From the SSPX Website

[Volodymyr_988]

sspx.org/SSPX_FAQs/q5_novusordo.htm

What are the ELEMENTS that make up the New Rite? Some are Catholic:

a priest,

bread and wine,

genuflections,

signs of the Cross, etc.,

but some are Protestant:

a table,

common-place utensils,

communion under both kinds and in the hand, etc

Regarding the Protestant remarks:

What are the common-place utensils they are writing about? There are no forks and spoons on the Altar at my church.

Communion under both kinds is not a Protestant invention. Other Rites have been doing this for almost 2000 years now.

However, the celebrant must intend to do what the Church does. The Novus Ordo Missae will no longer in and of itself guarantee that the celebrant has this intention. That will depend on his personal faith (generally unknown to those assisting, but more and more doubtful as the crisis in the Church is prolonged).

Therefore, these Masses can be of doubtful validity, and more so with time.

The words of consecration, especially of the wine, have been tampered with. Has the “substance of the sacrament” (cf., Pope Pius XII quoted in PRINCIPLE 5) been respected? This is even more of a problem in Masses in the vernacular, where pro multis (for many) has been deliberately mistranslated as “for all”. While we should assume that despite this change the consecration is still valid, nevertheless this does add to the doubt.

E. CONSIDERING WHAT HAS BEEN SAID, ARE WE OBLIGED IN CONSCIENCE TO ATTEND THE NOVUS ORDO MISSAE?

If the Novus Ordo Missae is not truly Catholic, then it cannot oblige for one’s Sunday obligation. Many Catholics who do assist at it are unaware of its all pervasive degree of serious innovation and are exempt from guilt. However, any Catholic who is aware of its harm, does not have the right to participate. He could only then assist at it by a mere physical presence without positively taking part in it, and then and for major family reasons (weddings, funerals, etc).

So, now that I have been informed by the SSPX, am I now obliged to drive the 60 miles to St. Louis to go to the TLM?

 

[pnewton]

Therefore, these Masses can be of doubtful validity, and more so with time.

I do not like to hear that this is still being said. Doubting the validity of the Mass is one thing that has prevented reconcilliation and will do so in the future.

 

[Pious_Mat]

Yes, this is certainly a roadblock to reconciliation, but I still think it is possible, even if it will be a long time. I think that one that might work toward reconciliation in including in the Ordinary Form another Eucharistic prayer that, nearly word for word, is the same as the old Roman Canon. Of course, this is just a kind of fantasy I keep in the back of my head, and I don’t think the Holy Father will be taking my advice any time soon, which I’m of course okay with.

At least the SSPX seem to recognize the Pope and his authority, and aren’t claiming all this sedevacantist garbage. In fact, getting rid of sedevacantism and all these people who think they’re the Pope would be first step toward unifying all Catholics once more, and is probably more pressing a matter than the SSPX. Schism is schism, but heresy is worse.

 

[laudamus_te]

sspx.org/SSPX_FAQs/q5_novusordo.htm

Regarding the Protestant remarks:

What are the common-place utensils they are writing about? There are no forks and spoons on the Altar at my church.

The utensils are the paten and chalice. They are more and more being made from common material such as crockery or glass. They should be at the very least lined with silver or gold.

Communion under both kinds is not a Protestant invention. Other Rites have been doing this for almost 2000 years now.

I believe they are pointing out that these things are typical in Protestant churches today. I will add that at my parish NO church, the genuflections are even being done away with. Last mass I attended, the priest merely bowed at the consecration (and he is able to genuflect).

So, now that I have been informed by the SSPX, am I now obliged to drive the 60 miles to St. Louis to go to the TLM?

Of course not. No one is forcing you to do anything you don’t wish. I’m sure you know that. So, was this thread started just as another opportunity to bash the SSPX and stir up more bad feelings?

 

[latinmass]

There are Catholic apologetics to speak to all religions that doubt us and truth. Can anyone speak to the points made by this SSPX document? I can’t. They seem like very good points though. Where’s our apologists. So far just complaints by what is written.

 

[Volodymyr_988]

There are Catholic apologetics to speak to all religions that doubt us and truth. Can anyone speak to the points made by this SSPX document? I can’t. They seem like very good points though. Where’s our apologists. So far just complaints by what is written.

I wrote above that Communion under both Species is practiced today in the many different Rites in the Catholic Church and has been for almost 2000 years now. That is an example of apologetics.

Communion under one Species is a Latin Catholic (to use the proper terminology of Churches and Rites) development which has spread to other Rites such as those under the Roman Patriarchate. (To be considered differently from the other Patriarchs such as the Melkite Patriarch who uses the Byzantine Rite.)

 

[Cristiano]

Communion under both kinds is not a Protestant invention. Other Rites have been doing this for almost 2000 years now.

I believe they are pointing out that these things are typical in Protestant churches today.

Reciting the Lord’s prayer is a quite common event in protestant churches too. Should we stop reciting it during the Liturgy of the Eucharist because it is typical for the protestants. No! We cannot reject what is proper just because the protestants do something similar!

 

[bpbasilphx]

If the Novus Ordo Missae is not truly Catholic, then it cannot oblige for one’s Sunday obligation. Many Catholics who do assist at it are unaware of its all pervasive degree of serious innovation and are exempt from guilt. However, any Catholic who is aware of its harm, does not have the right to participate. He could only then assist at it by a mere physical presence without positively taking part in it, and then and for major family reasons (weddings, funerals, etc).

But the italiziced words above are false. The NO IS truly Catholic–though I still prefer the Liturgy of St. John Chrystostom, St. Basil, et al.

 

[laudamus_te]

Reciting the Lord’s prayer is a quite common event in protestant churches too. Should we stop reciting it during the Liturgy of the Eucharist because it is typical for the protestants. No! We cannot reject what is proper just because the protestants do something similar!

The NO has adopted the Protestant version of the Our Father, with the “For Thine is the Kingdom…” bit at the end. It’s not rejecting somthing just because the Protestants do it, it’s rejecting adopting practices which bring the Catholic Mass more into line with Protestant services. It is naive to think that many of these changes in the NOM were not done for that express purpose.

 

[Arnobius]

The NO has adopted the Protestant version of the Our Father, with the “For Thine is the Kingdom…” bit at the end. It’s not rejecting somthing just because the Protestants do it, it’s rejecting adopting practices which bring the Catholic Mass more into line with Protestant services. It is naive to think that many of these changes in the NOM were not done for that express purpose.

What you are referring to is not part of the Our Father, but is said after prayer by the priest.

It is your job to prove it was done for the purpose of bringing the Catholic Mass into line with the Protestant services… the commonly cited Ottaviani Intervention is certainly no proof as they cannot even be bothered to cite the materials:

From the Intervention:

A well-known periodical, aimed at bishops and expressing their teaching, summed up the new rite in these terms:

"They wanted to make a clean slate of the whole theology of the Mass. It ended up in substance quite close to the Protestant theology which destroyed the sacrifice of the Mass."

What periodical? Who wrote it? When was it written? What was the context it was written in? Without these references, it is a worthless citation.

This is nothing more than a post hoc fallacy implying that similarity means descent.

 

[pnewton]

The NO has adopted the Protestant version of the Our Father, with the “For Thine is the Kingdom…” bit at the end. It’s not rejecting somthing just because the Protestants do it, it’s rejecting adopting practices which bring the Catholic Mass more into line with Protestant services. It is naive to think that many of these changes in the NOM were not done for that express purpose.

The part to which you refer is not added to the end of the Our Father but incorporated in a different part of the prayer.

I fail to see the distinction between saying something is wrong because it was done to be more in line with Protestants and rejecting something just because Protestants do it.

Is it because someone else was first, like a “They started it” argument?

Let me add: Do you know who the ending part that Protestants use came into use in the KJV? It appears in may older manuscripts. Specifically, it appears to be part of the prayers used with the Our Father that may have started in the margins and then became incorporated. So, since the Catholic Church existed from the apostles, we were first to use it.

 

[wanner47]

There are Catholic apologetics to speak to all religions that doubt us and truth. Can anyone speak to the points made by this SSPX document? I can’t. They seem like very good points though. Where’s our apologists. So far just complaints by what is written.

No one has to “speak to their points,” because they don’t have the authority to make those decisions regarding the validity of the Mass.

That authority rests with the Pope and the Magisterium – last time I checked, no one in the SSPX served in that capacity. I also don’t see anywhere in the Bible or in Tradition that says, “Obey the Church except when the Mass is in question; at that point, obey splinter groups with no real authority.”

I’m letting the Successor of Peter determine the validity of the Masses, and he says that both the NO and the TLM are valid. Thus, I consider them both valid despite the opinion to the contrary held by the SSPX.

 

[latinmass]

No one has to “speak to their points,” because they don’t have the authority to make those decisions regarding the validity of the Mass.

That authority rests with the Pope and the Magisterium – last time I checked, no one in the SSPX served in that capacity. I also don’t see anywhere in the Bible or in Tradition that says, “Obey the Church except when the Mass is in question; at that point, obey splinter groups with no real authority.”

I’m letting the Successor of Peter determine the validity of the Masses, and he says that both the NO and the TLM are valid. Thus, I consider them both valid despite the opinion to the contrary held by the SSPX.

THen why don’t we tell all the Protestants you have no authority and leave it at that? To all the Protestants you have no Pope and no authority, you are wrong. Is that clear enough. It seems we talk specifically to there points of contention. But I like your method. It is true.

 

[stmaria]

=pnewton;3316239]The part to which you refer is not added to the end of the Our Father but incorporated in a different part of the prayer.

I fail to see the distinction between saying something is wrong because it was done to be more in line with Protestants and rejecting something just because Protestants do it.

Cramner used the prayer as part of the Our Father in his mass. Luther includes it in his catechism
Martin Luther Small Catechism
blc.edu/comm/gargy/gargy1/ELSCatechism.htm
“THE CONCLUSION
For Thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, forever and ever. Amen.

I know you don’t want to hear it but the six Protestants that were part of the Consilium obviously had some influence.

Let me add: Do you know who the ending part that Protestants use came into use in the KJV? It appears in may older manuscripts. Specifically, it appears to be part of the prayers used with the Our Father that may have started in the margins and then became incorporated. So, since the Catholic Church existed from the apostles, we were first to use it.

The prayer comes from the first century. It was never used in the Traditional Mass. The King James Bible has it as part of the Our Father. Protestants actually believe that it was said by Jesus as part of the Our Father.

 

[pnewton]

I know you don’t want to hear it but the six Protestants that were part of the Consilium obviously had some influence.
.

I won’t deny that, but neither do I see any logical reason to believe it possible to know this.

Also, I did not know that a first century missal existed. It does appear in the Didache which might lend some credence to its early use in worship.

Even though it is not a part of the TLM, I do not understand the objection to a doxology 2000 years old being incorporated into the Mass today. It is not added to the Our Father. Are the words offensive?

 

[wanner47]

THen why don’t we tell all the Protestants you have no authority and leave it at that? To all the Protestants you have no Pope and no authority, you are wrong. Is that clear enough. It seems we talk specifically to there points of contention. But I like your method. It is true.

Sure, we can (and do) tell Protestants that. In fact, it is the issue from which all other issues spring. The problem is that Protestants don’t believe that the Catholic Church is the authority, and the first and biggest step is convincing them that Jesus did establish that authority, and that it exists today in the CC.

 

[Arnobius]

It was also found in the version of the Lord’s Prayer represented in the Didache. Was that a Protestant work?

It is still left unshown that this was done because they wanted to bring the Mass in line with Protestant services

 

[cam100]

The NO has adopted the Protestant version of the Our Father, with the “For Thine is the Kingdom…” bit at the end. It’s not rejecting somthing just because the Protestants do it, it’s rejecting adopting practices which bring the Catholic Mass more into line with Protestant services. It is naive to think that many of these changes in the NOM were not done for that express purpose.

Even if you proved that the doxology following the Our Father in the Mass was added to please Protestants, this doesn’t make it wrong. There is nothing wrong with the doxology; and it was started by Catholics. The only mistake Protestants made with it was that some came to believe it was part of Our Lord’s original words due to its place in the KJ bible.

There is nothing wrong with adding words to the end of a revealed prayer. We add words to the angelic salutation and call it the Hail Mary. If Protestants started doing that, too, (I know, not much chance of that) it wouldn’t make the Hail Mary bad.

 

[stmaria]

=cam100;3316850]Even if you proved that the doxology following the Our Father in the Mass was added to please Protestants, this doesn’t make it wrong. There is nothing wrong with the doxology; and it was started by Catholics.

How much of the Protestant service do you want to add to the Catholic Mass? Zwingli introduced communion in the hand and lay ministers, Luther and Cramner introduced the all vernacular Mass, priest facing the people, removal of statues, the Tabernacle and communion rails, popular music , “For thine is the Kingdom”, etc.
Adventist Review
adventistreview.org/article.php?id=1034

“In his reform program Zwingli ordered that Communion bread be carried around by appointed ministers or deacons on large wooden trenchers from seat to seat among the believers. The wine was also to be carried in wooden beakers to all members. It was no longer necessary for each believer to come **and kneel **at the altar, for Communion was not a sacrament. The Lord’s Supper was not a miracle, but a commemoration.”

 

[Sure]

How much of the Protestant service do you want to add to the Catholic Mass? Zwingli introduced communion in the hand and lay ministers, Luther and Cramner introduced the all vernacular Mass, priest facing the people, removal of statues, the Tabernacle and communion rails, popular music , “For thine is the Kingdom”, etc.
Adventist Review
adventistreview.org/article.php?id=1034

“In his reform program Zwingli ordered that Communion bread be carried around by appointed ministers or deacons on large wooden trenchers from seat to seat among the believers. The wine was also to be carried in wooden beakers to all members. It was no longer necessary for each believer to come **and kneel **at the altar, for Communion was not a sacrament. The Lord’s Supper was not a miracle, but a commemoration.”

Wait! They had Communion! Well, that must mean that the TLM is protestant because they have Communion also!

The reason there are similarities between both forms of the roman rite and the protestant services is because they are both derived from Catholicism. This should really be no surprise. The protestants did not invent Communion in the hand or freestanding altars or the priest facing the people or Mass in the vernacular…all of these things were done by Catholics before the reformation. To call them uniquely protestant when the protestants stole the ideas from us seems kind of silly.

The “communion” service you describe is not any more similar to the ordinary form than the extraordinary form. Let’s look at it:

1. Extraordinary Form
Priest or deacon
Communion on Tongue
Kneeling
Mass is an unbloody Sacrifice

2. Ordinary Form
Priest, Deacon, or layperson
Communion on Tongue or in hand
Standing after sign of reverence or Kneeling
Mass is an unbloody Sacrifice

3. Protestant (as you described)
Deacon or layperson
Self-communicate in the hand
Sitting
Mass is not a Sacrifice, only a memorial

Where is the overwhelming evidence that 2 and 3 are so much more similar? They seem pretty different to me.

Of course, none of this matters anyway if we believe that the Church has the authority to change the liturgy and discipline authoritatively.