C
Cider
Guest
If you want to understand the SSPX position on the NO mass, why not ask the SSPX priest at your parish? It appears from your post that you attend mass at one.
- Status
T
Timothysis
Guest
I used the word “gutted” because of a previous thread on CAF some time ago discussing the changes made to the breviary by St. Pius X. Your statements seem to be a bit contrary to what was being said then, but I will defer to your opinions as I am not very knowledgeable about the subject. I should have used the word “revised.” My point, however, was that, just as Pope St. Pius X, Pope Paul VI was within his rights to make changes to the missal despite the so called “prohibition” in Quo Primum.
Pope Benedict himself has said that the OF and the EF are two expressions of the same rite. While the OF does not contain the complexity of prayers as found in the EF, it does present the same structure as the EF and contains those elements that are distinctly catholic. Perhaps too much was done too quickly. I personally have nothing against the EF and think that it should be preserved because it is part of the Church’s traditions but I do think that the OF has its place, too.
I
iamanea
Guest
I
iamanea
Guest
Thanks for the advice and the clarification. Through the responses I have gotten the clarification of the situation I was looking for. Interestingly, my ex and children’s current pastor, is evidently very, very relunctant to criticize the Pope or the mainstream church. It appears from my daughter’s characterizations that he doesnot view himself in schism with Rome but simply wants to say the Tridentine Mass because he personally finds it more reverant. A position that I have sympathsies for but, since becoming a Charismatic Catholic, have come to appreciate the mainstream approach and the reasons for it as well.
Corry
G
giuseppeTO
Guest
Tim,
I don’t disagree with most of what you have said. The Pope’s statements on the EF and OF are statements of fact, not of objectivity. As Benedict is the Pope, even if he favored the EF over the OF, he would not be wise to state as much, from a political perspective.
You are discussing this from the perspective that we have two validly promulgated forms of the Latin Rite and that is the reality of the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church today … I agree.
I am looking beyond the word differences. If you look at the difference, for example, concerning the treatment and handling of the Blessed Sacrament. In the OF, everyone in the church handles it. In the EF, only the consecrated hands of the priest may touch it and even he keeps his fingers together to preserve the smallest particles in tact until they can be purified. I believe that when A. Lefebvre spoke of the “poison” of the OF, he was concerned that practices such as the nonchalant handling of the Blessed Sacrament would lead to a decrease in the belief of the True Presence, which has in fact happened over the last 40 years. And of course you know that these new practices were not mandated or even suggested by the council, but came from the liturgical experimentation that was undertaken in the ‘spirit’ of the council. So, from a layman’s perspective (which I am), the more damaging (to the faith) elements are the aggorniamento that have followed on the coattails of the introduction of the Pauline Mass and rubrics, rather than specifically the words or the complexity of the prayers. I would bet though that SSPX priests would say it is the other way around.
I
iamanea
Guest
To all who have responded to this post:
Thank you for the responses. They gave me a lot of food for thought. I especially appreciate the corrections offered in terminology/position on validity of the mass.
I guess I was reacting to what I remember hearing from my ex and others in the past. Be members of SSPX society I meant those laity that attend Mass at churches affiliated with the Archbishop’s movement.
As result of my studies I have learned the importance of precise terminology. That is partly why I asked the question. You all have helped me better understand my children’s position which is very helpful in my prayers for discernment on how to proceed. Thank you all and God Bless.
Corry
Thank you for the responses. They gave me a lot of food for thought. I especially appreciate the corrections offered in terminology/position on validity of the mass.
I guess I was reacting to what I remember hearing from my ex and others in the past. Be members of SSPX society I meant those laity that attend Mass at churches affiliated with the Archbishop’s movement.
As result of my studies I have learned the importance of precise terminology. That is partly why I asked the question. You all have helped me better understand my children’s position which is very helpful in my prayers for discernment on how to proceed. Thank you all and God Bless.
Corry
T
tcm22
Guest
G
giuseppeTO
Guest
C
Cluny
Guest
D
DavidPalm
Guest
That piece is worthwhile against the position that the NO is invalid, but against the more mainstream traditionalist criticisms of the NO, it’s set against a strawman. But since this thread is specifically about validity, I suppose that’s worth posting.
Z
Zebedee
Guest
The Novus Ordo is certainly valid.
The formula for consecration is valid, therefore the Mass is valid.
The formula for consecration is valid, therefore the Mass is valid.
I
iamanea
Guest
No I don’t, my ex wife does. I USED to attend a Tridentine mass as a youth with my parents. This was before the “schism” occured. Much of what I understand about the “Traditionalists” positions come from discussions I heard between my parents and our pastor at the time.
In addition, I met my ex-wife in college. The college used to celebrate the Tridentine Mass until Cardinal Manning asked them to stop. My class was the first that celebrated mass in Latin according to the Novus Ordo. This use in 1973. Many of the students, including my ex-wife (we married after my freshman year) stopped going to mass on campus and went to a Tridentine Mass said in the area by the former chaplain of the college (the college lost a lot of support among conservative Catholics over their decision). The students had many discussions about the Mass and the changes. Through those discussions and my reading of Church teaching, I became convinced that while the Tridentine mass was still valid, so was the Novus Ordo and OBEDIENCE was more important than personal preference. As a result, I stopped going to the Tridentine Mass which was one of the reasons for my divorce.
Corry
D
DavidPalm
Guest
This is a very tragic result from the serious prudential mistakes made in the liturgical “reform”. As we know now, Cardinal Manning had no authority to forbid the traditional Latin Mass. And although certainly it was cast as a matter of obedience to celebrate/assist at only the Novus Ordo, now we know definitively from the Holy Father that the ones who were being disobedient were those who insisted that you could only celebrate/assist at the Novus Ordo.
M
malphono
Guest
I, for one, agree, and will add this: had Rome not couched the Novus Ordo in the way it did, the ambiguity (as we now see it) would not have been there. In other words, what we now call the EF would have continued along side what we now call the OF. But of course there were those in power in Rome at the time (and for a great many years after) who had a totally different agenda, hence the way the OF was promulgated (and maintained). Summorum Pontificum was a welcome breath of official sanity, yet far too many bishops still don’t get it (or at least are unwilling to do so).
BTW, it’s good to see you back here after what seems to me to have been a long absence!
J
JaMc
Guest
If the O.P.'s question is the SSPX position on the Ordinary Form Mass, from what I’ve been able to gather from the SSPX website, and other sources, their position on the Ordinary Form/Novus Ordo seems to be something to the effect of: “it’s bad, it might be invalid, and probably is, as offered, most of the time, but even if it is valid, it’s certainly inferior, and you should steer clear of it.” Basically, they clearly dislike the Novus Ordo and recommend against it, but won’t come right out and say they think it’s invalid in all cases.
However, if the O.P.'s question is whether the Novus Ordo is, in fact, valid: Of course it is.
However, if the O.P.'s question is whether the Novus Ordo is, in fact, valid: Of course it is.
I
iamanea
Guest
Quote: 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.
End Quote:
Are you aware that the catechism issued by the Council of Trent states that both translations of “pro multis” - “for many”/“for all” - ARE CORRECT but that the catechism PREFERRED the translation “for many?”
This was because Trent was called as a response to the Protestant Reformation. Trent wanted to defend the Church against the denial of the ministerial priesthood and the importance of it as the means of salvation - offering the Mass administrating the sacraments. In particular, the “reformers” denied the true presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. Due to the importance of all these elements in Catholic life (and, in particular, the “reformers” denial of the True Presence) caused the authors of the catechism to wish to highlight the Catholic faiths believe in the True Presence as opposed to the “reformers.”
Thus, in their view, while they did not deny the truth that Christ died for all men, it was more important for the times to see the Mysterium Fidei as the True Presence. The fact remains that the CENTRAL, DEFINING belief of the Christian faith is that Christ died for all men.
The novus ordo does not deny this, it restores it to the central place in our faith. The time of Trent wanted to highlight what divided us from our Protestant brothers, the time of Vatican II wanted to highlight what unites us as fellow Christians in an effort to return to the time where there is one flock on shepherd. While there have been individuals, including bishops, who have gone too far in pushing ecumenism for the sake of ecumenism, that is not the fault of Vatican II. The greatest argument AGAINST Christianity is the division among the various Christian churches. That is a sad state of affairs indeed for our post-modern, post-christian world.
Couple the fact of how belief in anything is ridiculed and how the mantra of the sixties “if it feels good, do it” has become our “god” with the fact that, in the U.S. at least (I am not competent to speak about other countries) the sermons we hear in church tend to be “feel good - just love everybody” rather than tough, matter of fact instruction in the faith. As an adult catechist I see a real problem with the approach of most parishes to teaching the faith. Religious instruction is seen as ending with Confirmation/senior year of high school. Yes, there is an interest in bible study, but all too often these are nothing more than bible sharings - what the scriptures mean to you - rather than REAL teaching in union with the mind of the Church. How many parishes read Dei Verbum? How many parishes study the Catechism?
This, not Vatican II, is why there is a marked decline in belief in Church teaching. This is why more and more Catholics justify their cafeteria catholicism. Thank God, JPII and the present Holy Father Benedict are trying their darndest to combat this malaise and put the true spirit of Vatican II into the everyday practice of the Church.
Corry
End Quote:
Are you aware that the catechism issued by the Council of Trent states that both translations of “pro multis” - “for many”/“for all” - ARE CORRECT but that the catechism PREFERRED the translation “for many?”
This was because Trent was called as a response to the Protestant Reformation. Trent wanted to defend the Church against the denial of the ministerial priesthood and the importance of it as the means of salvation - offering the Mass administrating the sacraments. In particular, the “reformers” denied the true presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. Due to the importance of all these elements in Catholic life (and, in particular, the “reformers” denial of the True Presence) caused the authors of the catechism to wish to highlight the Catholic faiths believe in the True Presence as opposed to the “reformers.”
Thus, in their view, while they did not deny the truth that Christ died for all men, it was more important for the times to see the Mysterium Fidei as the True Presence. The fact remains that the CENTRAL, DEFINING belief of the Christian faith is that Christ died for all men.
The novus ordo does not deny this, it restores it to the central place in our faith. The time of Trent wanted to highlight what divided us from our Protestant brothers, the time of Vatican II wanted to highlight what unites us as fellow Christians in an effort to return to the time where there is one flock on shepherd. While there have been individuals, including bishops, who have gone too far in pushing ecumenism for the sake of ecumenism, that is not the fault of Vatican II. The greatest argument AGAINST Christianity is the division among the various Christian churches. That is a sad state of affairs indeed for our post-modern, post-christian world.
Couple the fact of how belief in anything is ridiculed and how the mantra of the sixties “if it feels good, do it” has become our “god” with the fact that, in the U.S. at least (I am not competent to speak about other countries) the sermons we hear in church tend to be “feel good - just love everybody” rather than tough, matter of fact instruction in the faith. As an adult catechist I see a real problem with the approach of most parishes to teaching the faith. Religious instruction is seen as ending with Confirmation/senior year of high school. Yes, there is an interest in bible study, but all too often these are nothing more than bible sharings - what the scriptures mean to you - rather than REAL teaching in union with the mind of the Church. How many parishes read Dei Verbum? How many parishes study the Catechism?
This, not Vatican II, is why there is a marked decline in belief in Church teaching. This is why more and more Catholics justify their cafeteria catholicism. Thank God, JPII and the present Holy Father Benedict are trying their darndest to combat this malaise and put the true spirit of Vatican II into the everyday practice of the Church.
Corry
I
iamanea
Guest
D
DavidPalm
Guest
As always, you and I see eye to eyeBTW, it’s good to see you back here after what seems to me to have been a long absence!
I’m heading off to China for a couple of weeks, so I’ll have a little bit of free time to post (airports, hotel room down time, and all that.) Thanks for the welcome back.I don’t think this is correct. Could you cite the text from Trent that says that both are correct and that “for many” is only a preference?
I agree with the esteemed liturgical scholar Msgr. Klaus Gamber that the translation of pro multis as “for all” does not invalidate the Consecration, but it is scandalous, especially in light of the strong words of Trent on this very topic. One doesn’t have to engage in hidden conspiracies to conclude, based on open evidence, that this translation was indeed an accommodation to Protestant theology. And the Vatican has agreed that it’s an inaccurate translation of the Latin and is correcting it. That’s good.
I
iamanea
Guest
While I agree with you that the Tridentine Mass has much going for it and should be allowed as a valid form of the Latin Rite. I would have to object to your classification of Cardinal Manning’s actions as disobedient. He was obedient to Rome’s instructions at the time. Were those instructions prudent? I am not really qualified to comment - I am not a bishop charged with governing the Church - thank God. Am I glad that there is a movement a foot to end the sorry scandal that currently exists? Absolutely, I will always applaud efforts to end disunity among men (“I pray that they may be one in your name” paraphrase of Jesus’ words in John - Last supper discourses).
As I have studied the ancient roots of the Novus Ordo and the actual Vatican II documents explaining the reasons for the changes, I have come to have profound respect for Vatican II’s wisdom and see the council as proof of the Holy Spirit at work in guiding the Magisterium. The abuses opponents point to are, for the most part, ABUSES of the letter and spirit of Vatican II. What we need is to implement Vatican II NOT revert to olden times.
Corry
C
Califman831
Guest
- Status