Is it a sacrilege to attend a Novus Ordo service?

[Fitz]

kattyc:

Please forgive my ignorance, but what is Novus Ordo? I am assuming the translation is something along the lines of New Order (?) but that’s just a guess. Otherwise, I am not familiar with what it is. Would someone please explain it or point me to a valid thread? Thank you!

Thanks for asking, for I was wondering the same thing. So much controversy and I DON’T EVEN KNOW WHAT IT IS! Obviously I would have to travel to get to one of these masses and I stick close to home. I am a regular folk.

 

[rjs1]

I visited the website traditio.com/comment/com0503.htm, that a couple of the people have referred to.
While I can understand the severe grief caused by the sloppiness in the way the new mass is celebrated, I was disappointed by the whole tone of anger, bitterness and judgement that I found at that website. Certainly there are some major problems in the Church today and it often seems as if the “trendies” are having it all their own way. However we must respond with reasoned arguements and in a loving spirit. Above all we must be faithful to the Church.
We ARE engaged in a battle for the faith and our real enemies are too often found within the Church. However the website referred to is NOT faithful to the Church because it declares the Novus Ordo invalid, though the Church has approved it. By all means point out the weaknesses in the Novus Ordo, especially in the way all too many priests celebrate it, but if the Church has said it is valid - THEN IT IS. The website I believe is too full of hate and in fact, by contradicting the Church, is really Protestant.
In saying this I am not disregarding the many scandals that Catholics now face from within the Church, I am simply saying that we fight these scandals by reamining loyal to the Church, not by joining those who would attack it.

 

[TNT]

jlw:

While I PREFER the TLM, the NO is valid and licit, and in communion with Rome and the Holy see.Nuff said.

If this was your parish, and it’s a large one, would you receive holy Communion from Fr Bernie at the Novus Ordo Mass?

Long-time member Carol Lackey spoke of Eucharistic heresy she heard from Father Bernie when she asked him, “Father, when exactly does the transubstantiation take place?” Father Bernie paused, and then shot back, “It doesn’t!” and walked away. She characterized Father Bud’s statements about the Eucharist as “ambiguous.”

For some, and the number is increasing, not decreasing, as the bishops condone it by benign neglect, the NOM is turning toward sacrilege.

 

[TNT]

Fitz:

Thanks for asking, for I was wondering the same thing. So much controversy and I DON’T EVEN KNOW WHAT IT IS! Obviously I would have to travel to get to one of these masses and I stick close to home. I am a regular folk.

The Novus Ordo Missae is the “New Order of Mass” by P Paul VI, Initiated in 1969. It is the rite of the Latin Catholic Church.
The version of the Mass that 90% of Catholics attend.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

TNT:

For some, and the number is increasing, not decreasing, as the bishops condone it by benign neglect, the NOM is turning toward sacrilege.

Frist what is the “NOM”, if you mean the Mass, you are way off to say that the Mass is turning toward sacrilege (what ever that means).

This is nothing but a case of some dissenter priests, the Mass has nothing to do with it.

Just another example of the post hoc fallacy.

 

[PJR]

Those priests sound like nuts in the fruitcake, but in all honesty I don’t see how that shows the NO to be the problem. It seems like the Fr. Ian managed to bring the parish back to some orthodoxy, by faithfully following the GIRM.

If abuses occur under the NO, it doesn’t logically indicate that the NO was the root cause of the abuse. Just as you could argue that the abuses of the Latin Mass, where people disconnected themselves from the sacrifice at the altar and instead just concentrated on personal devotions and prayers, by their ignorance, didn’t render the Latin Mass illicit.

Abuses can and do occur in both. Both an indult TM and the NO are valid and acceptable. I see your point that it seems to take a long time for the Bishops to get around to fixing things, but I can accept in humility that the Church will sort it out in God’s time. We know we will always have weeds. He told us not to waste to much time fretting over them… Notice the weed inference? Later, TNT

God Bless, Paula

TNT:

If this was your parish, and it’s a large one, would you receive holy Communion from Fr Bernie at the Novus Ordo Mass?

For some, and the number is increasing, not decreasing, as the bishops condone it by benign neglect, the NOM is turning toward sacrilege.

 

[TNT]

ByzCath:

Frist what is the “NOM”, if you mean the Mass, you are way off to say that the Mass is turning toward sacrilege (what ever that means).

This is nothing but a case of some dissenter priests, the Mass has nothing to do with it.

Just another example of the post hoc fallacy.

OK, I should have said the practice of the NOM.

The “flex” (aka allowance for novelty) given to the NOM by the episopate invites abuse, as opposed to the strict rubrics of the TLM which makes abuse nearly impossible without immediately offending the laity.

What can be abused, will be abuse. What can be easily abused, will even more abused…human nature.
No, not post hoc anything. Abuse is rampnat and never gets better in dioceses where abuse becomes a norm.

Now, how about the QUESTION?

Would you receive Communion from Fr Bernie (who said the mass?)

Or, does post hoc cover this too?

There is no getting around it: in the latin rite, the TLM is a much safer overall “vessel” in which to receive Holy Communion, than the NOM.

I admit it, when it comes to Holy Communion, I’m a safety freak.

some dissenter priests

This guy has been there “forever” and has run off “non-dissenter” priests before. The Bishop, the “successor of the apostles”, has done zip. Which, is consent by neglect.

 

[TNT]

PJR:

Those priests sound like nuts in the fruitcake, but in all honesty I don’t see how that shows the NO to be the problem. It seems like the Fr. Ian managed to bring the parish back to some orthodoxy, by faithfully following the GIRM.

If abuses occur under the NO, it doesn’t logically indicate that the NO was the root cause of the abuse. Just as you could argue that the abuses of the Latin Mass, where people disconnected themselves from the sacrifice at the altar and instead just concentrated on personal devotions and prayers, by their ignorance, didn’t render the Latin Mass illicit.

Abuses can and do occur in both. Both an indult TM and the NO are valid and acceptable. I see your point that it seems to take a long time for the Bishops to get around to fixing things, but I can accept in humility that the Church will sort it out in God’s time. We know we will always have weeds. He told us not to waste to much time fretting over them… Notice the weed inference? Later, TNT

God Bless, Paula

Dear Paula,
The problem is the “flexible” design of the NOM. Yes, a delicate piece of glassware is quite good and acceptable, but you wouldn’t use it at a large picnic. You would use a container that can resist abuse should someone try it.
The TLM is abuse resistant, it was designed that way. The NOM is abuse neutral at best, and so, easily broken.
It may well have been that it was designed with the best of intentions to be flexible, but the actual Users, now take advantage of that to abuse it to their own liking.
In that respect, it IS the root cause, having been designed with inherent vulnerability. It is the Church’s responsibility to protect the Mass and to do all that is reasonable to that end in its design. This the designers have failed to do.
Now, Would you receive Communion from Fr Bernie if he said your mass?

How many in this large parish are going to communion at a mass where the “priest” denies Transubstantiation, ie Real Presence, and have no clue?

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

TNT:

OK, I should have said the practice of the NOM.

The “flex” (aka allowance for novelty) given to the NOM by the episopate invites abuse, as opposed to the strict rubrics of the TLM which makes abuse nearly impossible without immediately offending the laity.

This is a non-argument as there is no “flex” no allowance for novelty in the Mass. This is done by dissenter priests, yes in some cases it is allowed by the bishops but it has nothing to with the Mass, it has everything to do with obedience to the Church.

You can try to ride the fence and be on both sides of the arguments here but it doesn’t work.

There is nothing wrong with the Mass, to claim that there is, is to deny the Church’s Teachings.

What can be abused, will be abuse. What can be easily abused, will even more abused…human nature.

Abuse can and does happen with both. I have heard of the TLM being done in less than a half hour. The TLM has institutionalized abuses in it by having priests fulfill roles of deacon and sub-deacon.

Now, how about the QUESTION?

Would you receive Communion from Fr Bernie (who said the mass?)

If I was at a Mass there for some reason, I would not leave as I do not walk out on Jesus, and I would recieve the Eucharist as the priest does not matter. As he is a Catholic priest and his bishop and the Church have not sanctioned him, the Eucharist is valid.

I would not return to that parish.

Or, does post hoc cover this too?

No, I think it is more like changing the subject.

There is no getting around it: in the latin rite, the TLM is a much safer overall “vessel” in which to receive Holy Communion, than the NOM.

That is an unprovable claim.

 

[TNT]

ByzCath:

This is a non-argument as there is no “flex” no allowance for novelty in the Mass. This is done by dissenter priests, yes in some cases it is allowed by the bishops but it has nothing to with the Mass, it has everything to do with obedience to the Church.

You can try to ride the fence and be on both sides of the arguments here but it doesn’t work.

There is nothing wrong with the Mass, to claim that there is, is to deny the Church’s Teachings.

Abuse can and does happen with both. I have** heard** of the TLM being done in less than a half hour. The TLM has institutionalized abuses in it by having priests fulfill roles of deacon and sub-deacon.

If I was at a Mass there for some reason, I would not leave as I do not walk out on Jesus, and I would recieve the Eucharist as the priest does not matter. As he is a Catholic priest and his bishop and the Church have not sanctioned him, the Eucharist is valid.

I would not return to that parish.

No, I think it is more like changing the subject.

That is an unprovable claim.

So be it. You are whistling in the dark.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

TNT:

So be it. You are whistling in the dark.

And I hate to say it but you say you are rideing the fence but it seems that you make such outrageous claims that you are no better than those you claim to be against.

The Mass can not be a sacrilege. Try reading the Canons of Trent again.

Council of Trent
SESSION THE TWENTY-SECOND
ON THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS.

CANON IV.–If any one saith, that, by the sacrifice of the mass, a blasphemy is cast upon the most holy sacrifice of Christ consummated on the cross; or, that it is thereby derogated from; let him be anathema.
CANON VI.–If any one saith, that the canon of the mass contains errors, and is therefore to be abrogated; let him be anathema.

 

[PJR]

Hey TNT, I’ve thought about it and yes, I think I would go to communion. IF, there was a narrative of institution, and he was a validly ordained priest, then I believe the Eucharist -while possibly illicit- was valid.

Remember the miracle story of the priest who doubted and it turned into living heart tissue?

I would never go back if I could help it, and I would probably be very upset. I haven’t gone through any abuses that bad.

While I see your point that abuse becomes more of a possiblity as the flexibility increases, I still think of it as a discipline or obedience problem more than an ‘error’ in itself. Trust me, I’m not trying to be argumentative, I bow down to your greater knowledge, but do you think the directions for the Liturgy from Vatican II are in error? Or is that the wrong term?

I thought there could be no error in teaching authority. There was a previous poster who mentioned all the wrong stuff to come out of the vatican in the past, and I wanted to ask you about that. In my understanding there have been many bad popes and much scandal, but the Holy Spirit has always prevented the teaching of error re: faith and morals and the ‘weeds’ got ROUNDUP.

Help me reconcile what you are saying about NOM being wrong. I have to admit I am confused by all this. On the walk up to get the kids I was thinking about the simple vs. complicated analogy. I was thinking of how if I never learned to express my musical ability with anything but Mary Had a Little Lamb, I would probably have many fewer opportunities for mistakes than if I was expressing it with Mozart. But I think the Mozart is much richer. Does that make sense?

I personally find the balance of horizontal and vertical and the full participation of the body a more full expression of our common priesthood. But, I don’t claim to have any knowledge of the TLM, as I converted in 1980. I am just basing it on what you guys are saying. Obviously, I am basing my preference on what I have read in documents re: the intent of Vatican II and Liturgy. So I don’t want to get too hung up on preferences because that is not really the issue. I ramble. Later, Paula

 

[pnewton]

TNT:

Now, how about the QUESTION?

Would you receive Communion from Fr Bernie (who said the mass?)

I will answer the question also. Yes, I would. The validity of the Eucharist does not rest with the state of the priest. Assuming the matter is valid, then I would.

I also would not support such a parish financially that is disobedient to Church doctrine and would attempt to go elsewhere.

You mentioned the flexibility of the Mass, such as using glassware. This practice is prohibited. If the Church in America were told that next year would be the Year of the TLM and all masses would be said using that liturgy, do you not think that these same abusers would still find a way to screw with it. I can see now overhead projectors with the translation posted. I can see the new hard rock versions of the traditional latin songs.

Both rebellion and poor taste are inherent in the celebrants more than the liturgy.

 

[judicame]

It’s been said that Fr Morrison is an Old Catholic.

What’s an Old Catholic? Is that like my nan?

 

[TNT]

pnewton:

I will answer the question also. Yes, I would. The validity of the Eucharist does not rest with the state of the priest. Assuming the matter is valid, then I would.

I also would not support such a parish financially that is disobedient to Church doctrine and would attempt to go elsewhere.

You mentioned the flexibility of the Mass, such as using glassware. This practice is prohibited. If the Church in America were told that next year would be the Year of the TLM and all masses would be said using that liturgy, do you not think that these same abusers would still find a way to screw with it. I can see now overhead projectors with the translation posted. I can see the new hard rock versions of the traditional latin songs.

Both rebellion and poor taste are inherent in the celebrants more than the liturgy.

1. Apologize that you misunderstood the glassware. It was an analogy, not about using the fine glassware as in the chalice. I was equating fragility being vulnerable to general usage. The NOM is fragile as it is deficient in safeguards to abuse.
2. Yes, I agree 100% about the TLM being subject to a determined abuse. And for that reason I would vote NO on its universal application as the Latin Rite.
   I posted some months ago that I believe that the TLM was taken “out of harm’s way” of determined abusers by God Himself. It was “put away for safe keepig” until there were enough priests dedicated to its reverent use. Then God through a series of incidents, allowed its return only to those clergy dedicated to it. The '65 hybrid version never returned. It is extinct.
3. The TLM COULD be abused but not in its present use enviroment. The only ones attending are in love with it. Any abuse would be treated by the laity on a level to someone abusing their their spouse. The outrage would be deafening and unanimous.
   **
   Intent of the Priest**
   The priest must have the intent of doing what the Church does, that being the intent to make Jesus physically present via the miracle of transubstantiation at the consecration. The Council of Trent - a dogmatic council in response to the Protestant heresy - declared against the** Protestant view which denies the necessity of the intention of the minister**. St. Thomas Aquinas also covers this requirement in Summa Theologica (Third Part, Question 64, Articles 8, 9, 10). Council of Trent, Seventh Session, March 3, 1547; Canon 11: " If anyone says that in ministers, when they effect and
   confer the sacraments, there is not required at least the intention of doing what the Church does, [Eugene IV in the decr. cited.] let him be anathema."

If a priest publicly stated that he did not believe in Transubstantiation, the intent to do as the Church does goes into grave doubt. So, no, I would never receive Communion from him if he said the Mass. For more on this see Catholic Answers.
It starts out:
"The problem of grave liturgical abuses is so widespread that I regularly receive inquiries about what makes a Mass “invalid…”

No such thing was ever said or proven in the last 200 yrs of the TLM’s use.

I believe this covers all of your points.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

TNT:

1. Apologize that you misunderstood the glassware. It was an analogy, not about using the fine glassware as in the chalice. I was equating fragility being vulnerable to general usage. The NOM is fragile as it is deficient in safeguards to abuse.
2. Yes, I agree 100% about the TLM being subject to a determined abuse. And for that reason I would vote NO on its universal application as the Latin Rite.
   I posted some months ago that I believe that the TLM was taken “out of harm’s way” of determined abusers by God Himself. It was “put away for safe keepig” until there were enough priests dedicated to its reverent use. Then God through a series of incidents, allowed its return only to those clergy dedicated to it. The '65 hybrid version never returned. It is extinct.
3. The TLM COULD be abused but not in its present use enviroment. The only ones attending are in love with it. Any abuse would be treated by the laity on a level to someone abusing their their spouse. The outrage would be deafening and unanimous.

Intent of the Priest

The priest must have the intent of doing what the Church does, that being the intent to make Jesus physically present via the miracle of transubstantiation at the consecration. The Council of Trent - a dogmatic council in response to the Protestant heresy - declared against the** Protestant view which denies the necessity of the intention of the minister**. St. Thomas Aquinas also covers this requirement in Summa Theologica (Third Part, Question 64, Articles 8, 9, 10).Council of Trent, Seventh Session, March 3, 1547; Canon 11: " If anyone says that in ministers, when they effect and

confer the sacraments, there is not required at least the intention of doing what the Church does, [Eugene IV in the decr. cited.] let him be anathema."

If a priest publicly stated that he did not believe in Transubstantiation, the intent to do as the Church does goes into grave doubt. So, no, I would never receive Communion from him if he said the Mass. For more on this see Catholic Answers.

It starts out:
"The problem of grave liturgical abuses is so widespread that I regularly receive inquiries about what makes a Mass “invalid…”

No such thing was ever said or proven in the last 200 yrs of the TLM’s use.

I believe this covers all of your points.

Definition of what priestly intention “involves” seems to boil down to this: he must have the intention at least of doing what the Church does: and, must not have a positive, contrary intention. The presence of a positive intention contrary to that of the Church, is what helped to sink the validity of Anglican Orders.​

catholictradition.org/melchisedech-appx2.htm

ewtn.com/library/DOCTRINE/INTENTIO.TXT ##

 

[FrmrTrad]

The original question is malformed, i.e. whether or not it would be a sacrilege to attend a Novus Ordo service. Surely the question is whether or not the Novus Ordo is itself sacrilegious. Of course when understood from the viewpoint of the Church, and the eternal truth of God, it is not sacrilegious. However, many things transpire at many Novus Ordo celebrations of the mass that are not conducive to reverence. And, many Catholic truths are more fully emphasized in the earlier rites of mass. Depending upon what is happening in your area, a given celebration of the mass may border on being irreligious. And indeed this can proceed to the point where a given celebration can be sacrilegious. There are interests afoot that are hostile to our religion–the true Faith as revealed by God–and which manifest hostility toward that which is sacred. In particular when the liturgy becomes a toy for experimentation with people and their faith, the event will surely tend at least toward irreligion, and toward the ‘ancient heresy’ of man worshiping himself.

 

[Anima_Christi]

I prefer the Traditional Latin Mass; but if Holy Mother Church says it’s a Mass, it is! None but she has any authority to determine otherwise.

You might as well go to a Methodist service.

Except one little thing . . . Methodists don’t have the Real Presence of Christ in the EUCHARIST and Catholics DO!

 

[marty1818]

After looking at that website for a short while, I find it very disappointing that people will preach things like this. This does nothing but separates the church which is what these people are obviously going for. Christ prayed that His Church would be one.

matt

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

marty1818:

After looking at that website for a short while, I find it very disappointing that people will preach things like this. This does nothing but separates the church which is what these people are obviously going for. Christ prayed that His Church would be one.

matt

Human beings have an unhappy talent for turning good into evil, and that which should be a bond and sign of peace, into a cause of bitter enmity ​