Excellent list of books. My parents raised 6 kids in the NO and none of them remain NO Catholics. Two of us took the trad route and the other four left the faith altogether, so in my view, apostacy is the greatest risk of raising kids in the NO - right up there with not homeschooling your kids or sending them unarmed (figuratively speaking) to a college with marxist profs. What is more important than the salvation of your family? Another benefit of the TLM is that it is saturated with the "4 last things," which we all need to keep us focused.
"While it is indisputable that the Eucharistic consecration at both the Novus Ordo and the TLM is valid"
This is an untrue statement. The validity of the new rite was called into question in 1967 by one Patrick Ohmler, based on the revision of the Words of Consecration which seemingly change the meaning, a condition that Pope St. Pius V said would invalidate the form. Mr. Ohmler argued that the use of the phrase "for all" surrounding the consecration of the Chalice was fundamentally different than "for many". This view (that the phrase meant something else entirely) WAS SUBSTANTIATED under JPII, by Card. Ratzinger, when it was mandated to be changed to the pre-Paul VI form of "for many".
Further, numerous pre-Conciliar theologians argue that the "mysterium fidei", placed in the Consecration and the Essential Form by the Apostles, signifies the great Mystery of the Real Presence, and is thus why the Church defined it as part of the Essential Form (see the De Defectibus of St. Pius V). Moving it outside the Consecration (or, more accurately, "the institution narrative") changes things. This change is exacerbated by the GIRM's insistence that the priest recite the Words of Institution as a narrative, in direct contrast with the mandate of the Church that a priest offer the Words of Consecration "in persona Christi". Augustine and Aquinas both argue that saying the Consecration as in a narrative is invalidating (a view held by many sacramental theologians, but not definitively taught by the Magisterium).
In addition, the NO lacks explicit reference to the Mass as Propitiatory Sacrifice, and overt references to Real Presence are lacking. Pope Leo XIII explains in Apostolicae Curae that in a truly Catholic Rite, like the "TLM", the external rites are replete with explicit references to the Church's intention, so that a cleric saying the Rite has no choice but to "do what the Church does". One reason Anglican orders are totally null is that the Anglican rite has no references to the true theology of Holy Orders, so any deficiencies in the Essential Form cannot be read in light if the Rite itself. Thus, deficiencies in the Essential Form of the NO (illustrated above) cannot be said to be corrected or supplemented by the entirety of NO rite.
At the LEAST then, we cannot say the validity of the NO is indisputable. It IS disputable.
One cannot accept the "proofs" from occupied Rome to the contrary. This is because occupied Rome has jettisoned the Magisterium in terms of sacramental theology. It is a matter of the Universal Ordinary Magisterium that validity is determined by proper matter, proper form, and proper intention. Occupied Rome has said that a certain use of the Syro-Mallabar Rite, which HAS NOT FORM OF CONSECRATION AT ALL is valid because of the expressed intent in the preface. Without a form, there is no validity. That is what the Church teaches.
The NO may be valid. However, that point is most certainly disputable.
The statement was that the validity was "indisputable". That is objectively false.
You can refer to the Conciliar hierarchs as authorities all you want. However, you are thus forced to acknowledge that they have abandoned the Magisterium in their promulgation of the NO.
1) the Catholic Church has definitively taught in Her Universal Ordinary Magisterium (defined by The Vatican Council of 1870 as infallible) that proper form, matter, and intention are necessary for a Sacrament to be valid. Yet, the Council hierarchs count a Syro-Mallabar rite use as "valid" that entirely lacks, in any form whatsoever, a Consecration, or "essential form" .
2) Pope St. Pius V, in De Defectibus, defined that any changing of the words of Consecration that alters the meaning of the phrase invalidates the Mass. This was universally promulgated, and upheld by every single pope afterwards...until Paul VI. Ohmler argued that the use of "for all" changed the meaning of the phrase. Ratzinger and JPII agreed that "for all" changes the meaning of the phrase. Now, Ratzinger was the one who said that you didn't need an "essential form" at all (see point 1), so saw no problem in the "Institution Narrative" changing the meaning. His stated reason for wanting the words to be "for many" is that Our Lord used that phrase, and it wasn't good "hermeneutics" to alter a phrase of Our Lord, especially as the alteration changed the meaning.
Further, Pope Pius VI, in Auctorem Fidei, declared that "simplification of the rites" was "insulting to the Church", as was the use of the vernacular language in the Liturgy. The V2 document "Sacrosanctum Concilium" specifically calls for a simplification of the rites and the use of the vernacular. The Council of Trent, Session XXII anathematizes anyone who says the Mass should be in the vernacular. Yes, those don't invalidate the NO, but the Conciliar hierarchs clearly didn't care about anathema or insulting the Church when they approved SC and the NO.
Excellent list of books. My parents raised 6 kids in the NO and none of them remain NO Catholics. Two of us took the trad route and the other four left the faith altogether, so in my view, apostacy is the greatest risk of raising kids in the NO - right up there with not homeschooling your kids or sending them unarmed (figuratively speaking) to a college with marxist profs. What is more important than the salvation of your family? Another benefit of the TLM is that it is saturated with the "4 last things," which we all need to keep us focused.
Thank you! I stand with the first commenter. The NO is so hard on families. It is hard to think of it as anything other than a danger.
The Spotless Bride of Christ is perfect in Her fidelity to Him
It could never give poison to the flock
The Novus Ordo Religion usurping Catholicism is an inversion of Truth
It is a sacrilege indicative of its unfaithful inventors
“…the abomination of desolation in the Holy place” Daniel
Thank you for not hesitating to recommend Archbishop Lefebvre!
"While it is indisputable that the Eucharistic consecration at both the Novus Ordo and the TLM is valid"
This is an untrue statement. The validity of the new rite was called into question in 1967 by one Patrick Ohmler, based on the revision of the Words of Consecration which seemingly change the meaning, a condition that Pope St. Pius V said would invalidate the form. Mr. Ohmler argued that the use of the phrase "for all" surrounding the consecration of the Chalice was fundamentally different than "for many". This view (that the phrase meant something else entirely) WAS SUBSTANTIATED under JPII, by Card. Ratzinger, when it was mandated to be changed to the pre-Paul VI form of "for many".
Further, numerous pre-Conciliar theologians argue that the "mysterium fidei", placed in the Consecration and the Essential Form by the Apostles, signifies the great Mystery of the Real Presence, and is thus why the Church defined it as part of the Essential Form (see the De Defectibus of St. Pius V). Moving it outside the Consecration (or, more accurately, "the institution narrative") changes things. This change is exacerbated by the GIRM's insistence that the priest recite the Words of Institution as a narrative, in direct contrast with the mandate of the Church that a priest offer the Words of Consecration "in persona Christi". Augustine and Aquinas both argue that saying the Consecration as in a narrative is invalidating (a view held by many sacramental theologians, but not definitively taught by the Magisterium).
In addition, the NO lacks explicit reference to the Mass as Propitiatory Sacrifice, and overt references to Real Presence are lacking. Pope Leo XIII explains in Apostolicae Curae that in a truly Catholic Rite, like the "TLM", the external rites are replete with explicit references to the Church's intention, so that a cleric saying the Rite has no choice but to "do what the Church does". One reason Anglican orders are totally null is that the Anglican rite has no references to the true theology of Holy Orders, so any deficiencies in the Essential Form cannot be read in light if the Rite itself. Thus, deficiencies in the Essential Form of the NO (illustrated above) cannot be said to be corrected or supplemented by the entirety of NO rite.
At the LEAST then, we cannot say the validity of the NO is indisputable. It IS disputable.
One cannot accept the "proofs" from occupied Rome to the contrary. This is because occupied Rome has jettisoned the Magisterium in terms of sacramental theology. It is a matter of the Universal Ordinary Magisterium that validity is determined by proper matter, proper form, and proper intention. Occupied Rome has said that a certain use of the Syro-Mallabar Rite, which HAS NOT FORM OF CONSECRATION AT ALL is valid because of the expressed intent in the preface. Without a form, there is no validity. That is what the Church teaches.
The NO may be valid. However, that point is most certainly disputable.
The statement was that the validity was "indisputable". That is objectively false.
You can refer to the Conciliar hierarchs as authorities all you want. However, you are thus forced to acknowledge that they have abandoned the Magisterium in their promulgation of the NO.
1) the Catholic Church has definitively taught in Her Universal Ordinary Magisterium (defined by The Vatican Council of 1870 as infallible) that proper form, matter, and intention are necessary for a Sacrament to be valid. Yet, the Council hierarchs count a Syro-Mallabar rite use as "valid" that entirely lacks, in any form whatsoever, a Consecration, or "essential form" .
2) Pope St. Pius V, in De Defectibus, defined that any changing of the words of Consecration that alters the meaning of the phrase invalidates the Mass. This was universally promulgated, and upheld by every single pope afterwards...until Paul VI. Ohmler argued that the use of "for all" changed the meaning of the phrase. Ratzinger and JPII agreed that "for all" changes the meaning of the phrase. Now, Ratzinger was the one who said that you didn't need an "essential form" at all (see point 1), so saw no problem in the "Institution Narrative" changing the meaning. His stated reason for wanting the words to be "for many" is that Our Lord used that phrase, and it wasn't good "hermeneutics" to alter a phrase of Our Lord, especially as the alteration changed the meaning.
Further, Pope Pius VI, in Auctorem Fidei, declared that "simplification of the rites" was "insulting to the Church", as was the use of the vernacular language in the Liturgy. The V2 document "Sacrosanctum Concilium" specifically calls for a simplification of the rites and the use of the vernacular. The Council of Trent, Session XXII anathematizes anyone who says the Mass should be in the vernacular. Yes, those don't invalidate the NO, but the Conciliar hierarchs clearly didn't care about anathema or insulting the Church when they approved SC and the NO.
How is Fr. Chris Alar good for formation in the traditional Catholic faith? I just don't see it
Hi! I just removed him. I am also sceptical about him. Thanks for pointing it out!
https://youtu.be/KN7oftiL4XY?si=_U-BLX_y1FQG7gy5
I belive the new Lectionary may be the one undisputed good thing to come out of the post Vatican II changes.
The series RTC (The Roman Catechism of Trent) by Padre Peregrino is very helpful.
https://padreperegrino.org/2024/12/rct50/