Invalidity of Mass according to sedevacantists?

  • Thread starter Thread starter OrbisNonSufficit
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Dovekin said:
Both reforms removed a lot of sacrificial language. That is the basis for saying their view of the sacraments had changed. I think there is even an argument that it was the change of language, not the language itseld.
Click to expand...
I do not really see how sacrificial language is removed. EP1 is Roman Canon, and added anaphoras do not really reduce amount of sacrificial language. Again, if you use Eastern Catholics as stepping stone, you can see that Novus Ordo is in fact perfectly valid anyhow.
stpurl said:
I think, to remind people of “the Avignon captivity”.
Click to expand...
Yes, I agree those might be confusing times for some. There is also position that during Avignon Papacy and Western Schism, Pope of Rome remained true Pope. Now we have several claimants to Papacy but only one of them remains in Rome. Unlike Avignon Papacy, there are no other claimants supported by general public or those who have decent number of followers. They were not setup by Cardinals and mostly consecrated by Bishops in Schism from True Church even according to their perception. I understand it can still be confusing for some people, like Avignon Papacy was, but that was when even College of Cardinals was confused about who the real Pope is. Nowadays it’s mostly some dissidents, who, sometimes in good will, are in confusion much less relevant than one during Western Schism.
 
OrbisNonSufficit said:
I do not really see how sacrificial language is removed. EP1 is Roman Canon, and added anaphoras do not really reduce amount of sacrificial language. Again, if you use Eastern Catholics as stepping stone, you can see that Novus Ordo is in fact perfectly valid anyhow.
Click to expand...
Just to be clear, I do not think the arguments of sedevacants make much sense. I am just saying that AC gave them a template, a discussion of how orders can disappear. If you read AC, you will find arguments that can be used to support sedevacantist positions. And they are used, even though there is much more that supports the Pope’s position.
 
That is why they say that there is no pope. Otherwise they would have to operate differently.
 
That is part of another movement referred to as the “Resistance.” They recognize that Pope Francis is the Pope, but they don’t obey him.
 
No. Why on earth would you assume that? I was merely pointing out that at other times the Church had confusion among her people regarding the papacy. Since Jesus obviously guided the Church then as always, if anything, my point was that He continues to guard her.
 
But who is the competent judge of such an examination? Who can make the final determination? Sedevacantism ultimately falls onto private judgment and vain attempts at almost mind reading to determine the intention of the VII reform architects. As has been pointed out, if the reformers at the Council wanted to wreck the validity of Catholic rites they would have failed as only the Latin Rite was so thoroughly reformed. You also have to prove the validity of the sacraments were actually compromised by the reforms. How could 2000 bishops fail to notice something like that?
 
I think the very words of consecration make the propitiatory nature of the Mass clear. The Catechism talks also about the sacrificial aspects of the Mass. If the intent was to suppress this aspect of the memorial, they did a pretty poor job of it as you could always justify including or adding elements to the Mass that further highlighted this aspect of the Mass based on current Catholic teaching.

Here is Pope Francis:
“The Eucharist always leads us to the peak of the action of God’s salvation: the Lord Jesus, making Himself bread broken for us, pours onto us all His mercy and His love, as He did on the cross, so as to renew our heart, our existence and our way of relating to Him and with our brothers. As Vatican Council II says: “As often as the sacrifice of the cross by which ‘Christ our Pasch is sacrificed’ is celebrated on the altar, the work of our redemption is carried out”. (Dogmatic Constitution Lumen gentium , 3).”


Note that the Pope is talking specifically about the uniqueness of the memorial aspect of the Mass, which is of course a holy mystery, but still its sacrificial character is mentioned. If he was trying to suppress this, then he is doing a very poor job of it as his subject matter arguably gave him reason not to dwell at all specifically on its sacrificial nature or bring to memory talk of a “sacrifice” and an “altar,” and this from the teaching of the Second Vatican Council no less.
 
Last edited:
Okay rose, my saying it is an aspect of the memorial does not mean to at all deny that the Mass is a sacrifice or sacrificial offering, even in the first place or before anything else. The Jewish Passover was and is, for example, both a memorial and also a sacrifice (a lamb is supposed to be both sacrificed and consumed). It’s not sacrifice vs. memorial but both a memorial and a sacrifice.
 
You would have to suppress or deny belief in the Real Presence for your argument to make sense. That a Protestant might subjectively and even habitually interpret the words of consecration as being merely symbolic and non-literal or a metaphor is baggage he brings to the altar-table. The words themselves do not suggest it to be taken as anything but literal. Catholic teaching and belief in the Real Presence further makes understanding it other than the literal making present of Christ’s body and blood as a sacrificial offering for mankind (this is my body… given up for you… This is my blood… poured out for you) something extraneous to the actual action and words used and said in the Mass.
 
Is this what you meant to say? That it would be difficult to say the OF is less explicit about the propitiatory sacrifice? That seems to contradict your other remarks, which would make it a much more interesting comment.
 
OrbisNonSufficit said:
Right after I posted this, I looked up ordination of Bishops according to Eastern Rite and checked if sedevacantist arguments on ordination of Bishops being invalid actually hold any merit if we include Eastern Rite in the equation.
Click to expand...
Our prior priest was amazed by the folks that would come to our parish saying that their priest said to come to us when he was away, as we “have valid sacraments.”

He’d shake his head, point out that he was RC, and ask “so when I celebrate in my own rite, it’s invalid, but it’s OK here?”

For some reason, they were never amused . . .
 
Well, the Sedevacantist argument would be that there have been times in history where there was a while without a pope–although, of course, never anywhere near as long as it is (supposedly) right now. Of course, then you have the Conclavists who claim to have their own pope.

One can of course try to point to the Western Schism, where there were considerable disputes as to who was pope, but even there no one was saying there was no pope, there was merely arguments as to who was pope.

What I find odd about Sedevacantism is that it seems to me that, if you accept its arguments (i.e. that the supposed popes of the last decades have all been heretics), the more logical thing to do would be to conclude that the Orthodox were right all along about the pope and to quit Catholicism to join them. Not saying Catholics should do that… just Eastern Orthodoxy seems a far more coherent position than Sedevacantism.
 
I’m not claiming I believe the Novus Ordo sacraments are invalid, but the sedevacantists do bring up some compelling points. According to the approved, authoritive general instruction for the mass of Paul VI, the official definition of the mass changed from a sacrifice to an assembly. The official position states that Christ is just as present in the assembly and the scripture readings as He is in the Eucharist. The words of consecration have been changed to be in the form of a historical narrative where the “words of Christ” are spoken in a narrative context rather than a sacramental context. The words, “Mystery of Faith” have been removed from the consecration and are applied later.
 
Sedevacantists believe that the Vatican II documents contain heresy as they contradict previous church doctrine. Since the church is indefectible (cannot change) anything that substantially changes the church cannot come from church authority as that would be impossible. Since every pope since Vatican II has supported the heresies in Vatican II, they cannot be valid popes by canon and divine law according to sedevacantists.

They pretty much claim that Vatican II started a new religion under the name of Catholocism with new doctrines, new liturgy, and new disciplines (laws). If a religion has different doctrines, liturgy and disciplines than its previous form, it can’t possibly be the same religion.
 
Last edited:
There is far more sacrificial language in the Novus Ordo than most trads want to admit. Not just in the ordinary, but many of the propers have strong sacrificial overtones.

Besides… the traditional Roman Canon is still a legitimate option in the Novus Ordo. At my parish we use it for particular solemn feasts (completely chanted).
 
Bataar said:
the official definition of the mass changed from a sacrifice to an assembly
Click to expand...
Could you share a definition of equivalent Magisterial authority before Pope St. Paul VI that defines the Mass as a sacrifice? Because you say it changed from being defined as “a sacrifice” to “an assembly.”

Thank you in advance!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top