The wholesale destruction and reconstruction of the Catholic religion at Vatican II included changes to every sacramental rite of the Latin Church. Can we be sure these Novus Ordo rites are valid?
Fr. Spirago's Catechism Explained teaches that miracles of a sort are permitted for the devil to use to deceive. We, should, then, rely on the authority of the Catholic Church, which cannot deceive the faithful. The issue with NO miracles is thus who is certifying them as miracles. Is it the Conciliar hierarchy? We can see what they have done with "miracles": every V2 claimant to the Chair of Peter has had "miracles" attributed to them which are hardly miracles, just to get them listed as "saints". Their newest cause, Carlo Acutis, was embalmed and covered in wax so he appeared incorrupt. The Conciliar hierarchy is hardly honest...
Fr. Anthony Cekada analyzed the New Order rite of consecration. In his analysis, he referred to discussions that the reformers had. It was absolutely clear that the reformers had no concern for validity, but rather ecumenism. They used an ancient formulary for installing a patriarch for the consecration of a bishop, because it fit more with the Conciliar concept of a bishop (who receives jurisdiction on his consecration, not from the pope). They used "ancient" "Eucharistic Prayers, without even checking to see if they were actually used by the Church in a valid liturgy, because it excised the Catholic notion of the Mass being a propitiatory sacrifice. They altered the entire rite of Baptism to eliminate the importance of claiming a child from the devil, and emphasize belonging to an assembly. I could go on...
Hello, Mr. Wright. I hope you’re doing well. I have a question about footnote #7 as I was quite intrigued when I saw it. Where could I find the book referenced there? I did a quick Google search and nothing came up. Thank you very much.
Hi there Jesus - I don't think it's publicly available. You'll have to ask an SSPX priest, seminarian or recent ex-seminarian nicely. Alternatively, there is a French version in Yves Chiron's book Histoire des Traditionalistes (2022) pp 55-6, which he says is vouched for by Bishop Tissier de Mallerais.
It was the fact that the source is completely new to me and I had never seen it referenced before. I’ve read extensively on these matters so I’m familiar with a portion of the literature that’s publicly available. May I ask how you obtained your copy? And by the way, I’m pretty sure the title should read “statutes” instead of “statues”.
Yay me! Haha! I'm a non-native English speaker (and teacher/American accent coach) and I'm particular about spelling.
I'll keep in mind what you said about inquiring of a Society priest or seminarian for this. In the meantime, I will most likely purchase a copy of Chiron's book. There's an English translation out by Angelico Press.
“ I, the undersigned, ___________(name)________ recognize _______________ as Pope of the Holy Catholic Church. That is why I am ready to pray in public for him as Sovereign Pontiff. I refuse to follow him when he departs from the Catholic tradition, especially in the questions of religious liberty and ecumenism, as also in the reforms which are harmful to the Church.
I grant that Masses celebrated according to the new rite are not all invalid. However, considering the bad translations of the Novus Ordo Missae, its ambiguity favoring its being interpreted in a Protestant sense, and the plurality of ways in which it can be celebrated, I recognize that the danger of invalidity is very great.
I affirm that the new rite of Mass does not, it is true, formulate any heresy in an explicit manner, but that it departs “in a striking manner overall as well as in detail, from the Catholic theology of the Holy Mass”, and for this reason the new rite is in itself bad.
That is why I shall never celebrate the Holy Mass according to this new rite, even if I am threatened with ecclesiastical sanctions; and I shall never advise anyone in a positive manner to take an active part in such a Mass.
Finally, I admit as being legitimate the liturgical reform of John XXIII. Hence I take all the liturgical books from it to be Catholic: the Missal, the Breviary, etc.; and I bind myself to make exclusive use of them according to their calendar and rubrics, in particular for the celebration of Mass and for the recitation in common of the Breviary.
In doing this I desire to show the obedience binding me to my superiors, as also the obedience binding me to the Roman Pontiff in all his legitimate acts.
I press the “like” button because I appreciate the analysis, but it is terrifying.
Didn’t the Eucharistic miracle in Buenos Aires arise from an NO Mass? Perhaps the Lord was trying to reassure us.
I hear you. That sort of issue is addressed here:
https://www.wmreview.org/p/miracles-true-false
Fr. Spirago's Catechism Explained teaches that miracles of a sort are permitted for the devil to use to deceive. We, should, then, rely on the authority of the Catholic Church, which cannot deceive the faithful. The issue with NO miracles is thus who is certifying them as miracles. Is it the Conciliar hierarchy? We can see what they have done with "miracles": every V2 claimant to the Chair of Peter has had "miracles" attributed to them which are hardly miracles, just to get them listed as "saints". Their newest cause, Carlo Acutis, was embalmed and covered in wax so he appeared incorrupt. The Conciliar hierarchy is hardly honest...
Also, did you read this one?
https://www.wmreview.org/p/benson-conditional-sacraments
Fr. Anthony Cekada analyzed the New Order rite of consecration. In his analysis, he referred to discussions that the reformers had. It was absolutely clear that the reformers had no concern for validity, but rather ecumenism. They used an ancient formulary for installing a patriarch for the consecration of a bishop, because it fit more with the Conciliar concept of a bishop (who receives jurisdiction on his consecration, not from the pope). They used "ancient" "Eucharistic Prayers, without even checking to see if they were actually used by the Church in a valid liturgy, because it excised the Catholic notion of the Mass being a propitiatory sacrifice. They altered the entire rite of Baptism to eliminate the importance of claiming a child from the devil, and emphasize belonging to an assembly. I could go on...
Hello, Mr. Wright. I hope you’re doing well. I have a question about footnote #7 as I was quite intrigued when I saw it. Where could I find the book referenced there? I did a quick Google search and nothing came up. Thank you very much.
Hi there Jesus - I don't think it's publicly available. You'll have to ask an SSPX priest, seminarian or recent ex-seminarian nicely. Alternatively, there is a French version in Yves Chiron's book Histoire des Traditionalistes (2022) pp 55-6, which he says is vouched for by Bishop Tissier de Mallerais.
What did you find intriguing about it?
It was the fact that the source is completely new to me and I had never seen it referenced before. I’ve read extensively on these matters so I’m familiar with a portion of the literature that’s publicly available. May I ask how you obtained your copy? And by the way, I’m pretty sure the title should read “statutes” instead of “statues”.
You have won the award for spotting a WM typo! Unfortunately, the award isn't valuable, because so many are given out....
I've seen photographs of these pages of it, basically. Like I said, you could ask a priest or seminarian if you could see their copies.
Yay me! Haha! I'm a non-native English speaker (and teacher/American accent coach) and I'm particular about spelling.
I'll keep in mind what you said about inquiring of a Society priest or seminarian for this. In the meantime, I will most likely purchase a copy of Chiron's book. There's an English translation out by Angelico Press.
Oh, is it out? Interesting.
I'm particular too - it's just my eyes and computers. There'd be no typos if this was handwritten, I can assure you. It would, however, be illegible.
Between Rome and Rebellion: A History of Catholic Traditionalism with Special Attention to France https://a.co/d/07noiNAQ
Here’s the complete 1981 Oath of Fidelity:
“ I, the undersigned, ___________(name)________ recognize _______________ as Pope of the Holy Catholic Church. That is why I am ready to pray in public for him as Sovereign Pontiff. I refuse to follow him when he departs from the Catholic tradition, especially in the questions of religious liberty and ecumenism, as also in the reforms which are harmful to the Church.
I grant that Masses celebrated according to the new rite are not all invalid. However, considering the bad translations of the Novus Ordo Missae, its ambiguity favoring its being interpreted in a Protestant sense, and the plurality of ways in which it can be celebrated, I recognize that the danger of invalidity is very great.
I affirm that the new rite of Mass does not, it is true, formulate any heresy in an explicit manner, but that it departs “in a striking manner overall as well as in detail, from the Catholic theology of the Holy Mass”, and for this reason the new rite is in itself bad.
That is why I shall never celebrate the Holy Mass according to this new rite, even if I am threatened with ecclesiastical sanctions; and I shall never advise anyone in a positive manner to take an active part in such a Mass.
Finally, I admit as being legitimate the liturgical reform of John XXIII. Hence I take all the liturgical books from it to be Catholic: the Missal, the Breviary, etc.; and I bind myself to make exclusive use of them according to their calendar and rubrics, in particular for the celebration of Mass and for the recitation in common of the Breviary.
In doing this I desire to show the obedience binding me to my superiors, as also the obedience binding me to the Roman Pontiff in all his legitimate acts.
Signed ________________________