Is the Novus Ordo Valid

[iamanea]

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.

As you say, your opinion and LEGALISTIC nonesense. If a person is not spiritually fed in their parish, there are plenty of other parishes to chose from. I often go twenty miles out of my way to attend Mass at a parish I feel fed at. In addition, speaking from my own personal experience (myself), 9 times out of 10, it I don’e feel fed at mass, it is MY problem not the parish’s. I know I don’t speak for everyone but I honestly cannot believe that my experience is that unique.

There are a great many programs offered by dioceses across the country to promote good spiritual growth. EWTN is available through cable almost everywhere in the country. If people don’t take advantage of these programs, that is their fault not the Church’s.

Corry

 

[AJV]

Finally, as unfortunate as these reasons are for changing the Mass prior to the council, now you have the architect of the new mass on record as saying that the “gutting” of the TLM (I’ll use that verb here without reservation) was to remove any obstacle that our separated Protestant brothers might have to assisting at the new catholic Mass. Again, shortening the Mass is bad enough, but removing prayers and words so as to make the Mass palatable to non-Catholics is outrageous.

We have the architect of the new Mass (if he can indeed be called the architect. I find that somewhat unfair to everyone else) misquoted to seem on record as saying that the gutting of the TLM was to remove any obstacle that our separated Protestant brothers might have to assisting at the new catholic Mass.

 

[LilyM]

Re Satanic Masses - even if such a Mass is celebrated by a priest whose orders are still valid, and even if the correct form and matter is used by that apostate priest, I would seriously question whether such a celebrant would actually have the requisite intention that forms a necessary component of confecting the Eucharist.

I don’t think the PURPOSE for which one wants to confect and the CONTEXT in which the attempt is made is irrelevant.

 

[iamanea]

tcm22;5801388:

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

Response:

Califman:
Califman831;5802665:

tcm22;5801388:

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.

Response:

You need to clarify your church history. The Novus ordo traces its roots back to at least the early second centuty. Read the New Yet Old Mass or any of the other texts reccommended on this thread. Consequently the “Novus Ordo” (misnomer in my view) is CENTURIES older than the Tridentine.

Traditionalists try to portray the Tridentine Mass as itf it has been celebrated for 2000 years UNCHANGED. This is blatantly FALSE. The original Mass (celebrated at the Last Supper by Jesus and the Apostles) was said in ARAMAIC NOT Latin. The mass said in the early church was said in the vernacular of the local area. Standing for Communiion, Communion in the Hand, Communion under both species were ALL the ancient practice of the Church. That is why they were re-introduced. Besides the language prayers, scripture readings, etc. are all externals to the essense of the mass.

The Canons you refer to are NOT dogmatic teaching. They may include dogmatic teaching (such as Canons 1 - 3). Canons are laws not teaching. As such they are in effect only until such time as they are changed by later lawful Church authority. Most certainly, the canon prohibiting recitation of the mass in the vernacular is NOT dogmatic teaching. If that were the case, the Mass would have been said in Latin only in Jesus time. That is not the case. The mass did not come to be generally said in latin til the time of Gregory the Great (sixth century). Even then, Latin was used only in the West where other rites fell into disuse. The Mennonite Catholic Rite continued to be used down until today as did the Rite of St. Basil and Gregory the Great - used still in the Greek East - both by the uniate Eastern Catholic Churches that come from the Orthodox tradition and by the Orthodox Christians. Finally the Assyrian Church of the East and the Eastern Orthodox Churches (the churches that broke with Rome after Chalcedon in the 5th century and not the Orthodox that broke with Rome in 1054) use the same rite (as I understand) that they used in ancient times.

The fact that NO ONE has ever seriously questioned these different rites proves my point. The Tridentine rite (dates to late 16th century) itself has been changed several times over the intervening years. Again, no one claimed that any of these changes were invalid.

The essential nature of the Mass - a re-enactment of Christ’s death on Calvary that is more than just a memorial of that death but an actual sacrifice in an unbloody manner for the forgiveness of man’s sins. The true presence in the Eucharist as the mean whereby that sacrifice is made efficacious (i.e. we receive the forgiveness of our sins and all the other graces by our participation in the Eucharistic meal (spiritually and/or by physical reception). None of this dogmatic teaching has changed. The Church of 2009 still believes and teaches ALL of this Regardless of how individual members in the pews may think.

Corry

 

[iamanea]

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.

Not if they are being honest about their objections to the Novus Ordo.

It is my believe that they refuse to engage, just as other Traditionalists, refuse to engage me, because they know their arguments hold zero water whatsoever and either they have been blinded by their bishops and pastors (in which case their sin falls on their spiritual leaders) or they are guilty of the utmost pride and huburis to think they know better what is good for the Church than their spiritual betters - The Pope and Bishops of the Mainstream Church.

Corry

 

[iamanea]

You are entitled to your opinion. So Be it. I cannot accept your position and characterization.

What is the CENTRAL truth of the Christian faith if NOT that Christ died for all men, that He is risen and that He will come again.?

These truths is what the Novus Ordo refers to in the use of for all and in highlighting the mystery of faith.

God Bless

Corry

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Hello:

I am a mainstream Catholic and wish to ask a question of a member of the SSPX society about why they view the “Novus Ordo” invalid.

My ex wife and three of my children are members of the society and I am trying to understand their position. I have serious questions as to the validity of the society’s sacraments which causes concern over their salvation.

Some background is in order. I used to attend a private Tridentine Mass with my parents while in High School. A tremendous scandal broke out in the parish which convinced my parents to return to the mainstream church in obedience to our local bishop who did not recognize the legitimacy of our attending church at the Tridentine parish. My first wife was very traditional and left the mainstream church when Archbishop Le Febvre left in the eighties - after our divorce. I have asked this question on another site that had a large number of members of the society, but no one ever responded.

Based on my personal experience of what I was told by my ex and by my old Tridentine pastor (as a high school student) I understand that you believe that # 1. Vatican II and Pope Paul VI’s decision to institute the Novus Ordo mass is an abomination and not valid. # 2. Archbishop Lefebvre was correct to ignore Rome’s request to not consecrate bishops to carry on his movement after his death. #3. You feel only the Tridentine Mass is valid and a true mass - No other rite within the Catholic Church is valid…

…

If any of my characterizations of your position incorrect or if any of my logic is faulty, I would like to know. Thank you.

Corry

---

It is a dogmatic fact - that is what the thing is called - that any liturgical rite approved by the Supreme Pontiff for the whole Church is valid.​

It is also a dogmatic fact that Benedict XVI is the legitimate successor of Peter. This alone is enough to lay to rest al the claikms of any other persons alleged to be Pope. He is Pope - just as Pius XI & Pius XII & John XXIII & Paul VI & John Paul I & John Paul II were Popes before him: so no one else can be. So the sedevacantists, like the followers of the various anti-Popes - Gregory XVII, Pius XIII, etc. - can be ignored.

If dogmatic facts are not facts, the visibility and perpetuity of the Church are fatally compromised. They are dogmatic, because their status as facts is logically necessary, if the related dogmas are not to be falsified. The Church cannot worship God aright, if its liturgical books are not in conformity with the Catholic Faith.

As for your questions, you may find it easier to get a satisfying answer if you aask one or two questions at a time. You’ve covered a huge amount of ground with them, and only 7,000 characters are possible in each post; which is not that many words (hence the snip )

 

[ProVobis]

Not if they are being honest about their objections to the Novus Ordo.

Hey, I attend the SSPX Mass occasionally and I know the OF is valid. If anyone were to have a problem with SSPX thinking OF not to be valid, I certainly would because I attend the OF as well. Do you attend the SSPX or plan to? Probably not so the only concern I have is that perhaps you are raising doubts about your own faith wherever the validity question comes up. And that’s a bigger problem, as far as I see it. Confused yet?

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

Not if they are being honest about their objections to the Novus Ordo.

**It is my believe that they refuse to engage, just as other Traditionalists, refuse to engage me, because they know their arguments hold zero water whatsoever **and either they have been blinded by their bishops and pastors (in which case their sin falls on their spiritual leaders) or they are guilty of the utmost pride and huburis to think they know better what is good for the Church than their spiritual betters - The Pope and Bishops of the Mainstream Church.

Corry

I am a Traditionalist who has been associted with the SSPX to one degree or another since becoming a Catholic in 1998. I have some free time and am willing to engage you on any topic you desire. My only request is that you start a new thread and take it one point at a time.

I’ll look for the new thread.

 

[Cluny]

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

By approving “for all” in a liturgical context, the Church is saying, in effect, that this is NOT a “Protestantization”.

Period. (This is a poor translation, NOT a Protesantitzaion, and we both rejoice that it is being rectified.)

FWIW, the classical forms of the Book of Common Prayer–a throuroughly Protestant, indeed Zwinglian, liturgy–says “for many.”

You can build a better case of saying that “for many” is actually a Protestant concept than you can say “for all” is.

And my point is that certain Eastern Liturgies have NEVER said either “for many” or “for all,” so this point is irrelevant.

 

[DavidPalm]

By approving “for all” in a liturgical context, the Church is saying, in effect, that this is NOT a “Protestantization”. Period.

I think this is taking the Church’s indefectibility too far. The Holy Spirit does not guarantee Rome’s every administrative decision, to include the exact wording of ever single vernacular translation.

I would simply say that it strains credulity to see all the ways in which the Latin original of the Novus Ordo has been mistranslated with a particular doctrinal bent (I would argue Protestant and neo-modernist in orientation) and think that was just an accident. It wasn’t an accident, it was done on purpose. As Prof. William Sullivan argued in an article in Homiletic and Pastoral Review (from Ignatius Press, not exactly a rad-trad rag):

The general attitude among the hierarchy is that all resistance to the Novus Ordo is due to stubbornness or nostalgia and will inevitably die out with the older generation. Yet there are good reasons for this resistance. In fact, it is now possible to show on strictly scientific, statistically sound grounds that the Novus Ordo in the United States is several times unsatisfactory. Using the methods of linguistic and semiotic analysis it can be proved that the Novus Ordo is not merely badly translated but translated in a doctrinally unsound manner. More, I show that it is highly probable that the mistranslations are a deliberate attempt to subvert the Church in American in a Modernist direction. Worse, indications are that the attempt is succeeding. (“Translating the Novus Ordo Missae into good English”, Homiletic and Pastoral Review, May 1995, 49; emphasis mine.)

Look, I’m glad that Rome is correcting these things. But the very fact that Rome has to correct them indicates that something went wrong in the first place. If we can’t agree on that, well, then we live in different universes.

 

[Gregory_I]

Let’s Remember people that those who constructed the New Mass Violated the will of Pius XII when he said many people want to bring new things to the church on the pretext of antiquity, but they err because they deny that the Holy Spirit has preserved things as they are.

That being said, what do you suppose is the status of the Liturgy of Addai and Mari that has NO consecration, and a hardly formed epiclesis, is probably the oldest USED liturgy by the Maronites, Syriac Catholics, Chaldeans, Syro-Malabarese, Malankarese and the Assyrian Church of the East? THis liturgy, even with NO CONSECRATION has papal approval, on account of its antiquity.

Compare that to the Novus Ordo which has a clearly defined epiclesis, consecration and refers to the mass as both a sacrifice, and communion of the Lord’s Body. Which is VALID ROmanly speaking?

YOu like them blurry lines, doncha?!

 

[ProVobis]

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

Perhaps, but “for all” is in none of the Biblical translations. Is it wrong to question why the ICEL decided to insert this into the heart of the Mass? And by the way, it was in the Mass before 1970.

 

[ProVobis]

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…

And that’s why they do it, Tim. If Satanic Masses were invalid, who and why would they perform them? Sick, I know, but people do it.

 

[Timothysis]

And that’s why they do it, Tim. If Satanic Masses were invalid, who and why would they perform them? Sick, I know, but people do it.

I do not believe that the Holy Spirit is held to a legalistic mumbo-jumbo that requires Him to consecrate a host into the Body and Blood of Jesus just because an apostate priest is validly ordained. An apostate priest can no more validly consecrate the Eucharist explicitly for the sake of blasphemy and sacrilege with no intention to do what the Church intends to do than a valid bishop can validly ordain a woman into the priesthood. The Church does not recognize the validity of anglican orders and their eucharistic sacraments; I see no way that the Church would recognize the validity of an apostate priest celebrating illicit liturgies with the express intention of blasphemy and sacrilege. I’m not trying to argue but I just happen to believe that Christ is in better control than that.

 

[Layman]

I don’t think the best response to:

World wars;
Genocides;
Personal immorality of a kind previously the preserve of Caesars;
Rejection of history and authority;
Increasing ignorance of even the basics of Christianity;
The spead of evangelical Protestantism;
Antagonsim towards Christianity in Western government …

… is Masses which increasingly seeks to reach down to laymen’s level instead of bringing them up to Christ’s e.g. the vernacular, unvested laymen in the sanctuary, CITH, folksy hymns and a text which has dropped beautiful, didactic and moving prayers.

**If it’s made more populist then it’s illogical to expect people to treat it simultaneously as sacred and set apart. I think that’s the central contradiction in the trends shaping the Novus Ordo: **

“We’re putting more people up front doing stuff facing you and playing down or removing anything ancient and mysterious and adding more noise generally but we still expect you to think of God.”

Build Churches with minimalist or stylised interiors and you have another brick in the wall.

 

[Timothysis]

I don’t think the best response to:

World wars;
Genocides;
Personal immorality of a kind previously the preserve of Caesars;
Rejection of history and authority;
Increasing ignorance of even the basics of Christianity;
The spead of evangelical Protestantism;
Antagonsim towards Christianity in Western government …

… is Masses which increasingly seeks to reach down to laymen’s level instead of bringing them up to Christ’s e.g. the vernacular, unvested laymen in the sanctuary, CITH, folksy hymns and a text which has dropped beautiful, didactic and moving prayers.

If it’s made more populist then it’s illogical to expect people to treat it simultaneously as sacred and set apart. I think that’s the central contradiction in the trends shaping the Novus Ordo:

“We’re putting more people up front doing stuff facing you and playing down or removing anything ancient and mysterious and adding more noise generally but we still expect you to think of God.”

Build Churches with minimalist or stylised interiors and you have another brick in the wall.

I do not believe the best response to:

"World wars;
Genocides;
Personal immorality of a kind previously the preserve of Caesars;
Rejection of history and authority;
Increasing ignorance of even the basics of Christianity;
The spead of evangelical Protestantism;
Antagonsim towards Christianity in Western government … "

is to insist that people attend liturgies where they feel uninvolved without active participation, where they must follow along silently in a missal with a vernacular translation, where the mystery of faith is more of a feeling of awe than a conscious understanding of the intellect.

The Tridentine Mass was not enough to stop the many wars that erupted from the 16th century to 1965, it did not stop the various crimes and persecutions that occured all over Europe and the colonial world, it did not prevent horrors of the French Revolution and the anti-God/Catholic sentiment that murdered bishops, priests and nuns, that allowed the desecration of the Eucharist, or Holy Relics and ancient churches and cathedrals, it did not prevent the anti-Semitism that reached it’s zenith under Nazi Germany, nor did it stop Adolph Hitler and many of the high ranking Nazi command, who were raised and educated under “Traditional” Church teachings and participated in the Tridentine Mass, to seek the Light instead of the Dark.

If a person is drawn to the traditional latin Mass, then that’s great; Pope Benedict is working to achieve a balance where those who wish to worship in the Old Rite may do so. But don’t try to blame the tremendous social changes that occurred in the 1960’s and have corrupted so many in the world today on the fact that the Church has simplified the form of the Mass. It just doesn’t follow.

 

[Layman]

The Mass can be said without any congregation. This indicates that the didactic or lay-participatory element is secondary.

In a quiet Mass, without auditory and visual distractions, you can focus on adding your prayers to the worship and thus, while also attending in a state of grace, get as many graces as God is disposed to give you.

I don’t expect Masses to be a magical preventative of all society’s ills. I’m saying that ‘bringing it to the people’, in the Mass, is an odd response when a lot of social problems are caused by ‘bringing it to the people’; letting people direct their own lives with no heed paid to history, traditional morality or even good sense.

e.g. Behave however you want sexually and let’s gloss over (or make money out of!) the dreadful practical and spiritual problems this makes for the individual and society.

I can vaguely recall the atmosphere in the 70’s; revolution for its own sake, cocking a snook at authority, populism, middle-class students shouting about ‘freedom’ then heading to the V.D. clinic on the quiet. I think the Church go caught up in that. It really was quite heady.

The N.O. is encouraging people to focus on themselves and the other participants. This is even seen as a good thing. To make contact with God via the Mass, I contend we have to put away our egotism and the mundane. That’s why saints went into the desert.

 

[Cluny]

<>

Not that I can tell.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

The N.O. is encouraging people to focus on themselves and the other participants.

This is your opinion and I think you are wrong.