Fri 19th Sep 2014 | Last updated: Fri 19th Sep 2014 at 12:59pm

Facebook Logo Twitter Logo RSS Logo
Hot Topics

Comment & Blogs

The SSPX claim the Novus Ordo is a Protestant rite. Can they be serious?

The Mass of Paul VI is unambiguously sacrificial, not simply a remembrance of ‘the Lord’s Supper’

By on Monday, 28 February 2011

Archbishop Wilton Gregory of Atlanta holds a monstrance containing the Eucharist (Photo: CNS)

Archbishop Wilton Gregory of Atlanta holds a monstrance containing the Eucharist (Photo: CNS)

The current Catholic Herald debate on the collapse of the doctrinal discussions between the Vatican and the SSPX is getting a substantial response, and has been noticed elsewhere in the blogosphere. The whole debate, according to one blog, The Sensible Bond, was predictable: “On the one side, high-minded papal loyalists cannot say enough about how disobedient the SSPX is, or how proud. On the other side, SSPX tub thumpers jeer about the hierarchy’s tendency to wink at all rebellions apart from the SSPX’s, and the busted flush of Benedict’s papacy which has seen him gravitate from liturgical traditionalist to Assisi tribute act in a mere four years”.

Well, I can’t say I’m neutral between the two points of view, definitely tending towards being a “papal loyalist” (despite some discomfort over Assisi, I think it’s just about defensible), though how high-minded you need to be to hold such views I’m not sure: it seems to me it’s a perfectly normal for a mainstream Catholic to be loyal to the pope.
 
The real question is whether there was ever any realistic prospect that there might be any kind of rapprochement. Rome’s view is that the SSPX can be as critical as it likes about the distortions of Vatican II – what Pope Benedict calls “the hermeneutic of discontinuity and rupture” – but in the end it has to accept the essential Catholicity of the Council itself. This seems to me entirely reasonable. SSPX actually demands that Rome should repudiate the Council and accept that the Mass of Paul VI is invalid, even Protestant.
 
This is grotesquely unreasonable. It is inconceivable that the Vatican would simply turn against an ecumenical council of all the world’s bishops. SSPX must have known this: so it has been playing an elaborate game whose outcome was probably clearly foreseen by Bishop Fellay. The Pope, on the contrary, clearly had hopes that the schism might be overcome. Well, he has done everything he could to explore every avenue towards reconcilation. Now it is over.

The issues involved, however, will be with us for some time, and still have to be faced, since the casual acceptance of some supposedly “traditionalist” views has done considerable damage. One of these was summed up by one participant in the ongoing Herald debate: his view is essentially that the Novus Ordo is an invalid rite:

“The Novus Ordo does not signify the Catholic theology of the holy sacrifice of the Mass. It is ambiguous – deliberately so – and tends toward giving a Protestant understanding of the Lord’s Supper, which gradually will replace the Catholic Mass in the eyes and psyche of whatever remaining “Catholic” attend it. It is simple: no sacrifice = no need for a sacrificing priest = no need for an altar but merely a table for a commemorative meal over which the presbyter presides and in which the people of God exercise their universal priesthood and so they, not any priest, worship God in their way instead of in His.”

This is a grotesque distortion – no, worse, an actual direct untruth – simply asserted as though it were self-evident. The Novus Ordo is very clearly a valid Catholic liturgy, in which the doctrine of the Mass as sacrifice is both assumed and unambiguously stated. Consider the following, from the current English translation of Eucharistic prayer III:

Father, calling to mind the death your Son endured for our salvation, his glorious Resurrection and ascension into heaven, and ready to greet him when he comes again, we offer you in thanksgiving this holy and living sacrifice.
 
Look with favour on your Church’s offering, and see the victim whose death has reconciled us to yourself. Grant that we, who are nourished by his body and blood, may be filled with his Holy Spirit, and become one body, one spirit in Christ.
 
May he make us an everlasting gift to you and enable us to share in the inheritance of your saints, with Mary, the virgin Mother of God, with the apostles, the martyrs, and all your saints, on whose constant intercession we rely for help.
 
Lord, may this sacrifice, which has made our peace with you, advance the peace and salvation of all the world…

That is quite unmistakeable, and clearly, intentionally and unambiguously expressed: what is being offered is a “holy and living” sacrifice, the sacrifice of Calvary. Or consider this, from Eucharistic prayer IV:

…looking forward to his coming in glory, we offer you his body and blood, the acceptable sacrifice which brings salvation to the whole world.
 
Lord, look upon this sacrifice which you have given to your Church; and by your Holy Spirit, gather all who share this one bread and one cup into the one body of Christ, a living sacrifice of praise.
 
Lord, remember those for whom we offer this sacrifice, especially [Benedict] our Pope, [name of local bishop], our bishop, and bishops and clergy everywhere…

I find the accusation of “deliberate ambiguity” particularly interesting, since many years ago, when I was training to be an Anglican clergyman, I once had to write a long essay comparing the language and theology of the then recently authorised Anglican and Catholic rites: the Novus Ordo and what was then called the “Series III” service of Holy Communion of the Church of England. My conclusion then (it was one of the factors that led me, about a decade later, to understand that I had no alternative but to become a Catholic) was that the chief linguistic difference between the rites was that Catholic language was, precisely, deliberately unambiguous and Anglican language (because the same Eucharistic prayer had to gain acceptance from Anglo-Catholics and evangelicals alike) was inevitably ambiguous.
 
Take the words of the epiklesis, the invocation of the Holy Spirit, in the Roman rite: “And so, Father, we bring you these gifts. We ask you to make them holy by the power of your Spirit, that they may become the body and blood of your Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at whose command we celebrate this Eucharist.” That’s the epiklesis of Eucharistic prayer III: but the same doctrinal point has to be made about all four prayers: the assumption here is that the Eucharistic elements undergo an actual and supernaturally effected change: there is an actual point at which they become, in very truth and not merely symbolically, the body and blood of Christ. 

The equivalent Anglican words at this point are “grant that by the power of your Spirit these gifts of bread and wine may be to us his body and his blood”: the notion of a moment at which change is effected is deliberately avoided: an Anglo-Catholic can assume it, but an evangelical can see these words as referring simply to a mere subjective view, that the bread and wine in some way “to us” symbolise Christ’s body and blood. The idea of the Eucharist as sacrifice is deliberately excluded by the words which follow “we celebrate and proclaim his perfect sacrifice made once for all upon the cross”: in other words, the sacrifice of Calvary was in no way repeatable, and what we now do is simply a distant and subjective memory of it.

Whether you like the new prayers of the Roman Rite or not (personally, I think that Eucharistic prayers III and IV are magnificent, especially in Latin but, though more evidently in the new translation, even in the current English version) it is ludicrous, ludicrous, to claim that they tend towards Protestantism. 

The Novus Ordo is a valid Catholic Mass, written in unambiguous language. Let us all, whether or not we like the way it is sometimes celebrated, or the way it was originally translated, agree on that. If we can’t, we’re all in trouble.

  • Anonymous

    It’s not your business to decide whether someone’s username is worthy of respect or not. You have once again trotted out generalised statements about me and the Catholic Truth newsletter, with not one single fact/example to uphold what you say. I have no intention of justifying anything to you – you are not a person of integrity and I owe you nothing.

    Since you have failed to show even minimal integrity by identifying yourself, I’m going to email the Blogs Editor to lodge an official complaint about your violation of my privacy – there have been a number of bloggers who have asked “who is EditorCT” and one who thought I was the editor of the Catholic Times, so your claim to fame for me won’t wash.

    You have shown cowardice by refusing to identify yourself. From now on I am going to take the advice of the person who emailed me this morning, having read your recent comments, to ignore you from now on. I won’t repeat his unflattering description of you but suffice to say I intend to waste no more time on your vindictive, nasty posts.

  • Dr Russell J Berry

    Dear Carlismo

    I will not save my poor prayers for others, as you so ungraciously tell me to do. I will pray all the more for you, not so that you will change your opinions but that you will show a tad more charity. God bless us all, Carlismo.

  • Dr Russell J Berry

    I am very sorry, indeed, that carlismo chose to reveal your identity, here, using a reply to me as his vehicle.
    We are all tainted by bad bahaviour – we are made guilty by mere association and even if we did not consent we are nonetheless tainted.

  • Dr Russell J Berry

    Will you, carlismo, please permit me to perform a small redaction of just one part of what you have written?

    You wrote: ‘In your heart, can you honestly say that there are any traces of mercy, pity, kindness, love, compassion or forgiveness on your blog? Really?’

    My editing would be:

    That is a question that you, in all essentials, framed perfectly, carlismo.

    Now, ask it of yourself and let us see your answer, please.

    God bless us, carlismo

  • Anonymous

    It is, indeed, lamentable that Carlismo did what he did, and I regret, very much, having to report his post.

    Hopefully, we can draw a line under this and start afresh. Thanks for your concern.

  • CT

    Will you Novus Ordians and SSPXers please stop calling yourselves Catholics.
    Novus Ordians embrace Masonry and Modernism, usurping the name of Catholic; SSPXers believe the authority of the Church can give harmful, useless, doubtful, defective, and crippled rites as well as litugies offensive to God (which is impossible).
    Sedevacantism is merely a nickname given by opposition as Athanianism or Athanasianites were given by the Arians when they called themselves Catholic in the 4th century.

  • Poulettictac

    Novus Ordinarians? Even sounds like an ‘anglican’ compromise. I would agree if you were to say they almost cease to be Roman Catholic but I feel this unfair to the vast majority of the vastly reduced number who assist at this anglicanised liturgy since they do not know what they do. I condemn the Presbyters new-Bishops who know they do not teach sound doctrine and who know they ‘celebrate’ a fake ‘eucharist’. Sound

  • Thomnickels

    Of course the Society is serious. Just look at the Novus Ordo: altar girls, Communion in hand, altar table instead of high altar, evangelical-style hymns, a talky, hand shaking Mass, guitars in some instances, lay ministers–what is this if not Protestant? The Novus Ordo is terrible. Artless.

  • Joeburnes2006

    the sspx follows the rightful authority the magisirium of the fath —-all the past popes teachings on faith and morals. the magestirium is infallible and can’t be changed——–Vatican II documents religious liberty,ecumenism,collegiality go against the past magesterium and are false———no pope may change catholic dogma or teaching———that is part of the catholic faith modernists don’t understand.

  • Joeburnes2006

    I know Archbishop Lefebvre is a saint and in a much higher place in heaven than JPII–who may be a long time yet in puratory for his apostosy.There was no excommunication anyway it was totally invalid according to cannon law.

  • Joeburnes2006

    ok———-lets say a modernday pope say’s abortion is ok——-or the mass is not a sacrafice and God is not the host? Do you follow him????? He is the pope right. Do you follow a pope or bishop who teaches against the past teaching’s of the church???? this is the question. If you look at the ambiguious teaching’s and errors in some of vatican II’s Documents you have to follow the truth of catholic teaching from the beginning all the past popes and councils like the council of trent ———-your blind following is no where in church teaching.

  • Poulettictac

    Please, profidebookstore, STOP being so deliberately disrespectful! Bernard Fellay is a Bishop of the Church and no amount of wishing on the part of any armchair theologian will change that. Your views on him are your views and you may present them but stop being a pain in the rear by being so needlessly offensive and belligerent. Thank you.

  • +Joseph A.Vellone

    The contradiction in the whole SSPX argument is that in their whole claim to be “orthdox” Catholics they explicitly deny that the approbation of Paul VI of the NO guarantees its validity.Everyone knows that Papal approval =’s the approval of the Christ who stands behind the His vicar.
    It allmost goes without saying that the Holy Spirit would never allow such error to creep into the Church.
    I prefer the Tradantine Mass,but am perfectly (though not aesthetically)comfortable with the N0.
    +jv

  • Bellevuetarn

    Very nice. That said, ask any Caholic theologian and you will hear that yours is an argument that – its piety notwithstanding – simply has no theological feet upon which it can sustain itself.Paul VI’s ‘approval’ guarantees nothing.

  • Ebels

    Dear Mr Oddie

    I think it is probably worse than a Protestant rite. It took out the very words of Our Lord at the very moment of consecration. Not only that, but over 90% of the Holy Mass , codified in Quo Primum, by Pope Saint Pius V, never to be changed forever, even by a Pope, was changed, and guess who a new mass was written up by? The very one all the Popes including Pius V was worried about – a Freemason, Annibale Bugnini- a Monsignor exiled by John XXIII after it spread like wildfire around Rome.
    Paul VI brought him Back, and gathered up 6 protestants ministers and asked them what offended them. He said ok to all, and said he wanted to rid the litugy of “anything that is a stumbling block to “our separated brethren”.

    Hence the “new revised” bible, that is written by all. He called it “a major conquest of the Catholic Church.”- That says all. Our Lady according to Cardinal Ratzingers German priest friend, said of the third secret of fatima the Our Lady warned of an evil Council in the Church and said that element would be made in the liturgy. Pius XII said of Fatima, that Our Lady warned of changes in the Church’s liturgy, Her theology, and Her soul. He said all around him he heard innovators who wanted this from within- They got it- Vatican II gave them laxed Catholics, an ecumenism condemned by the Church, they were lead into apostasy and they don’t even know it because Our Lord sent what is in 2nd Thess. They now think all religions are equal, and priests should get down to levels as lay people, they take Communion in the hand, something invented to do away with real presence by Protestants, and something only allowed as an indult “where the abuse is aready established”. They even question celebacy of priests thinking it would solve their problems of child abusing- but nothing will help. I know priests who never went along with the changes, and keep to the old faith and they need no help as they are truly Catholic. I support 100% those priests who are now persecuted for their faith. And if you need anymore proof if Our Lady’s words at Fatima was not enough, even Paul VI said this.
    “”We believed that after the Council would come a day of sunshine in the history of the Church. But instead there has come a day of clouds and storms, and of darkness … And how did this come about? We will confide to you the thought that may be, we ourselves admit in free discussion, that may be unfounded, and that is that there has been a power, an adversary power. Let us call him by his name: the devil. It is as if from some mysterious crack, no, it is not mysterious, from some crack the smoke of satan has entered the temple of God.

    Jean Guitton, an intimate friend of Paul VI, related what Paul VI said at the final session of Vatican II: “It was the final session of the Council,” Guitton wrote, “the most essential, in which Paul VI was to bestow on all humanity the teachings of the Council. He announced this to me on that day with these words, ‘I am about to blow the seven trumpets of the Apocalypse.’”[153]

    Paul VI, Speech to Lombard Seminary, Dec. 7, 1968: “The Church finds herself in an hour of disquiet, of self-criticism, one might say even of self-destruction …The Church is wounding herself”.

    I hope and pray that all Novus Ordo Catholics, that attend the new Mass, realise they are in the separation period, sheep from goats, wheat from chaff, and dont rely on “but Lord, I ate at your table?”.

    I have seen a new Mass bulletin from my N. O. Parish Church, and interestinglt, they find it acceptable to put the Mass on the back page, with the words of consecration missing. They will put back the real words of Our Lord, and they may even bring back the Mass of Pius V, which would be a help, but what faith will they then have learnt? ecumenism?

    EB

  • Bellevuetarn

    It was a plan, well nurtured over many years and fully played out after the Vatican Council II.

    For decades the institional church at Rome has been in the manipulative hands of neo-protestants and Modernists. Well intentioned people – as well as those evilly-bent – have sold out the Caholic Fath spoonful by spoonful and have allowed it to be replaced by the protestant mess of potage that, in litugical terms, was fully prefigured by Cranmer. And who is to blame? Q: Who is ultimately responible for this fraud upon the Catholic Faithful? A: Our own Priests and Bishops. I wonder how many UK Clergy would honestly now be able to take the anti-Modernist oath….next to none of these new-bishops and too few of the Parish clergy who are almost as theologically ignorant and uncertain as what remains of their congregations. Shame on the Clergy and Chrst help us, all, beause we shall see none from the Heirarchy – nemo dat quod non habet – not having, holding and teaching the OneTrue Faith how can we expect them to sutain us in ours? The only thing that this protestant-inclined worship service does is to mislead Catholics and destroy the Faith.

  • David Werling

    So any criticism of the novus ordo is the same as saying it is invalid? Can you provide a direct quote from any leader of the SSPX that says the novus ordo is invalid. You are beating a strawman.

  • Poulettictac

    What you write is theologically unsound. To write ‘the approbation of Paul VI of the NO guarantees its validity’ is utter rubbish. If you are a Bishop, you are a very unsound one.

  • Bellevuetarn

    Yes, I can. That said, I will not attribute to anyone what he does not wish publically to state for himself. I am sure there are many people who have heard direct comments from SSPX leaders that seriously call into question the validity of the Rite. Unless the ‘leader of the SSPX’ wishes to make his comment public, it is not for his interlocutors to do so. Serious people should not indulge in that form of ‘kiss and tell’ reporting.
    Private is private and confidential is what it says.

  • Bellevuetarn

    Authority is ONLY ‘rightful’ when clearly and unambiguously both appearing to be and in fact clearly being in conformity with Scripture. Holy Tradition and the established Doctrine of the Faith.

    Whenever – that is in ALL cases – when it is ambiguous, uncertain or not in the established lines of Chuirch Doctrine it not only may be ignored but it MUST be ignored.

    Willing and knowing obedience to an heretical or heterodox teacher or overseer (Bishop, in other words) of no matter what distinction or seniority is a sin – and THAT is Catholic Doctrine from Apostolic times – so – no argument, is there? 

  • Stopsem2

    can we stop long enough to do the work of my Lord and My God in Africa

  • Bellevuetarn

    That is an important point, of course, but It is not to the point of THIS discussion. Contrariwise it IS a point to EVERY discussion, if not to Africa alone.

  • Chris

    Perhaps these were issues you faced in that particular church which celebrated the Novus Ordo Mass. I attend a university where our Catholic chaplain will most certainly preach on Truths that people do not like to hear, reminds us often that the Eucharist is actually the Body and Blood of Christ, and where it is not uncommon to see someone come before/after Mass or any time for Confession. People come early and stay late at our Masses to pray, regardless for how old they are, and they are reminded by the chaplain that the Eucharist is the Crucified and Risen Christ, and as such, receipt of the Sacrament is reserved for Catholics in a state of grace. The Rosary is encouraged as often as possible, with myriad guides to praying it available, and is often recommended as a way to further develop one’s spiritual life.

    And we wish that SSPX and other conservative, dissenting Catholic groups would see that we have not lost the truth by changing the Mass. It is the same Sacrifice of the same Christ, regardless of the language or the way the priest faces. It is unfair to cast us as having lost our Catholicity because we attend and celebrate the Novus Ordo Mass, and we will remain committed to the Truth of Christ in the Catholic Church, just as we have always done.

  • Bellevuetarn

    My heart is easily and fully in sympathy with what you write but my head is not and it can never be. No amount of prayer and good will, ‘catholic intentions’ or catholic sentiments on the part of presbyter or people, proper piety and respect for the Sanctissimum on the part of either or both can turn a pig’s ear into a silk purse.

    While the theology of this new and revolutionary rite is at best ambiguous and/or Modernist it cannot be accepted as a really, truly and unambiguously Catholic portrayal of the Sacrifice of the Mass. The sad fact is that it is not and that it was never intended to be so.

  • Edward

    Novus ordo is the biggest scandal, satan has inflicted on the Catholic church .Oddie is still a protestant. The bishop of middlesbough deliberately prevents any ,trindentine masses being celebrated in,kingston-upon-Hull.With the conivence of the ,Priests.Their is no possibility of me attending any here in,Hull,which is a betrayal of the faithful,destitute.The fact of the non-sacerdotal, so called eucharistic ministers is further proof.for forty years since i have been able to earn any money I have been defrauded.Retiring& appeal collections not too mention the ,sunday collections.I can barely survive.The so called ,Pastors,and I have met many bad tempered one’s,not too mention those who have treated the so called sacrament of reconcilliation as a criminal tial at the old bailey.There is ” are in reallity /cf/nt/hired hands.The unprecedented abuse of the novus ordo heretics stands to reason.rev ,lower case canon michael .loughlin,ev,what does that stand for!.Some time ago a visiting arrogant priest was how he came across to arrogant.At the so called mass a kid droppede the waifer i told this idiot in vestments all he said was I saw it.Along came ill tempered ,EV,,and had the stupefieing gall too rebuke me,not too mention he turned up like a bad penny.. i been at ,cursed folk/youth masses,jugding by the expreesion on this irish moron priest in st dunstan’s in,Woking ,Surrey and his sheepish look said it all !!!. In st hugh’s of ,Lincoln,Knaphill ,the so called monsigor made some provovative comment because I was smoking in,” in the car park,!!!. I can remember 24 yrs ago a priest of ” Our Lady help of christians,Madeira road ,sheerwater ,Woking giving my ex_wife ?,and my self instruction in bands of marriage,next thing he condoned contraceptives,and condemmed smoking . “convert”.One pagan parent/oddie is as you know is of a different kind.He gets abusive..” Oddie is in denial he cannot see that.I have read of the treachery of the sacerdotal before from an historical [ perspective.}.My angiush is indescribable.

  • Gpetkovski66

    vatican ii is a sham.

    the traditional catholics of this world
    hold to the church of our Lord.

    and the gates of hell shall not prevail!

  • Joannie

      It is a known fact that while Vatican II called for “small organic changes” to the Latin Mass it did NOT call for a brand new crafted Mass which is what Pope Paul mandated in Nov 1969. It was the idea of a Bishop named Bugnini, who was thought by both Alice Von Hildebrand and her husband to be a Mason. Either way the Bishop said himself that the idea was to strip the Mass of any Catholic symbolism in order to make it more attractive to Protestants. This is what several authors have pointed in the last 40 years. It was and is Valid but it is not Authentic Catholic Worship because too much of its theology was Protestant. Then of course what the Council called for (Latin Gregorian Chant) altar railings as well as facing towards the East were all mandated but as we all now know NOT FOLLOWED. So we now end up with clown masses rock masses Western Masses. Altar girls Eucharistic Ministers Lay People doing the Readings. Vatican II did Not Mandate Any of this and it was not just a conspiracy by the SSPX unless Alice Hildebrand is herself a Schismatic. Just Saying-

  • Fullerton54

    Mt oddie, is a heretic.Astonishing indeed that what is clearly secular-translation -protestant.The late John.A.hardon SJ    described the english language in the mass as  an heretical language.The priests of this high anglican ,Suedo-catholic church clearly have ,whats termed now human respect,fear of offending todays in fact longer than I have  existed those who claim to be catholic but never have been.Clearly  ,SSPX are not going to be intimidated like,Marcello.

  • Fullerton54

    correction,Mr Oddie I should have typed.

  • http://twitter.com/JRforhope Gregory Bellarmine+

    You chaps can have your religion all you like but the fact remains “sacrificial” doesn’t make it suddenly a “sacrifice” of God offered to God. The Novus Ordo continues to look and sound more like a Church of England/ Episcopalian memorial with a sprinkling of sacrificial language. It actually does. But I’m honestly, continually flabbergasted that anyone can – hand on heart – listen and see what claims to be historically faithful to that which was “Catholic” in action every Sunday and claim that it looks, quacks, resembles the Church and is not in any way a full on rupture. Do you guys genuinely believe a faithful Catholic can pray “in sacris” with not only non-Catholics but non-Christians and not risk an eternal consequence let alone deserves obedience? The level of dazzling blindness is bizarre to me. Imagine if we saw the Reverend Billy Graham (not that he would have dared of course) – praying as an equal with Buddhists or Muslims. Protestants themselves would clearly say the man would be risking his soul and should in no way be obeyed. They might even say the Reverend sure looks the part of an apostate. But when the Pope and his Bishops and millions of people do the same, they’re fully Catholic and ok with Christ? You really, really believe that? Baffling. And therein lies the reality – what you have is a new religion with new services, new law, led by the examples of dubiously loyal Christians let alone Catholics. The fact is – wake up – Assisi happened not once, not twice, THREE TIMES. Three separate occasions and 2 Popes praying as if Christ were equal – as if our God is the same God in different forms? – and there’s been no rupture, sir, none at all. Astonishing.

  • Charles_abz_93

    Was Vatican 2 so great, we’ll see?
     
    The Third Secret was supposed to have been revealed in the year 1960!!! That is two years before the devastating Second Vatican Council!!!  
    According to Fr Malachi Martin and many others in the Vatican. The Secret was an ultimatum (an either or) it said the following:
     
    Unless Russia is converted to Catholicism by being consecrated to my immaculate heart in union with all the bishops during the Second Vatican Council, then the work of the Devil will infiltrate into the council in such a way that cardinals will oppose cardinals and bishops will oppose bishops. The Church, altars and communion rails will be sacked, the clergy will becomes like thieves robbing the church of Dogma, Doctrine and Tradition. The Traditional Mass will almost completely vanish, Latin will be scorned and be preserved in few places and will be replaced by the Abomination (Novus Ordo) that will desolate the Church. Rome will lose the faith and persecute those who preserve the Traditions of the Church. The practise of Religion and the profession of the traditional Catholic Faith will disappear from Nations and Continents. Widespread corruption will affect the churches Clergy and Laity. The Church will be full of those who accept compromises and the demon will press many priests and consecrated souls to leave the service of the Lord. Cardinal, Bishops, Priests, Lay people, men, women and children of the church will fall like snowflakes into hell. Almost the whole structure of the church will fall into heresy and Apostasy and will be united into a False Ecumenical Counter Catholic Church by Satan that will lead whole nations and continents into hell. The Eternal Father will then inflict a Terrible Punishment on all humanity. There are going to be Huge Calamities. Whole nations and Continents will be washed away forever. Whole nations would perish. There will be natural catastrophes’ that will level humanity. Russia will March upon Europe uncontested and Chastise Catholic Europe for their unfaith. The church will be severely punished and desolated that it would see for a time that Satan has defeated the Church and buried in the tomb once and fall all. Fire will fall from the sky and will wipe out a great part of humanity, the good as well as the bad, sparing neither priests nor faithful. The survivors will find themselves so desolate that they will envy the dead. The loss off Billions of Souls is the cause of my Sadness. If sins increase in number and gravity, there will be no longer pardon for them. In the end my Immaculate heart will triumph Russia will be converted and a period of peace will be granted to the world and the Catholic Church will be Resurrected and Restored in all the Glories of her Traditions like never before. The True Faith will then spread throughout the World.
     
    If this is the Third Secret then so much for VATICAN 2!!!!!!!!!!

  • Charles_abz_93

    Was Vatican 2 so great, we’ll see?
     
    The Third Secret was supposed to have been revealed in the year 1960!!! That is two years before the devastating Second Vatican Council!!!  
    According to Fr Malachi Martin and many others in the Vatican. The Secret was an ultimatum (an either or) it said the following:
     
    ‘Unless Russia is converted to Catholicism by being consecrated to my immaculate heart in union with all the bishops during the Second Vatican Council, then the work of the Devil will infiltrate into the council in such a way that cardinals will oppose cardinals and bishops will oppose bishops. The Church, altars and communion rails will be sacked, the clergy will becomes like thieves robbing the church of Dogma, Doctrine and Tradition. The Traditional Mass will almost completely vanish, Latin will be scorned and be preserved in few places and will be replaced by the Abomination (Novus Ordo) that will desolate the Church. Rome will lose the faith and persecute those who preserve the Traditions of the Church. The practise of Religion and the profession of the traditional Catholic Faith will disappear from Nations and Continents. Widespread corruption will affect the churches Clergy and Laity. The Church will be full of those who accept compromises and the demon will press many priests and consecrated souls to leave the service of the Lord. Cardinal, Bishops, Priests, Lay people, men, women and children of the church will fall like snowflakes into hell. Almost the whole structure of the church will fall into heresy and Apostasy and will be united into a False Ecumenical Counter Catholic Church by Satan that will lead whole nations and continents into hell. The Eternal Father will then inflict a Terrible Punishment on all humanity. There are going to be Huge Calamities. Whole nations and Continents will be washed away forever. Whole nations would perish. There will be natural catastrophes’ that will level humanity. Russia will March upon Europe uncontested and Chastise Catholic Europe for their unfaith. The church will be severely punished and desolated that it would see for a time that Satan has defeated the Church and buried in the tomb once and fall all. Fire will fall from the sky and will wipe out a great part of humanity, the good as well as the bad, sparing neither priests nor faithful. The survivors will find themselves so desolate that they will envy the dead. The loss off Billions of Souls is the cause of my Sadness. If sins increase in number and gravity, there will be no longer pardon for them. In the end my Immaculate heart will triumph Russia will be converted and a period of peace will be granted to the world and the Catholic Church will be Resurrected and Restored in all the Glories of her Traditions like never before. The True Faith will then spread throughout the World.’
     
    If this is the Third Secret then so much for VATICAN 2!!!!!!!!!!

  • joseph vellone

    The quote sounded like what one of the three other bishops would say to throw a monkey wrench into the works of the Vatican and Fellay.

  • Cmangine

    That fact is SSPX is correct.

  • http://www.catholictruthscotland.com/ EditorCT

    Yes, it is hilarious to think that the question is “can the SSPX be correct that the NO is a Protestant rite” when Cardinal Ottaviani & Co. wrote to Pope Paul VI to express their horror at this new proposed rite saying “it is a grave departure, in whole and in part, from Catholic theology of the Mass”.
     
    Wake up, Oddie – from the get go it was recognised, at the highest Vatican levels, as a Protestant rite.

  • Joe M

    You need to do some reading, Mr. Odie. The SSPX has plenty of material defending its points, all of which is convincing. Your case reads like one written by a political spin office. You do not even mention Cardinal Ottiovani, or his damning comments, for starters. Also, you put words in the SSPXs mouth. The say the Mass TENDS toward Protestantism, by de-emphasizing the sacrificial points, not that is IS Protestant. And that it most obviously does. Everyone knows it is not just what words are used, but how they are employed. If it is so glaringly obvious, how come people at my parish always insist the Mass is a community meal and not a sacrifice… Oh, thank Vatican II! Really, your breezy dismissal is more than a little off-putting. Maybe uninformed laymen will be impressed, but not anyone else. Also, love your “just about defensible” line on Assisi. It would be that “just about” element that also gives the SSPX pause.  

  • Joshua Speed

    The Novus Ordo Mass is a Protestant Rite. Just experience it and you will see what I mean. The NO Mass opens with a bunch of lay readers reading–very pedestrian, NOT liturgical. Finally, after a good 15-twenty minutes, a real priest enters the scene with something like “ancient tradition,” but NOT quite. Then the hymns, quasi-Protestant with no chants, no incense but with plenty of altar girls, and more lay readings. Protestant! Finally, a tiny core of the NO Mass opens up, the Eucharistic Liturgy, a mirco-nod in the direction of Tradition, but it is too little, too late. The Novus Ordo Mass IS a Protestant Rite, and it is TRAGIC.  

  • Joshua Speed

    Please, the Novus Ordo Mass is a travesty. To obey anyone who condones the NO Mass is foolish.

  • http://fora.tv/myfora/9668/Invictus_88 Invictus_88

    What could be more protestant than rejecting the authority of the Pope because of one’s fundamentalist attachment to X, Y or Z doctrine or style taken out of context and balance with the rest of the fabric of the Church?

    The N.O. Mass can be in some ways unlovely, and unhelpful, not least when a basket of tambourines and maracas is passed round…but protestantism is protest, it is rejection of authority, and that is the whole work of SSPX.

  • http://fora.tv/myfora/9668/Invictus_88 Invictus_88

    What’s wrong – FSSP not rebellious enough for you?

  • http://fora.tv/myfora/9668/Invictus_88 Invictus_88

    The points made in the Protestant Reformation were often also reasonable and convincing too.

    Did they lead people into the Church though?

    And do the disputations of SSPX?

    No, and no.

  • http://www.catholictruthscotland.com/ EditorCT

    If there’s one thing that is leading people right OUT of the Church it is the new Mass and all that goes with it.  Modernism, I believe it’s called. 

    Your nonsensical mantra about “obedience” ignores entirely the fact that there is true and false obedience AND that the Fathers of the Church warn us against obeying popes who are taking us away from Tradition  – the derfinition of which has always been “that which has always been believed by the faithful always and everywhere” although even THAT definition has been changed by the Modernists. Heavens above, even Pope Benedict warns readers of his books about Jesus, that these are his personal views and may not be Catholic! Priceless. Name any pope at any time in history who has had to warn the faithful and faithless alike that he may be wrong when speaking or writing about Christ. Who’d want to be a papolatrist these days?

    Truly, you could not make it up.  

  • Sebastian

    Not rejecting the Papcy, but rather liberlaism. VCII is rife with it. The Council was not Dogmatic; only in what it reiterated of doctrine from the past, but nothing new that is binding. It is a strinikng separture from the past. Thw New Rite of the Mass omits a great deal that is truly “Catholic” and renders the priset as “Presider” rather than priest. It focuses more on the people than on the sacrifice.

  • http://fora.tv/myfora/9668/Invictus_88 Invictus_88

    It is the Mass. It is literally the body and blood of Jesus. What more do you want, Sebastian?

    Is the body and blood of your saviour not sufficient for you when experienced in the ‘wrong rite’? When not catered to your personal tastes? When it triggers your insecurities about protestant heresy?

    “HOC EST ENIM CORPUS MEUM”, after all?

  • Isabel

    I am so very grateful to the beautiful souls of the SSPX.  I know that they are believed to be in schism and that they must come to the truth that the Catholic Church teaches regarding the Novus Ordo Mass.  However, they are devout souls, courageous souls and and beautiful souls worth knowing!  I am so greatly blessed to belong to the only Catholic Latin Rite Diocesan Parish Church in the United States (Our Lady Help of Christians in Huntsville Alabama, diocese of Birmingham.  Some of our parishioners were once members of SSPX and St. Pius V but are now at home with us. They inspire me to holiness and I am just so grateful to them.  I just wanted them to know that I understand, and like our Holy Father and many of you I desire our unity in brotherly and Christian Love. Perhaps our newly formed parish is a light from God to all of us!  We are poor, (practically destitute) but we are Catholic.