R
RSiscoe
Guest
Dr. Bombay:
In 1979 Rome issued a document to the Church in American in an attempt to correct an abused that was occurring, in which certain Churches were using invalid matter for communion. This abuse was not corrected, but has only gotten worse. I will tell the story I told once before: When listening to Mother Angelica one day, a person called in and said the following: “Mother, last week our Priest consecrated a cake for communion: was that valid?” Mother Angelica responded, with disgust in her voice, by saying “honey you got nothin”. In other words, their communion was totally invalid due to improper “matter”.
The problem with the new mass or more than just validity. It may be valid and it may not, depending on the Church. But even if it is valid, the liturgy of the mass has been completely watered down and compromised. That is why Cardinal Ottaviani, who was in charge of the holy office under three Popes, said what he did about the New Mass. He did not question the validity, but the orthodoxy of the mass.
The new mass has many problems. It was written with the express intent of being “less offensive” to Protestants (according to the Vatican newspaper quoted earlier). You also have the issue of “lex orandi, lex credendi”, which means “the law of prayer determines the law (or manner) of belief”. In other words, the way that we pray, or the words that we use to pray, will determine the way we beleive. If we pray like Protestants, we will end up believing like Protestants. Now, the new mass is virtually identical to the Episcopal service I grew up with. When Leo XIII condemned the Episcopal service as invalid, he made the following statement:
“They knew only too well the intimate bond which unites faith with worship, ‘the law of belief with the law of prayer’(lex orandi, lex credendi), and so, under the pretext of restoring it to its primitive form, they corrupted the order of the liturgy in many respects to adapt it to the errors of the Innovators (reformers)” (Apostolicae Curae).
Now, the new mass is virtually identical to the Episcopal service he was referring to. I grew up going to that service and even used to be an altar boy, and the Novus Ordo is virtually identical to it.
So, the problem with the new mass is more than just validity. It is a protestantised mass!
Cardinal Ottaviaini: ”From the outset, therefore, the new rite was pluralistic and experimental, bound to time and place. **Since unity of worship has been shattered once and for all, what basis will exist for the unity of the faith which accompanied it and which, we were told, was always to be defended without compromise? **It is obvious that the New Order of Mass has no intention of presenting the Faith taught by the Council of Trent. But it is to this Faith that the Catholic conscience is bound forever. Thus, with the promulgation of the New Order of Mass, the true Catholic is faced with a tragic need to choose…”
**“To abandon a liturgical tradition which for four centuries stood as a sign and pledge of unity in worship, and to replace it with another liturgy which, due to the countless liberties it implicitly authorizes, cannot but be a sign of division – a liturgy which teems with insinuations or manifest errors against the integrity of the Catholic Faith – is, we feel bound in conscience to proclaim, an incalculable error” **
“At the same time, by abandoning it’s unmistakable and immemorial Roman character, the Novus Ordo cast off what was spiritually precious of its own. In place of this are elements which bring the new rite closer to certain Protestant liturgies, not even those closest to Catholicism.” (The Ottaviani Intervention).
Not sure why you asked that. I have never denied the validity of the New Mass when the proper form, matter, and intent are used. On the contrary, I have said that when the proper form matter and intent are used, the new Mass IS valid. But, unfortunately, the proper form matter and intent are not always used. Setting aside, for now, the fact that the words of consecration have been changed in the vernacular translation of the new mass, let’s just deal with the “matter” that is used.
In 1979 Rome issued a document to the Church in American in an attempt to correct an abused that was occurring, in which certain Churches were using invalid matter for communion. This abuse was not corrected, but has only gotten worse. I will tell the story I told once before: When listening to Mother Angelica one day, a person called in and said the following: “Mother, last week our Priest consecrated a cake for communion: was that valid?” Mother Angelica responded, with disgust in her voice, by saying “honey you got nothin”. In other words, their communion was totally invalid due to improper “matter”.
The problem with the new mass or more than just validity. It may be valid and it may not, depending on the Church. But even if it is valid, the liturgy of the mass has been completely watered down and compromised. That is why Cardinal Ottaviani, who was in charge of the holy office under three Popes, said what he did about the New Mass. He did not question the validity, but the orthodoxy of the mass.
The new mass has many problems. It was written with the express intent of being “less offensive” to Protestants (according to the Vatican newspaper quoted earlier). You also have the issue of “lex orandi, lex credendi”, which means “the law of prayer determines the law (or manner) of belief”. In other words, the way that we pray, or the words that we use to pray, will determine the way we beleive. If we pray like Protestants, we will end up believing like Protestants. Now, the new mass is virtually identical to the Episcopal service I grew up with. When Leo XIII condemned the Episcopal service as invalid, he made the following statement:
“They knew only too well the intimate bond which unites faith with worship, ‘the law of belief with the law of prayer’(lex orandi, lex credendi), and so, under the pretext of restoring it to its primitive form, they corrupted the order of the liturgy in many respects to adapt it to the errors of the Innovators (reformers)” (Apostolicae Curae).
Now, the new mass is virtually identical to the Episcopal service he was referring to. I grew up going to that service and even used to be an altar boy, and the Novus Ordo is virtually identical to it.
So, the problem with the new mass is more than just validity. It is a protestantised mass!
Cardinal Ottaviaini: ”From the outset, therefore, the new rite was pluralistic and experimental, bound to time and place. **Since unity of worship has been shattered once and for all, what basis will exist for the unity of the faith which accompanied it and which, we were told, was always to be defended without compromise? **It is obvious that the New Order of Mass has no intention of presenting the Faith taught by the Council of Trent. But it is to this Faith that the Catholic conscience is bound forever. Thus, with the promulgation of the New Order of Mass, the true Catholic is faced with a tragic need to choose…”
**“To abandon a liturgical tradition which for four centuries stood as a sign and pledge of unity in worship, and to replace it with another liturgy which, due to the countless liberties it implicitly authorizes, cannot but be a sign of division – a liturgy which teems with insinuations or manifest errors against the integrity of the Catholic Faith – is, we feel bound in conscience to proclaim, an incalculable error” **
“At the same time, by abandoning it’s unmistakable and immemorial Roman character, the Novus Ordo cast off what was spiritually precious of its own. In place of this are elements which bring the new rite closer to certain Protestant liturgies, not even those closest to Catholicism.” (The Ottaviani Intervention).
