear conscience.

          • Elizabeth,

            I am amazed that even a pope who has publicly prayed to a false god (before a statue of a pagan goddess) and so broken the First Commandment, doesn’t get Catholics looking from ground zero at what has happened in the Church, and how we got here. The new Mass is the answer to how we got here, yet (with respect) you would still prefer to attend it rather than offer prayers and a spiritual Communion which we know are pleasing to God. I sympathise with the dilemma up to a point but that idolatry in the Vatican, was the last straw for me.

            • Margaret Mary, I absolutely agree that the scandalous pachamama event was abhorrent together with most of what comes out of the Vatican these days. But I still cling on to the tremendous graces that are given to us through Holy Communion. “Lord to whom should we go?” asked Peter in the Gospel. When Our Lord instituted the Blessed Sacrament he knew the risks of doing so, lack of faith, irreverence, even blasphemy, but in his great love for us he still offers Himself as a daily sacrifice and food for our souls. If I cannot receive Him through Ill health for example, then a spiritual Communion is the best I can do but it can never ever be the same as receiving Him, Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity in the Eucharist. I think to cut ourselves off from such inestimable grace deliberately, no matter how high flown our motives, has to be a mistake at best and even perhaps the result of pride in some cases.

          • Elizabeth,

            I think (hope!) that this article by Fr Nicholas Gruner, RIP, on the subject of true and false obedience, might help to clarify the issues for you.
            https://archive.fatima.org/crusader/cr119/cr119pg35.pdf

            I would not wish to attack any decision made in true conscience, but as we all know, to command our obedience, our conscience must dictate, it’s not just about a feeling. The person who says that his/her conscience means they can cohabit, for example, clearly has an uninformed or a malformed conscience. For our consciences to truly work, they must be fully informed and dictate to us. Conscience, according to the Church, is not a teacher.

            Thus, if – after seeing the above very short but crystal clear talk by Fr Albert OP, and after reading Fr Gruner’s article on the subject, you can honestly say that your conscience dictates that you must attend the new Mass, that if you don’t obey your conscience, that if you don’t attend the new Mass, God will not be pleased with you – that you will be, thus, sinning” – then I will not raise the matter again with you.

            Deal or no deal? Goodness, everything leads back to Brexit 😀

            • Editor, I have listened to the video and read the words of Fr Gruner. I am afraid that I still believe that receiving Holy Communion is crucial even though it means attending a new Mass. during that Mass I can read my missal (in the old rite) and only be there in body until it is time for the consecration and then for Communion. Where is the disobedience in that?

              • Elizabeth,

                If your reason for attending the novus ordo is purely to receive Holy Communion, even if the Mass itself is not pleasing to God, it might help to remember that the priest in the video mentions that people eceive Communion at every novus ordo Mass as a result of the novus ordo being seen as a meal and not as the sacrifice of Calvary. I think what the priest says in the video is at the heart of this, that, even as a convert, after reading quite a bit and attending a traditional Mass, he came to realise that the novus ordo is just “not Catholic”.

  4. I’ll tell you who’s celebrating: Satan and his minions, like Cardinal Suenens, who gloatingly described Vatican II as the “French Revolution of the Church” (as if that could possibly be a good thing), or Hans Kung, for whom the latest deconstruction of our liturgy and dogma is never enough. Make your own list of revolutionary apostates who are salivating over further destruction to come.

    The celebration is because a Trojan Horse has been placed within the walls of the Church, and the soldiers of Agamemnon, having been strategically deployed, have been burning, pillaging and raping the “rigid neo-Pelagians” (i.e. faithful Catholics) for 50 years. And who did these soldiers of evil take as their trophy? Not Cassandra, the daughter of the King of Troy, but The Blessed Virgin Mary, Daughter of God the Father, Mother of God the Son, Spouse of the Holy Ghost, Temple of the Most Holy Trinity.

    I had never before noticed part of Paul Vi’s (of unhappy memory) description of the Novus Ordo as “more enjoyable and practical.” Apparently he failed to notice that anything “more enjoyable and practical” could not possibly be more “sanctifying,” but in fact is the opposite: more profane.

    As for Francis’ pathetic gas-lighting demagoguery, it speaks for itself. It says volumes about him, nothing about the young people who are hungry for the sacred and reject banal entertainment, and it should encourage them to defy his Marxist bilge and continue to worship as the Church always worshiped before the revolution.

    I can’t remember where I read this – probably on this blog – but it seems that Abp. Lefebvre actually wrote most of the “Ottaviani Intervention.”

    • +Lefebvre did write it. He wanted all the Cardinals to sign it but when word got out that *he* was the author, only ++Ottaviani & ++Bacci signed it. Since ++Ottaviani was the first to sign it, it became known as The Ottaviani Intervention. That was probably a better title than the original: A Critical Study of the New Order of Mass.

      • Margaret USA,

        Thank you for that – I have never heard that before, didn’t know that Archbishop Lefebvre authored the Ottaviani Intervention. That’s very interesting. It’s also revealing that, in fact, there were no few of the prelates at Vatican II ready to take a stand against such a monumental change – a new Mass, for goodness sake! Incredible.

    • RCA Victor,

      I completely agree – Satan will definitely be celebrating the anniversary of the new Mass. It has succeeded in what it was meant to do, which is protestantise Catholics. I can’t believe how friends and relatives have changed beyond recognition in their beliefs, and it’s down to the drip drip effect of the novus ordo, no question about it.

  5. I wish someone would explain to me the purpose of this Novus Ordo business of priests “concelebrating.” They always make a big deal out of mentioning it, as though it were the best thing since Columbo re–runs. As far as I know, there’s nothing like it in Protestant services (which I grew up with).

    Where did this come from, and is it a preparation for some other novelty?

    • RCA Victor,

      To my great surprise, I found a brief history of concelebration, in the Catholic Encyclopaedia online.
      http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04190a.htm

      It states that the practice was restored after Vatican II, so the description is clearly referring to the ancient Mass prior to the “reforms” – which means it would not have been quite as distracting as it is at novus ordo celebrations.

      I think, though, that Mary Anne’s priest got it wrong, surely, by claiming that attending a Mass with three priests concelebrating means we are attending three Masses. Doesn’t sound at all right – reading the above linked description, I think it is clear that there is one offering, one sacrifice, i.e. one Mass with three priests participating – quite different from three Masses. Yes? No?

      Oh, and, for the record, nothing could be the best thing since Columbo re-runs 😀

      • Editor,

        That’s a very interesting article, not at all what my suspicious self expected. But I still wonder why this practice was revived by the Vat. II cabal. Were they hoping to include Protestant ministers at some point among those concelebrating?

  6. Editor,

    I suspect that this blogger “Dale” is actually a stooge of some corrupt Scottish bishop who doesn’t like the truth being told about his useless “Catholic” schools, or possibly an upper management employee of said schools – either way, out to get even with someone who dares to tell the truth about that white flag of surrender to the world, fluttering in the breeze over the Catholic Dioceses and schools of Scotland. I will attempt to prove my point with some circumstantial evidence:

    1. Dale’s first post was an attempt, as I’ve already said, to discredit this apostolate, and its upcoming conference, using falsehoods and distortions. This, in my opinion, is his real objective, which makes him a troll. And who else but a stooge of a Scottish bishop and/or an employee of Scottish Catholic schools would try to do that, right after the CT blog just finished a thread on Scottish Catholic schools?

    2. In his second post, and continuing in his final post, he attempts to defend the worst Pope in the history of the Church, by splitting hairs about whether Francis is a Marxist, as if a Pope immersed in Liberation Theology (concocted by the KGB, as John Vennari RIP pointed out years ago) and wholly a mouthpiece for the UN agenda could be anything but a Marxist. His [failed] defense of Francis puts him completely in line with the apostate hierarchy of Scotland.

    3. In his third post, he scornfully disparages, with ad hominem and ignorant remarks, several tradition-minded websites, including Taylor Marshall and Father Z (while mistakenly lumping Voris in with them). His profile, therefore, fits the liberal “Catholic”/papolotrist school of Scottish bishops, for whom Tradition is anathema.

    As a concluding reference to his denials of Francis’ true colors, here are a couple of articles about (a) the connection between Jacques Maritain and Saul Alinsky, and (b) the friendship among Maritain, Alinsky and Paul VI:

    https://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2009/12/saul-alinsky-and-jacques-maritain

    https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/4029-rules-for-radicals-when-paul-vi-met-saul-alinsky

  7. RCA Victor,

    Who needs Columbo with you around? That is an excellent piece of detective work, and I have to say, “troll” jumped out at me. That is why dear ole Dale was put into moderation fairly quickly and why he is just about ready for the next stage which is to disappear altogether from this forum.

    Time is short and while trolls can be useful for a time, to allow us to repeat various corrections to nonsense claims, they become wearing after a bit.

    So, thank you for that analysis which hits nails on the head – do you, by any chance, work in construction? 😀

    • Editor,

      Actually I work in the casket industry – that is, preparing caskets for new trolls….

      BTW, another reason I posted that Chris Ferrara link about the Maritain-Alinksy-Paul VI connection is that I thought it might return us to the topic at hand!

  8. RCAVictor, they are powerful articles which you posted and very educational. I usually have my head stuck in bathtubs, washing machines or the kitchen sink and don’t get much time to explore these issues therefore, I appreciate having them explained so clearly. I had no idea about the Mauritain/Pope Paul history and it really is shocking. Tying it all in with quotes from the prophecy of Our Lady of Good Success was very successful and helpful. Thank you!

    • Helen,

      Glad they were useful. Given your family-oriented busy state in life, I’d say you are a good candidate for audio-books! That way you can listen to Catholic things whilst your hands are in the dishwater…

  9. I’ve been away on business and am only now catching up with the blog. I have to say that, like Victor, this Dale person sounds like an episcopal stooge, and not a very bright or informed one at that. Scottish “Catholic” schools are NOT Catholic and that’s a fact. We removed ours from same schools and they are all still believing and Mass – going young people. Not even ONE of their ex schoolmates have done the same. They have all lapsed. Therfore, Dale, what sort of Catholic schools churns out apostates rather than informed and faithful Catholics?

    Also, Dale, anybody who has even a rudimentary knowledge of the nature of marxism cannot possibly deny that Pope Francis both speaks and acts like a marxist. He speaks out of both sides of his mouth at the same time! Get a grip man and tell your paypasters that, rather than attack Catholics who are trying to cling onto the Faith DESPITE them, they should get off their proverbials and become true shepherds. Woe betide them on Judgement Day!

  10. RCA Victor, I agree that the articles you have posted are indeed powerful and educational.

    On this 50th anniversary of the imposition of the new Mass, it can only be described as abysmal disaster. In this article from Catholic Family News describes it leaden.

    https://catholicfamilynews.com/blog/2019/12/01/golden-anniversary-of-a-leaden-project-why-the-traditional-mass-will-outlast-its-replacement/?fbclid=IwAR32urVCbcQkROi-G0dueUD3-Vk0cEHOSDn6p7tMQcnpcsgbDCHkKY5RVYo

    Yes, the author is right in that the Tridentine Mass will outlast the new,

  11. From the Wikipedia article on the “Mass of Paul VI”:

    “By October 1967, the Consilium had produced a complete draft revision of the Mass liturgy, known as the Normative Mass,[20] and this revision was presented to the Synod of Bishops that met in Rome in that month. The bishops attended the first public celebration of the revised rite in the Sistine Chapel. When asked to vote on the new liturgy, 71 bishops voted placet (approved), 43 voted non-placet (not approved), and 62 voted placet iuxta modum (approved with reservations). In response to the bishops’ concerns, some changes were made to the text. Pope Paul VI and the Consilium interpreted this as lack of approval for the Normative Mass, which was replaced by the text included in the book Novus Ordo Missae (The New Order of Mass) in 1969.[21]

    On 25 September 1969, two retired cardinals, 79-year-old Alfredo Ottaviani and 84-year-old Antonio Bacci, wrote a letter with which they sent Pope Paul VI the text of the “Short Critical Study on the New Order of Mass”, which had been prepared in the previous June by a group of twelve theologians under the direction of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.[22] The cardinals warned the New Order of the Mass “represented, both as a whole and in its details, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session XXII of the Council of Trent”.[23][24] The study that they transmitted said that on many points the New Mass had much to gladden the heart of even the most modernist Protestant.[25][26] Paul VI asked the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the department of the Roman Curia that Ottaviani had earlier headed, to examine the Short Critical Study. It responded on 12 November 1969 that the document contained many affirmations that were “superficial, exaggerated, inexact, emotional, and false”.[27] However, some of its observations were taken into account in preparing the definitive version of the new Order of the Mass.”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_of_Paul_VI

    As yet another deceptive twist in this sickening plot, I recall Fr. Gruner writing some years ago that that the Novus Ordo was never actually promulgated, but only the new Eucharistic Prayers. I’m pretty sure he claimed that the letter of promulgation had been deliberately mis-translated to give the impression of promulgation. Does anyone else remember Father’s claim?

  12. RCAVictor, I’ll copy the following sentence which I took from The Archbishop Fulton Sheen article presently on lifesite News:
    “In 1947, Archbishop Sheen in a memorable radio sermon laid out the dozen or so tricks the anti-Christ will use to destroy Christians.”
    Could you use your considerable sleuthing sklls to find how that talk or script can be accessed? Thanks.

  13. I read somewhere that a Patrick Coffey (I think) was to publish an article today on the postponement of the Archbishop’s ceremony. Does anybody know where it is to be found?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: