Magisterim Infallability

[Ed_Sorenson]

Is the Magisterium Infallable when it says you must attend the Novus Ordo Mass if it is available? Or, is this a matter of concious with no infallabile directives?

 

[Usagi]

I don’t believe the magisterium says that.

It says you have an obligation to attend Mass on Sundays when it is not an extreme hardship.

Mass may be celebrated either in the ordinary form (“Novus Ordo”) or in the extraordinary form (1962 order of Mass) at the discretion of each priest.

You are not required to attend the ordinary form if the extraordinary form is available to you. (Nor, of course, are you required to attend the extraordinary form if both are available. You get to choose.)

If there is no extraordinary form celebration in your area, you should fulfill your obligation by attending ordinary form Masses while talking to local priests in order to encourage availability of the extraordinary form.

The exact details of the Mass (beyond the required form of the consecration) are not something that can be prescribed infallibly. They vary in different cultures and ages, but all are the Mass.

If for some reason you consider the ordinary form invalid, that would be a problem, but there is no issue with having a preference for one form or another.

Usagi

 

[Ed_Sorenson]

Many in my family claim that the Novus Ordo is not a valid Mass because the words of the Concesration have been changed from “for many” to “for all”. Therefore, they will only attend the Triditine Mass and not the Novus Ordo and go so far as to say the Novus Ordo is damaging to your Faith and should not be attended.

This seems to be a matter of concious. But, is there an infallibility involved here that takes concious out or the picture? Does a Catholic have the freedom to use concious to come to the conclusion that the Novus Ordo is not a real Mass?

 

[Callixtus]

Many in my family claim that the Novus Ordo is not a valid Mass because the words of the Concesration have been changed from “for many” to “for all”. Therefore, they will only attend the Triditine Mass and not the Novus Ordo and go so far as to say the Novus Ordo is damaging to your Faith and should not be attended.

This seems to be a matter of concious. But, is there an infallibility involved here that takes concious out or the picture? Does a Catholic have the freedom to use concious to come to the conclusion that the Novus Ordo is not a real Mass?

The validity of the mass comes from the authority of the Church, united under the pope, and not from words.

 

[Ed_Sorenson]

The validity of the mass comes from the authority of the Church, united under the pope, and not from words.

There seems to be a lot of disagreement on this. Can you please expand on that? Is this specific authority infallible authority? Or, can one conclude that since the words have been changed in the most important part of the Mass (changed form Jesus’ words in the Bible) that the Mass is not valid and the Church leadership has strayed?

 

[Callixtus]

By the way, if the pope himself celebrates the “Novus Ordo,” which he does (having witnessed this on more than one occasion), then it would be difficult to see how it could be invalid, no?

Unless one thinks that the pope is not infallible in matters of faith and morals - which would make a person not Catholic in their outlook at all - then the unavoidable conclusion is that the Novus Ordo of the mass is valid.

 

[Ed_Sorenson]

Hmmm…good point. I will bring this up with my Mom. Thanks.

 

[yosupman]

Ed, are your parents in the SSPX? If so, where? Just wondered.

 

[archangel04]

Many in my family claim that the Novus Ordo is not a valid Mass because the words of the Concesration have been changed from “for many” to “for all”. Therefore, they will only attend the Triditine Mass and not the Novus Ordo and go so far as to say the Novus Ordo is damaging to your Faith and should not be attended.

This seems to be a matter of concious. But, is there an infallibility involved here that takes concious out or the picture? Does a Catholic have the freedom to use concious to come to the conclusion that the Novus Ordo is not a real Mass?

Actually the English says that and from what I’ve hears it’s in the works of being change. I attend Spansih Novus Ordo and it says “for many” not “for all”. So you see not all OF masses state the same. Tell that to your parents with respect.

 

[Usagi]

Actually the English says that and from what I’ve hears it’s in the works of being change. I attend Spansih Novus Ordo and it says “for many” not “for all”. So you see not all OF masses state the same. Tell that to your parents with respect.

That’s right. The official language of the Novus Ordo is still Latin, and it still says “for many.” It’s just poorly translated in English. When the liturgy is next revised (within the next couple years), it will be changed to “for many” in English as well. The Vatican has however confirmed that neither version invalidates the consecration, since Jesus did die “for all” but his sacrifice will be effective only “for the many” who accept it.

Usagi

 

[bpbasilphx]

\Mass may be celebrated either in the ordinary form (“Novus Ordo”) or in the extraordinary form (1962 order of Mass) at the discretion of each priest.

You are not required to attend the ordinary form if the extraordinary form is available to you. (Nor, of course, are you required to attend the extraordinary form if both are available. You get to choose.)\

Remember that the Eastern Catholic liturgies are also valid liturgies of the Church that fulfill one’s obligation.

||Many in my family claim that the Novus Ordo is not a valid Mass because the words of the Concesration have been changed from “for many” to “for all”. Therefore, they will only attend the Triditine Mass and not the Novus Ordo and go so far as to say the Novus Ordo is damaging to your Faith and should not be attended.||

**This is wrong, because certain Eastern (as well as Western LIturgies) have never said either “for many” or “for all” in their Words of Institution.

Therefore, if the ABSENCE of “for many” does not invalidate the Consecration, neither would saying “for all” in the English version (which is being corrected in the new translation of the Ordinary Form, btw).

Since all authorized liturgies of the Church are equally valid, it looks to me like this “many in your family” are the ones who have had their faith damaged, as they are holding to ideas that oppose the teaching of the Church.**

 

[bpbasilphx]

… Or, can one conclude that since the words have been changed in the most important part of the Mass (changed form Jesus’ words in the Bible) that the Mass is not valid and the Church leadership has strayed?

Actually, in the classical (that is, Pre-Reformation) Liturgies, the Words of Institution have NEVER been direct quotes from the Bible, but have always taken a liturgical form.

 

[Rolltide]

There are also traditionalist groups that have problems with the Syro-Malabar Catholic Church and the Chaldean Catholic Church (and the Assyrian Church of the East, which is not Catholic) because they use the Holy Qurbana (Liturgy) of Addai and Mari. This form of the liturgy doesn’t even have words of institution, and yet the pope and magesterium have ruled this a valid Mass (well, Divine Liturgy)! A statement by the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity explains that the words of the institution of the Eucharist are in fact present in a euchological and disseminated manner

 

[Rolltide]

There was also an announcement just today that they are going to “try” and implement the new English translation of the Mass at Advent 2011, so this shouldn’t be an issue at all anymore in about a year and a half.

 

[bpbasilphx]

There are also traditionalist groups that have problems with the Syro-Malabar Catholic Church and the Chaldean Catholic Church (and the Assyrian Church of the East, which is not Catholic) because they use the Holy Qurbana (Liturgy) of Addai and Mari. This form of the liturgy doesn’t even have words of institution, and yet the pope and magesterium have ruled this a valid Mass (well, Divine Liturgy)! A statement by the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity explains that the words of the institution of the Eucharist are in fact present in a euchological and disseminated manner

Actually, the Chaldean Catholics and Syro-Malabar Catholics DO have the Words of Institution in their versions of Ss. Addai and Mari.

You can see this by pressing the proper link (to the right) at

www.kaldu.org

Even the version used by the Assyrian Church of the East, though the Liturgy of Addai and Mari lack them, the other two Liturgies they use do NOT lack them…

And it’s obvious that even without the Words of Institution, Addai and Mari intends to confect, or as we say in the East, accomplish the Mystery of the Eucharist.

You can see their recensions here:

web.archive.org/web/20061009222851/www.cired.org/liturgy/apostles.html

web.archive.org/web/20061009222854/www.cired.org/liturgy/theodore.html

web.archive.org/web/20061009222901/www.cired.org/liturgy/nestorius.html

 

[Ed_Sorenson]

Ed, are your parents in the SSPX? If so, where? Just wondered.

No

 

[Ed_Sorenson]

Actually, in the classical (that is, Pre-Reformation) Liturgies, the Words of Institution have NEVER been direct quotes from the Bible, but have always taken a liturgical form.

The point my family is making is that the Church changed the Mass and changed the Traditional words of Consecration. In doing so, they say it is a break with Tradition and therfore not valid.

I think the real question is, does the Magisterium or the Vatican or whoever speak infallibly when it says that both traslations are valid? If so, the discussion is over.

 

[bpbasilphx]

The point my family is making is that the Church changed the Mass and changed the Traditional words of Consecration. In doing so, they say it is a break with Tradition and therfore not valid.

I think the real question is, does the Magisterium or the Vatican or whoever speak infallibly when it says that both traslations are valid? If so, the discussion is over.

1. When St. Pius V promulgated the Tridentine Mass, in the very bull Quo primum, he called it a “new rite”! What does this tell you?

In case you can’t figure it out, St. Pius V “changed the Mass and broke with Tradition,” which had formerly left local bishops to order the Liturgy according to their own discretion, within local custom.

1. “Infallibility” can be invoked only under certain carefully defined conditions, and it’s limited to the Pope.

However, as I said elsewhere, “solo Papa”–or in this case “solo infallibilitas”–is merely the other end of the error of “solo Scriptura,” and for the same reason.

It takes a truth and isolates it from the REST of the teaching of the Church–which is the classic definition of heresy: truth in isolation.

As I said, the Church cannot promulgate invalid rites.

Even if poorly translated into English, all approved rites of the Church in whatsoever langauge are equally valid.

Especially if the Church authorities say so.

So the discussion IS over.

 

[Callixtus]

Bpbasil, you are excellent.

Anyway, Ed, to go back to a question you asked, keep in mind that the Lord’s words used in the mass as placed into the English “Novus Ordo” mass are, basically,

Aramaic translated into Greek
Greek translated into Latin
Latin translated into English.

So - we are clearly relying on the Church’s authority (pope and Magisterium) to guarantee the reliability of not only the mass, but the Bible itself (and all the various translations of it - from the original Greek to St. Jerome’s Vulgate to the present day), and therefore the only record we have of Our Lord’s words. That brings us back to square one, which is that it’s the authority behind it that makes it valid.

I hope that helps -