Is the Novus Ordo Valid

[Tradycja]

The Novus Ordo is a valid Mass.

The best defense of the validity of the Novus Ordo Mass I have read is Adam Miller’s Book, “Is the New Mass of Pope Paul VI Invalid?”

It can be purchased here: (also available as a download)

http://www.lulu.com/content/275708

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41VAFF90NGL.SS500.jpg

 

[tcm22]

Timothysis;5791066:

This is from one of their brochures which they send out freely as part of a kit to propestive members

http://lh5.ggpht.com/_7iaMwPECBHg/Ss6tqXLZuPI/AAAAAAAABPY/nfVoe_9I1AQ/s640/scan0002.jpg

http://lh5.ggpht.com/_7iaMwPECBHg/Ss6tp9RfuYI/AAAAAAAABPU/OOILPoBWdYc/s512/scan0001.jpg

I would be curious to see when that brochure was published. It references Pope Benedict XVI, so it is fairly recent. I wonder if that came out before or after the excommunications were lifted, or if it is still being distributed.

It certainly isn’t an appeal to unity in the Church or an acknowledgment of the authority of the Magisterium. Hopefully a spirit of reconciliation will see garbage like that thrown out.

 

[Lujack]

The issue, I think, is that the SSPX’s FAQs try and cast doubts on the goodness of the Ordinary Form. That doesn’t work, at least in my opinion, because even a poorly done Mass that ends in a valid consecration is so far above anything outside of Mass that it has to be a net good. And if the Tridentine Mass is that much better than the Ordinary Form, it should be enough for the SSPX to emphasize its virtues without resorting to dubious attacks on the Second Vatican Council and the OF Mass.

 

[DavidPalm]

The issue, I think, is that the SSPX’s FAQs try and cast doubts on the goodness of the Ordinary Form. That doesn’t work, at least in my opinion, because even a poorly done Mass that ends in a valid consecration is so far above anything outside of Mass that it has to be a net good. And if the Tridentine Mass is that much better than the Ordinary Form, it should be enough for the SSPX to emphasize its virtues without resorting to dubious attacks on the Second Vatican Council and the OF Mass.

I agree with some of what you say, but I would point out that a Satanic “Black Mass” is a valid Mass. Would you say that in the end it’s a “net good”? (I’m not comparing the Novus Ordo to a Black Mass, I’m simply using that comparison to illustrate what I think is a flaw in the argument.)

It is my own view (personal opinion) that the many defects in too many of the celebrations of the Novus Ordo end up making the abundant graces objectively available there subjectively unavailable for those who assist. I’ve seen this a lot in various parishes–the people, even those who really want to be good Catholics, starve spiritually, even though objectively all the graces of the Eucharist are there. I don’t think we should too lightly set aside the importance of the “setting” in which the jewel of the Consecration is set.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I agree with some of what you say, but I would point out that a Satanic “Black Mass” is a valid Mass.

I have never heard this before. Can you tell me where you get that a “Satanic Black Mass” (if there is really such a thing) is valid.

 

[Califman831]

Califman831;5798900:

I would be curious to see when that brochure was published. It references Pope Benedict XVI, so it is fairly recent. I wonder if that came out before or after the excommunications were lifted, or if it is still being distributed.

It certainly isn’t an appeal to unity in the Church or an acknowledgment of the authority of the Magisterium. Hopefully a spirit of reconciliation will see garbage like that thrown out.

I received the brochure several months ago and am unsure when the excommunications were lifted. The brochure is a call to unity to the true mass, the one that has been in play for hundreds of years not the one that barely came into during the 60’s.

link to the order page for the brochure
angeluspress.org/oscatalog/item/1016C/why-the-latin-mass

Canons On The Sacrifice Of The Mass

Canon 1. If anyone says that in the mass a true and real sacrifice is not offered to God; or that to be offered is nothing else than that Christ is given to us to eat, let him be anathema.

Canon 2. If anyone says that by those words, <Do this for a commemoration of me,>[21] Christ did not institute the Apostles priests;[22] or did not ordain that they and other priests should offer His own body and blood, let him be anathema.

Canon 3. If anyone says that the sacrifice of the mass is one only of praise and thanksgiving; or that it is a mere commemoration of the sacrifice consummated on the cross but not a propitiatory one;[23] or that it profits him only who receives, and ought not to be offered for the living and the dead, for sins, punishments, satisfactions, and other necessities, let him be anathema.

Canon 4. If anyone says that by the sacrifice of the mass a blasphemy is cast upon the most holy sacrifice of Christ consummated on the cross; or that the former derogates from the latter, let him be anathema.

Canon 5. If anyone says that it is a deception to celebrate masses in honor of the saints and in order to obtain their intercession with God, as the Church intends,[24] let him be anathema.

Canon 6. If anyone says that the canon of the mass contains errors and is therefore to be abrogated,[25] let him be anathema.

Canon 7. If anyone says that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs which the Catholic Church uses in the celebration of masses, are incentives to impiety rather than stimulants to piety,[26] let him be anathema.

Canon 8. If anyone says that masses in which the priest alone communicates sacramentally are illicit and are therefore to be abrogated,[27] let him be anathema.

Canon 9. If anyone says that the rite of the Roman Church, according to which a part of the canon and the words of consecration are pronounced in a low tone, is to be condemned; or that the mass ought to be celebrated in the vernacular tongue only;[28] or that water ought not to be mixed with the wine that is to be offered in the chalice because it is contrary to the institution of Christ,[29] let him be anathema.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I received the brochure several months ago and am unsure when the excommunications were lifted. The brochure is a call to unity to the true mass, the one that has been in play for hundreds of years not the one that barely came into during the 60’s.

link to the order page for the brochure
angeluspress.org/oscatalog/item/1016C/why-the-latin-mass

Canons On The Sacrifice Of The Mass

Canon 1. If anyone says that in the mass a true and real sacrifice is not offered to God; or that to be offered is nothing else than that Christ is given to us to eat, let him be anathema.

Canon 2. If anyone says that by those words, <Do this for a commemoration of me,>[21] Christ did not institute the Apostles priests;[22] or did not ordain that they and other priests should offer His own body and blood, let him be anathema.

Canon 3. If anyone says that the sacrifice of the mass is one only of praise and thanksgiving; or that it is a mere commemoration of the sacrifice consummated on the cross but not a propitiatory one;[23] or that it profits him only who receives, and ought not to be offered for the living and the dead, for sins, punishments, satisfactions, and other necessities, let him be anathema.

Canon 4. If anyone says that by the sacrifice of the mass a blasphemy is cast upon the most holy sacrifice of Christ consummated on the cross; or that the former derogates from the latter, let him be anathema.

Canon 5. If anyone says that it is a deception to celebrate masses in honor of the saints and in order to obtain their intercession with God, as the Church intends,[24] let him be anathema.

Canon 6. If anyone says that the canon of the mass contains errors and is therefore to be abrogated,[25] let him be anathema.

Canon 7. If anyone says that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs which the Catholic Church uses in the celebration of masses, are incentives to impiety rather than stimulants to piety,[26] let him be anathema.

Canon 8. If anyone says that masses in which the priest alone communicates sacramentally are illicit and are therefore to be abrogated,[27] let him be anathema.

Canon 9. If anyone says that the rite of the Roman Church, according to which a part of the canon and the words of consecration are pronounced in a low tone, is to be condemned; or that the mass ought to be celebrated in the vernacular tongue only;[28] or that water ought not to be mixed with the wine that is to be offered in the chalice because it is contrary to the institution of Christ,[29] let him be anathema.

And as the Holy Father, Pope Benedict, has pointed out, there are not two Masses, there are two forms, the Ordinary and the Extraordinary, of the Mass.

So these canons apply to the Ordinary Form of the Mass as much as they apply to the Extraordinary Form.

 

[Timothysis]

I agree with some of what you say, but I would point out that a Satanic “Black Mass” is a valid Mass.

This is the most absurd thing I have ever read here. Would you please explain the apostolic succession that is inherent in the priesthood of Satanic priests? By what authority does a satanic priest act that gives him the ability to consecrate a host? Can you explain how a “Black Mass” is even valid (I would assume that they are, indeed, illicit)?

 

[ProVobis]

If I may, such a question might best be answered on another website ran by SSPX. There are few here and most do not last long. Even fewer will question the validity of the Mass.

The SSPX attendees who I know have better things to do than to discuss the validity of the Novus Ordo. However, the term Novus Ordo is rather old now. It is the OF and even the SSPX people acknowledge that.

 

[ProVobis]

ByzCath;5790985:

A very good point. And if I remember correctly, the SSPX website even suggests that “Catholics” should have nothing to do with the “Novus Ordo Missae.”

No one should as it is the OF now.

 

[Timothysis]

Timothysis;5791066:

This is from one of their brochures which they send out freely as part of a kit to propestive members

http://lh5.ggpht.com/_7iaMwPECBHg/Ss6tqXLZuPI/AAAAAAAABPY/nfVoe_9I1AQ/s640/scan0002.jpg

http://lh5.ggpht.com/_7iaMwPECBHg/Ss6tp9RfuYI/AAAAAAAABPU/OOILPoBWdYc/s512/scan0001.jpg

And what does the Church say in reference to the Pauline Mass?

“”*Hence, the Mass, the Lord’s Supper, is at the same time and inseparably:

1. A sacrifice in which the sacrifice of the cross is perpetuated
2. a memorial of the death and resurrection of the Lord, who said “do this in memory of me” (Lk. 22:19).
3. a sacred banquet in which, through the communion of the Body and Blood of the Lord, the People of God share the benefits of the Paschal Sacrifice, renew the New Covenant which God has made with man once for all through the Blood of Christ. (Instruction on the Worship of the Eucharistic Mystery Eucharisticum Mysterium, #C1." *

And also,

"*In the foreword to the General Instruction on the Roman Missal states:

The Sacrificial character of the Mass was solemnly defined by the Council of Trent in accordance with the universal tradition of the Church (Session 22, Sep. 17, 1562). The Second Vatican Council has enunciated this same teaching once again, and made this highly significant comment: "At the Last Supper our Saviour instituted the Eucharistic Sacrifice of his Body and Blood. He did this in order to perpetuate the sacrifice of the cross until he should come again;" (Constitution On the Sacred Liturgy #47). "*

"This foreword describes the New Order of the Mass as a sacrifice of praise, thanksgiving, propitiation and satisfaction, thus affirming doctrines that Protestants specifically deny. "

 

[pnewton]

The SSPX attendees who I know have better things to do than to discuss the validity of the Novus Ordo. .

Then how much less should we be wasting our time speculating what the SSPX who disagreed with this validity issue might say.

 

[Cluny]

<<The brochure is a call to unity to the true mass, the one that has been in play for hundreds of years not the one that barely came into during the 60’s.
ALL authorized rites for the Eucharistic Sacrifice, celebrated by lawful priests in communion with the Church are “true Masses”.

There was a time when the Tridentine Mass (as all authorized Liturgies) did NOT exist, but “came into existence.”

On the other hand, can the Masses of SSPX be considered “true masses” in this sense? Pope Benedict XVI has, not just once, but TWICE this year said that SSPX clergy do NOT excercise a legitimate ministry in the Catholic Church;.

 

[iamanea]

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?

Dear Mr. Palm:

I don’t remember the exact location. I read it over 30 years ago when I was a freshman at Thomas Aquinas College. As I recall, it was in light of the Catechism’s discussion of the “Mysterium Fidei.” In that discussion, it said that due to the recent break with the “reformers” who, for the most part, denied the true presence, the prefered meaning of the term (what mystery it refered to) was the true presence. It said that it was also true that it could be said that the mystery was that Christ died for all men, not in the sense that all men were saved, but that all men could be saved if they accepted Christ’s offer.

My ex and those students who agreed with her did not object to the translation per se but what they saw as a change in the mystery refered to. In my view, it is a most proper change. By translating it as “for all” the Church is returning to the original, literal meaning of Christ’s words and what the Gospels clearly show was Christ’s original intent in instituting the Eucharist.

By this I refer to WHAT THE MASS IS - A transportation into God’s eternal present so that we (to the extent we are aware and present to it) are present with Mary at the foot of the Cross praying with her and Jesus for all mankind (Catechism Catholic Church, 1994 edition par 1370). This is why the Church can speak of the Mass as being a “re-enactment of Christ’s sacrifice on Calvary in an unbloody manner through the words and actions of the priest (if I remember correctly this is a direct quote from the Baltimore Catechism).”

Furthermore, Christ’s death, and through the power of the Holy Spirit working through the Ministerial Priesthood, the Mass is the perfection and fulfillment of the Jewish Passover and ancient Temple rites. It is also the perfect earthly form of the heavenly worship rite and thus is how "Thy will be done on EARTH as it is in HEAVEN is realized. The Mass is also the fulfillment and perfection of Exodus and God’s instructions to Moses on how to build the Ark of the Covenant and the Tent of the Tabernacle.

This is what is essential to the Mass. This is the unchangeable teaching of the Magisterium. Everything else about the Mass can and has changed many times over the years. This, in my view, is why I prefer the Novus Ordo which in reality is a total misnomer as it is CENTURIES OLDER than the Tridentine rite. The roots of the Novus Ordo date back to the first centuries of the Christian era. Read the eucharistic prayer quoted in the Didache (written ca. 135 CE) and you will see it is almost the same words we use today. The Mass was originally said in Aramaic and Greek, not Latin. This is all made clear by a book that came out some 20 years ago entitled the “New Yet Old Mass (unfortunately, my copy is in storage and thus I don’t have access to the name of the author).”

For purposes of clarification, the last paragraph immeadiately above is my opinion and not necessarily Church teaching, The preceding paragraph is based on the exegesis of Scriptures by my mentor and Old Testament Scripture professor, Dr. Gregory Vall.

Corry

 

[ProVobis]

Then how much less should we be wasting our time speculating what the SSPX who disagreed with this validity issue might say.

Unless one’s really neurotic, what difference does it make?

 

[DavidPalm]

Would you please explain the apostolic succession that is inherent in the priesthood of Satanic priests? By what authority does a satanic priest act that gives him the ability to consecrate a host? Can you explain how a “Black Mass” is even valid (I would assume that they are, indeed, illicit)?

A Black Mass is celebrated by an apostate Catholic priest, thus is valid and yet illicit and horrifically sacrilegious. My sources, take them for what they’re worth, are the late Malachi Martin (some question his veracity on various issues) and also a friend of mine who used to be heavily into the occult and verified what Fr. Martin said about the matter. I shouldn’t have brought it up–it isn’t a core part of what we’re talking about here.

The point I was really trying to make is that I think that sometimes we forget that Tradition, with a capital T is passed on in its integrity by traditions, with a small t. Mess around enough with the little t traditions and you can indeed confuse people to the point where the Tradition doesn’t get passed on correctly/accurately. I believe that is in part what has happened when the Mass was so abruptly and so radically changed and the very strong impression was given that the traditional Roman Rite was formally suppressed.

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?

Dear Mr. Palm:

I don’t remember the exact location. I read it over 30 years ago when I was a freshman at Thomas Aquinas College. As I recall, it was in light of the Catechism’s discussion of the “Mysterium Fidei.” In that discussion, it said that due to the recent break with the “reformers” who, for the most part, denied the true presence, the prefered meaning of the term (what mystery it refered to) was the true presence. It said that it was also true that it could be said that the mystery was that Christ died for all men, not in the sense that all men were saved, but that all men could be saved if they accepted Christ’s offer.

Well, I disagree with your interpretation of what the Roman Catechism says. I’m in China right now and having a hard time accessing any complete on-line versions of it, but the relevant portion is cited here: wdtprs.com/blog/2006/06/the-roman-catechism-on-pro-multis/

The bottom line is that this mistranslation is now being corrected by Rome, at the direction of the Holy Father, so it’s a little strange to continue to press that “for all” really is a better translation. It never was and it was highly inappropriate, although it did not invalidate the consecration (which is what this thread is about.)

This is what is essential to the Mass. This is the unchangeable teaching of the Magisterium. Everything else about the Mass can and has changed many times over the years. This, in my view, is why I prefer the Novus Ordo which in reality is a total misnomer as it is CENTURIES OLDER than the Tridentine rite. The roots of the Novus Ordo date back to the first centuries of the Christian era. Read the eucharistic prayer quoted in the Didache (written ca. 135 CE) and you will see it is almost the same words we use today. The Mass was originally said in Aramaic and Greek, not Latin. This is all made clear by a book that came out some 20 years ago entitled the “New Yet Old Mass (unfortunately, my copy is in storage and thus I don’t have access to the name of the author).”

I couldn’t disagree more. The NO was indeed cobbled together from various sources, but the vast majority of it is newly manufactured (for example, almost all of the propers are newly rewritten. For the vast majority of the propers it cannot be seriously held that they represent a “revision” of the prayers of the traditional Roman Rite. They are modern rewrites.) And just going back to antiquity to pull forward liturgical forms that have fallen out of use for centuries is a highly questionable approach to liturgical “reform”.

But this thread is about validity and I affirm the NO’s validity, even if I have serious questions about the prudence of its promulgation and the fit of various of its elements with the broader Catholic Tradition. I and others have expressed our larger concerns about the NO in other threads. Alas, I should be sleeping, but you know the old jet lag thing…

God bless,

 

[Cluny]

<<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?>>

Trent is NOT the only council of the Church, nor is it the only source of the Church’s tradition.

The Church’s tradition is seen in the classical Liturgies as well; the Roman is just one of these.

The words “for many” do not appear in all the classical Liturgies.

I’m not saying here that “pro multis” should NOT be translated as “for many”; this is a defect of the present English Translation of the OF which has been corrected in the new translation.

I am saying that “for many” is clearly not required for validity, as is seen in other liturgies.

 

[DavidPalm]

<<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?>>

Trent is NOT the only council of the Church, nor is it the only source of the Church’s tradition.

The Church’s tradition is seen in the classical Liturgies as well; the Roman is just one of these.

The words “for many” do not appear in all the classical Liturgies.

I’m not saying here that “pro multis” should NOT be translated as “for many”; this is a defect of the present English Translation of the OF which has been corrected in the new translation.

I am saying that “for many” is clearly not required for validity, as is seen in other liturgies.

We agree that it’s a mistranslation. We agree that it doesn’t invalidate the Consecration. But there are no liturgies from East or West that have “for all” in the formula of Consecration. So if you want an example of blatantly Protestantization in the NO, then this is a great one. It was scandalous and traditionalists were right to protest the mistranslation. They were ridiculed for it, but they were right. Here’s a good article on this dynamic in the Church: remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/archive-2006-1130-pro-multis.htm

 

[iamanea]

I agree with some of what you say, but I would point out that a Satanic “Black Mass” is a valid Mass.

Mr. Palm: In what way is a black mass valid? I suppose it is possibly, although highly unlikely that a validly ordained Catholic priest could apostasize and say it. Other than that, I don’t see how it is possible. In addition, I had a seminary friend who used to say something that made a lot of sense to me. He said that if the power of the Holy Spirit makes it possible to turn the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Jesus, the Holy Spirit could prevent it too - in order to avoid the sacrilege.

I am sorry, I respect your opinion but I view your objection as a red herring - much like the worry that the priest does not intend to consecrate the host. Catholic teaching takes care of that. If the faithful believe the priest intends to effect a valid consecration their faith supplants the defective intention of the priest (the worthiness of the minister has no effect on the efficacy of the ministry - St. Augustine)… This argument was used by my parents’ old Tridentine pastor to answer their objections that his disobedience to his bishop (he did not have faculties to say mass any longer except privately with no congregation)invalidated the Mass and thus we were not receiving the True Body and Blood. Again, either the Holy Spirit is with the Church or he is not.

I am sorry, this is just my opinion and with all due respect to those who disagree, to me those who question the validity of the New Mass or say it is sacrilegious are putting themselves above the Pope and the bishops because of pride. They are not the leaders of the Church, the Pope and bishops are. They do not possess the special charism of the Holy Spirit to guide the Church, the Pope and Bishops do. Yet they presume to “know better” than those ministers God has entrusted the Church too.

Corry

 

[Timothysis]

A Black Mass is celebrated by an apostate Catholic priest, thus is valid and yet illicit and horrifically sacrilegious. My sources, take them for what they’re worth, are the late Malachi Martin (some question his veracity on various issues) and also a friend of mine who used to be heavily into the occult and verified what Fr. Martin said about the matter. I shouldn’t have brought it up–it isn’t a core part of what we’re talking about here.

Sorry, but I disagree. One of the essential elements of a valid Eucharist is that the celebrating priest intends to do what the Church intends him to do. To consecrate the Eucharist solely for the point of blasphemy is completely contrary to the intention of the Church. It would be the same as an apostate priest who encourages those around him to sin as much and as vulgarly as they can so that he can absolve them; it just doesn’t work that way. Just my opinion…