Has anyone changed there mind here?

[beckers]

However, the opinion of the Pope is not always right. To say it is is to make him perfect, which he is not.

Of course he is not perfect. But you have to agree that his opinion does have more weight than anyone on these boards. He can call a council or decide to change things (ie: the release for the more general use of the TLM mass) or if he wants he can speak from the chair and make an Infallible declaration. None of us can do that except in our fantasy.

 

[beckers]

I am not completely turned off from the TLM mass though I don’t attend it frequently. i do go to the NO latin mass with my roommate but i prefer the NO or Anglican Use Mass. Why? I like to understand and feel somewhat apart of the mass. Yes I can follow along in a missal but my gosh sometimes i like to close my eyes and just think and contemplate the sacrifice. I shouldn’t have to read along. The other reason is what others posters have pointed out. The superiority complex of TLM people. The first time i ever went to a Latin mass I was confronted by a man outside who told me that there were only two real catholic churches left. The two with communion rails. Needless to say I didn’t feel very welcomed even though I was in my own diocese. Luckly I go to Bible study with some traditional people and have come to respect the mass more and will venture back to the mass again.

I was also very supportive of in a sense the chains being released on the TLM mass. I realized that the Church has the flexibility to change in trying to reach all of her children. Some people enjoy the simple daily mass where there is no music but the people’s voices other enjoy the choir of the traditional mass or chants and full out choir or the contemporary music at the Sunday evening mass. No mass even with specific rules is every going to be the same. That’s the beauty. We all celebrate at different times and different style masses but we are members of the Body of Christ. We are celebrating together and receiving our Lord in the Eucharist. We are one Church.

The Church is always being attacked by the devil, and every division we allow in the church is another opportunity for the Devil to gain even more entrance. We should be helping and supporting each other and not point fingers say “you mass wasn’t valid and my church services is better than yours”. It sounds childish.

 

[Aragorn1]

Allow me to clarify. Liturgical substance is what I was referring to, not always sacramental substance.

But what exactly do you mean by “liturgical substance”? Isn’t the substance of the liturgy the Sacrifice? I still think what you object to is not the substance but the specific externals. The center and essence of any Mass in any liturgical form is the Eucharist, right? Can you please give me a definition of “liturgical substance” other than my understanding of it as expressed above?

Can you define what an external of a liturgy is and an internal for that matter?

Well, I don’t have any formal definition handy or anything, but I’d say that the externals are that which express the internals, or substance, of the liturgy (in other words, that which gives outward form and embellishment to the substance). Thus things like priests’ vestments, various decorations of the altar, individual prayers outside of the consecration, the rubrics of the liturgy, the language, etc. are all externals.

Many Novus Ordo services are invalid due to defect of matter, form or intention. Ironically, one of the first places I ever heard this was while watching Fr. Corapi on EWTN.

Tragically, you’re correct that some (but very few) OF Masses are invalid. (In fact I myself have witnessed, on one occasion, the priest tampering with the words of consecration, making jokes, etc.).

HOWEVER… This consideration does not in any way give justification for the rejection of the rite itself as promulgated by the Church. (In fact, I think it was no less than Michael Davies who once said that if the OF were always celebrated according to the rubrics there never would have been a problem.)

Also, something leads me to believe that such experiences as I have had (only once, mind you) are very rare indeed. I have never seen a defect of matter with respect to the Eucharist and must conclude that such abuses as “consecrating” things like, say, donuts are so rare as to be negligible (even publications such as The Remnant and others never report such alleged activities). They’re even more rare than so-called “clown masses”, which I commented on above.

Regarding intention, it’s impossible to know the intention of the priest unless he tells you, so making an accurate judgment here is practically impossible.

As for defect of form, though abuses from time to time happen, ironically it is easier to detect and correct those abuses with the OF, as the priest faces the people and speakes out loud in the vernacular. In the EF the priest has his back to the people and whispers inaudibly in a foreign language. I’ve heard that in the Middle Ages abuses such as the priest deliberately omitting the words of consecration occurred now and then. Theoretically the same could happen today in parishes that offer the EF of the Mass, though I’ve never heard of it happening in recent times. Apparently this was one of the reasons for changing the language to the vernacular and having the priest speak audibly.

I believe the Latin Novus Ordo consecration is valid. I’m less certain about the English vernacular

Forgive my asking Why?

You’re a bit strident but asking for a clarification is always good.
You could ask for it before bringing the hammers down.

Yeah, sorry about the outburst. I guess I overreacted. In my defense, though, I was very annoyed by what I perceived as either (a) an attack on the validity of the OF, or (b) a very ambiguous expression that seemed to me capable of being interpreted in a blasphemous way. I still think you should have expressed yourself better, and I await your defense of your use of the term “liturgical substance” (see above); but you’re right when you say I should have asked for clarification first.

 

[Aragorn1]

However, the opinion of the Pope is not always right. To say it is is to make him perfect, which he is not.

The opinions of the traditionalists are not always right either, and to say they are is to make them perfect, which they are not. Even granting that the validity of the OF is mere opinion (which it is not), frankly I am more inclined to accept the opinion of the Pope, who, as some guy named Karl Keating once put it ( ), speaks not off the top of his head but from a tradition of right teaching.

 

[Aragorn1]

Thank you for understanding. I know that you are ‘pro-EF’ which is a heck of a lot different than ‘anti-OF’.

Kris

Yes, that’s a crucial point, and one that many traditionalists often overlook. I myself am “pro-EF”, attending it almost every week at an FSSP parish. This is in accordance with my “rightful aspirations” (cf., Ecclesia Dei). Nonetheless I object to the sort of “Latin Mass-only” attitude of many on these boards and elsewhere. Thus I am not a “traditionalist” in the proper sense of the word (I fully accept Vatican II and the OF of the Mass, and I am 100% loyal to the Pope).

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

That’s why we should weep (with the Lord) over the behavior of certain prelates who’ve attempted to bring the Church down to the standards of the world; who go against the Holy Church by abusing power (though unintentionally).

From your vast store of knowledge, would you mind identifying these prelates you refer to so we can verify this statement.
Deacon Ed B

 

[Richie_Nelson]

We should be helping and supporting each other and not point fingers say “you mass wasn’t valid and my church services is better than yours”. It sounds childish

:tiphat:

 

[ac_claire]

I was trying to think about how your statement applies from my perspective.

I don’t just prefer the TLM, I can’t tolerate the Novus Ordo.

When I drive past the local Churches and see the hootenany going on and the abominable mode of dress, when I see the lack of reverence towards Our Lord, the hubris of the people in front of God, the priests that “phone it in” or worse, the modernists making a mockery of Calvary.

Gerard, I wouldn’t want to tolerate this either.

Fortunately, I’ve never seen a Catholic mass as bad as you describe. The reverent OF mass I attend bears no resemblence to your description. (But…you must know this already because this is like the fourth time I’ve pointed it out… )

The best Novus Ordo in Latin, facing the tabernacle, done with reverence is still a weak vehicle for devotion due to the content of the prayers and the less reverent rubrics.

We all understand that you feel this way. We also understand that since you are neither the pope nor God’s personal spokesperson, we’re not obliged to take your repetitive, sloppy generalizations as fact.

I have 34 years of ever deteriorating Novus Ordo masses clanging around in my head, I still have it memorized and I could never go back to it after finding out what our patrimony really is.

Again, we’re having two different conversations here. You’re talking about “ever deteriorating NO masses”; I’m not…

JKirkLVNV:

I’ve always believed that the ancient and venerable EF, worthy of our respect and reverence, is terribly ill-served by a great many of its adherents and I still believe it.

Exactly.

 

[Brother_John]

We should be helping and supporting each other and not point fingers say “you mass wasn’t valid and my church services is better than yours”. It sounds childish

:yup: :tiphat: :extrahappy:

Sounds like the protestant kids I went to grade school with.

 

[Cat]

However, the opinion of the Pope is not always right. To say it is is to make him perfect, which he is not.

The Pope’s opinion is only 100% right when he condemns rock music.

At least, that’s the impression I get from some on this Board.

An opinion is just that–an opinion, not binding on any Christian. I accept that Pope Benedict XVI doesn’t care for rock music. But until he speaks from the Chair of Peter and condemns it and incorporates this condemnation as official Catholic Church dogma, then I will continue to defend its use in Mass.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

I continue to be stunned by such strong opinions stressed by those who prefer the different rites of the mass, which are equally as valid and are used to celebrate Eucharist. I feel that if Jesus were still in the tomb, he would have turned over several times by now. Do any of you realize what you are saying about the mass.
Deacon Ed B

 

[GerardP]

I continue to be stunned by such strong opinions stressed by those who prefer the different rites of the mass, which are equally as valid and are used to celebrate Eucharist. I feel that if Jesus were still in the tomb, he would have turned over several times by now. Do any of you realize what you are saying about the mass.
Deacon Ed B

Validity is not the main issue. The Black Mass is valid. The main issue is the Lex Orendi Lex Credendi, and these two rites are not on equal footing when it comes to the explicit expression of the faith.

 

[ac_claire]

GerardP:

Many Novus Ordo services are invalid due to defect of matter, form or intention. Ironically, one of the first places I ever heard this was while watching Fr. Corapi on EWTN.

Does anyone at the Vatican whose opinion carries any real weight or meaning agree with Fr. Corapi?

And did Fr. Corapi specifically use the term ‘services’ for the OF??

If Gerard is referencing what I think he’s referencing- (correct me if I’m wrong, G)- Fr. Corapi has talked about what qualifies as invalid form and matter which would make a consecration invalid. He outlines canon law on the subject, (ie: the host must be made of wheat and the wine from natural grapes), and to drive the point home, Fr. C tells the story of a parish that used milk, eggs, honey, etc. in their hosts. He said that recipe might make a nice cookie, but not valid matter for consecration.

As to invalid form, Fr. Corapi never brought whether a mass is said in the OF or the EF into the equation. He mainly talked about changing the words in the Eucharistic Prayer.

 

[Cat]

Validity is not the main issue. The Black Mass is valid. The main issue is the Lex Orendi Lex Credendi, and these two rites are not on equal footing when it comes to the explicit expression of the faith.

I would appreciate it if someone knowledgeable could please defend the OF of the Mass. Please.

As a fairly new Catholic, I find GerardP’s accusations and insinuations against the OF very disconcerting and confusing, and I find this link of his with OF and Black Mass just plain frightening.

To me, this is a grievous insult to our Holy Father, the Magisterium, and my own dear Bishop. All of these servants of Christ have made it clear that the OF is fully approved by the Church of Christ, the Catholic Church. For someone to imply that these men are making a mistake and that Catholics are receiving something “flawed” by attending OF is disturbing.

Please, someone, defend the Church and the OF Mass!

Or is he right?

 

[GerardP]

But what exactly do you mean by “liturgical substance”?

By that I mean the way the liturgy expresses the thing that it is supposed to be.

According to the Ottaviani Intervention the definition of the Mass according to the Novus Ordo is of far different substance than the definition of the TLM.

Chapter 2:
Let us begin with the definition of the Mass. In Article 7 of the General Instruction which precedes the New Order of Mass, we discover the following definition:

The Lord’s Supper or Mass is the sacred assembly or congregation of the people of God gathering together, with a priest presiding, to celebrate the memorial of the Lord. For this reason Christ’s promise applies supremely to a local gathering together of the Church: “Where two or three come together in my name, there am I in their midst.” (Mt. 18:20)

The definition of the Mass is thus reduced to a “supper,” a term which the General Instruction constantly repeats. The Instruction further characterizes this “supper” as an assembly, presided over by a priest and held as a memorial of the Lord to recall what He did on Holy Thursday. None of this in the very least implies:

• The Real Presence - The reality of the Sacrifice - The sacramental function of the priest who consecrates - The intrinsic value of the Eucharistic Sacrifice independent of - the presence of the “assembly.”

In a word, the Instruction’s definition implies none of the dogmatic values which are essential to the Mass and which, taken together, provide its true definition. Here, deliberately omitting these dogmatic values by “going beyond them” amounts, at least in practice, to denying them. The second part of Article 7 makes this already serious equivocation even worse. It states that Christ’s promise, ( “Where two or three come together in my name, there am I in their midst”) applies to this assembly supremely. Thus, the Instruction puts Christ’s promise (which refers only to His spiritual presence through grace) on the same qualitative level (save for greater intensity) as the substantial and physical reality of the sacramental Eucharistic sacrifice. The next Article of the Instruction divides the Mass into a “Liturgy of the Word” and a “Liturgy of the Eucharist,” and adds that the “table of God’s Word” and the “table of Christ’s Body” are prepared at Mass so that the faithful may receive “instruction and food.” As we will see later, this statement improperly joins the two parts of the Mass, as thought they possessed equal symbolic value. The Instruction uses many different names for the Mass, such as:

• Action of Christ and the People of God. - Lord’s Supper or Mass - Paschal Banquet - Common participation in the Table of the Lord - Eucharistic Prayer - Liturgy of the Word and Liturgy of the Eucharistic

All these expressions are acceptable when used relatively–but when used separately and absolutely, as they are here, they must be completely rejected. It is obvious that the Novus Ordo obsessively emphasizes “supper” and “memorial,” instead of the unbloody renewal of the Sacrifice of the Cross. Even the phrase in the Instruction describing the Mass as a “memorial of the Passion and Resurrection” is inexact. The Mass is the memorial of the unique Sacrifice, redemptive in itself; whereas the Resurrection is the fruit which follows from that sacrifice. We shall see later how such equivocations are repeated and reiterated both in the formula for the Consecration and throughout the Novus Ordo as a whole.

 

[ac_claire]

I would appreciate it if someone knowledgeable could please defend the OF of the Mass. Please.

To me, this is a grievous insult to our Holy Father, the Magisterium, and my own dear Bishop. All of these servants of Christ have made it clear that the OF is fully approved by the Church of Christ, the Catholic Church. For someone to imply that these men are making a mistake and that Catholics are receiving something “flawed” by attending OF is disturbing.

Please, someone, defend the Church and the OF Mass!

Well, I won’t claim to be “knowledgable”, but here’s the thing:

a.) the OF is in fact the ordinary form of the mass, promulgated by the Church and the Holy See.

b.) You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it (Matt. 16:18).

If you believe b, then a can’t be invalid or inherently destructive to our faith.

 

[I_Believe]

I believe Traditional Catholic worship and doctrine are how God wants us to worship. I see great debate here on many topics, now it seems that some topics are to tough to arbitrate and we need to keep our debates to mantillas and why the Church does not eat meat of Fridays year round. If we can’t debate the challenging topics, is this of any use? It seems that there are staunch positions here held by the same people that never change. ** Has anyone come to love the TLM and or turned from happy clappy parishes because of this Traditional Forum? **

Yes, I’ve come to love the TLM. I’m a revert who joined CA a few months before I actually went to confession and came home.

My first reaction to this forum was "when did it become ok for catholics to question Rome ? " I thought I’d stumbled upon the “renegade catholics” forum.

Then after reading the posts of some of the more informed members here, I realized that there was more to it than just a bunch of older folks that rejected the new Mass nit picking.

The liberals are the renegades. And though I put my soul in peril by turning my back on catholicism around the age of 15, I can honestly say I feel fortunate to have eliminated any possibility of becoming jaded and influenced by liberal contemporary catholics by doing so.

I don’t judge them. I can’t fault them for embracing the catholicism of VII. It’s what they were taught.

But the traditionalists have won me over. Their aguments for the preservation of the Catholicism of Blessed Pius V are rock solid.
There are members of the Curia that share our concerns.

If not for this forum, I’d have joined the nearest parish, which from what I saw at the Mass I attended there, is as liberal as it gets.
But I can’t stand in judgement of them. The Mass I attended was a celebration of our Archbishop’s 25 years of service. He was there, so he must not have minded the tambourine, guitar, keyboard, … etc.

Even if I had joined the parish before I joined CA, I’d have left it by now. I’m still a member of an NO parish, but as much as I love the Dominican Friars who run it, I’m probably going to wind up leaving it for a local diocean parish that offers both the Novus Ordo and the Forma Extraordinaria.

So yes, this forum has changed my mind.

 

[MrS]

When a bishop is appointed by the Holy Father, I believe a charism is given by the Holy Spirit that enables that bishop to administer to his diocese and to correctly interpret the various teachings of the Church and apply them to his diocese.

Of course some bishops go terribly astray and give in to their baser natures, allowing abuses and sinful activities in their diocese.

.

So the gift is there, but you acknowledge that some and perhaps a lot of bishops are astray?

I am curious if you think

1] there is only one N.O. or many versions.

and

2] there is only one N.O. that was meant to be accepted or approved or approvable by the VAT II Council

and

3] if yes to 1] and 2], then what should be done to all the other versions of the N.O.? You know, the ones with abuses-turned-into-norms which have occured since and outside of any VATII direction and outside of any Vatican directive.

.

 

[Indyann]

I would appreciate it if someone knowledgeable could please defend the OF of the Mass. Please.

As a fairly new Catholic, I find GerardP’s accusations and insinuations against the OF very disconcerting and confusing, and I find this link of his with OF and Black Mass just plain frightening.

To me, this is a grievous insult to our Holy Father, the Magisterium, and my own dear Bishop. All of these servants of Christ have made it clear that the OF is fully approved by the Church of Christ, the Catholic Church. For someone to imply that these men are making a mistake and that Catholics are receiving something “flawed” by attending OF is disturbing.

Please, someone, defend the Church and the OF Mass!

Or is he right?

Oh, he’s right, so far right that he is in danger of falling out of the boat (if he hasn’t already)

Relax Cat, Just keep your eyes on Rome. If you lean too far left, you are in danger of falling off the Barque of Peter. Same if you lean too far right. Just keep your eyes on Jesus and the Church He founded. We’ll be just fine!

 

[James0235]

I would appreciate it if someone knowledgeable could please defend the OF of the Mass. Please.

As a fairly new Catholic, I find GerardP’s accusations and insinuations against the OF very disconcerting and confusing, and I find this link of his with OF and Black Mass just plain frightening.

To me, this is a grievous insult to our Holy Father, the Magisterium, and my own dear Bishop. All of these servants of Christ have made it clear that the OF is fully approved by the Church of Christ, the Catholic Church. For someone to imply that these men are making a mistake and that Catholics are receiving something “flawed” by attending OF is disturbing.

Please, someone, defend the Church and the OF Mass!

Or is he right?

A Black Mass is not just an OF Mass. A Black Mass is when a validly ordained priest using ANY RITE with proper form, matter, and intention consecrates the Eucharist in order to desecrate it.

Nowadays I would assume that this would normally be done using the OF simply because it is the OF. In centuries past it would have been done during a TLM.

The point that I think he is trying to make is that we should always be concerned with more than just validity. It is very common for people, when confronted with abuses, to say something to the effect that it doesn’t matter as long as the Mass was valid. I personally don’t think that is a helpful way to look at it. Because a Mass can be both valid and offensive to God (Black Mass and Mass full of Liturgical abuses).

Now, if he is saying that the OF is offensive to God when celebrated properly then he is just plain wrong (and a fool on top of that).

James