C
cathguy
Guest
I would absolutely agree with this statement. I believe it to be true beyond a doubt that “the Church cannot, by her nature, promulgate invalid and ineffectual rites.”
- Status
C
cathguy
Guest
I appreciate how respectfully and calmly you make your points. I will try to emulate that!
I respectfully and totally disagree that the Church can promulgate a heretical rite. I concede that the Church’s documents have been misread and poorly received and that massive widespread and systematic abuse has created, among many good Catholics, a perception that the new rites are heretical. But, that is not because the rites themselves are heretical, it is because of how those rites are commonly celebrated.
I stand on the rock, not just of an appeal to authority, but on the rock of reason. Even the most intensely traditional Michael Davies, not to mention Msgr. Lefevbre, recognize that the new rites are valid and licit. I think the changes as they have been implemented are horrible! Please don’t misunderstand! I think the new Mass, as commonly celebrated, is, if not an abomination, as close to one as we can imagine.
But, given the evidence, and given the Church’s authority, it is clear that the rites are valid.
I concede this point, and really try hard not to argue this way. If a black mass were to come from the Church, then I would leave the Church as the Church would be self-evidently a lie.
But need I point out that no such Mass has ever come from the Church in the past? It is my faith and belief that no such Mass will ever come from her in the future.
This is a step too far. The greatest scholars in the traditionalist movement have rejected the notion that the new rites are demonstrably invalid. That is a view of a tiny minority. Plus, I have read these arguments, and find the arguments for validity far stronger than those against.
Hardly. The Successor of Peter has not committed heresy (through the teaching office… this is important) in 2000 years, and there is absolutely NO evidence that a successor of Peter has ever done so. Not Theology of the Body (it isn’t an exercise of the Magesterium). Not JPII kissing the Koran (it isn’t an exercise of the Magesterium)
There is not a SINGLE scrap of evidence that any Pope, including the modern ones, has EVER taught error through the teaching office of the Magesterium…
Ever…
I know I made that point very strongly. I apologize for any offense given. But I believe it incredibly strongly.
Therefore, I conclude that the position that you hold to is tenuous at best.
The new rites are both valid and licit, even if they are commonly celebrated in a horrible way.
I may be able to concede that Vatican II was a mistake, and that the new rites are themselves inferior to the old, but that is a step to far for me given the evidence available to me. The question for me is one of continuity.
That said, and even though I disagree with you very strongly, I thank you for sharing your thoughts.
Peace!
B
bpbasilphx
Guest
\I don’t think it’s a ridiculous analogy; I fear you’ve missed the point. Of course a “black mass” would never come from the Church—that’s the whole idea.\
**Neither would invalid rites of ordination.
OTOH, the new rites of ordination DID come from the Church.
Those who reject them are rejecting the Church, and are thus not part of her.
And YOU are the one who dragged in the issue of a “black mass.” Therefore you have to allow the concept to be discussed!
Or are you equating the present approved rites of ordination with the black mass?**
**Neither would invalid rites of ordination.
OTOH, the new rites of ordination DID come from the Church.
Those who reject them are rejecting the Church, and are thus not part of her.
And YOU are the one who dragged in the issue of a “black mass.” Therefore you have to allow the concept to be discussed!
Or are you equating the present approved rites of ordination with the black mass?**
Y
Yggdrasil
Guest
Likewise to you. Vive la politesse!
I don’t think that’s the case at all. Strictly speaking, the text and the design of the Novus Ordo contain all of the sufficiently damning evidence against it, regardless of the “style” of the celebrant. I am a former Episcopalian of the “high church” variety, and I can testify from personal experience that it is eminently possible to celebrate a heretical service with every single rococo-Catholic trapping in the book. You can pull out all the stops; Heaven knows Benedict does. As the ballad goes, however, “I would rather a kiss from the dead one’s lips than from you and your finery.” Atmospherics do not a proper liturgy make.
If you like, I should be happy to demonstrate seven ways to Sunday how the new rite is Protestant. Has not Michael Davies already done this? I’ll spare you the long and detailed version unless you sincerely want it. Just to take a single oration at random, however, consider the Libera nos quaesumus:
TRIDENTINE MISSALE ROMANUM (English):
"NOVUS ORDO MISSAE (English):
Stripped from this beautiful prayer is the plea for the intercession of the Blessed Mother and the saints. What was once infused with Catholic integrity has been reduced to the bare bones of Protestantism (which, unless I’m mistaken, is still a heresy). Must every single instance of this sort be paraded as evidence before you will concede that the new rite qualifies as Protestant, and ergo heretical?
Granted, a rite can theoretically be heretical in text and design, and nevertheless still retain a valid sacrament. Were a Roman priest with the requisite intent to celebrate the liturgy for Holy Communion found in the Common Prayer Book, he would effect transubstantiation—sacramental theology recommends that the form in the Anglican service is valid. But sadly, the vernacular of the Novus Ordo does not even have a valid form according to St. Pius V’s catalog of sacramental defects, De Defectibus. More on this below.
(Just a minor clarification: Marcel Lefebvre’s proper ecclesial title was Archbishop, not Monsignor). For the record, though, Abp. Lefebvre referred to the Novus Ordo as “impregnated with the spirit of Protestantism,” and he remarked that it contained “a poison harmful to the faith.” He advised Catholics to avoid it at all costs—“even when said with piety and respect.” Furthermore, the SSPX has publically labeled the Novus Ordo “evil,” and has said that it “can be of doubtful validity … and more and more doubtful as the crisis in the Church is prolonged.” This is hardly a vote of confidence in favor of validity.
I respect your admiration for Michael Davies, as I have benefitted from listening to several of his seminars on cassette. But his is not the final and absolute word on this matter. He seemed to have concurred with the SSPX’s perspective on the sacramental form, reproduced here from their FAQ:
An excellent question. Has the essential substance been respected? Here is their answer:
Why? Why, indeed, when one of the most recognized Church documents on sacramental validity plainly indicates that we should not assume this? They recommend an assumption without giving the grounds. Very strange.
I attempted as best I could in this post to briefly summarize the evidence for why the Novus Ordo is not valid. I would be grateful if you could explain to me the error in such reasoning. To my lights, the assumption that Mr. Davies and the SSPX ask us to make is precisely the wrong assumption given the appeal to De Defectibus.
Y
Yggdrasil
Guest
\I don’t think it’s a ridiculous analogy; I fear you’ve missed the point. Of course a “black mass” would never come from the Church—that’s the whole idea.\
**Neither would invalid rites of ordination.
OTOH, the new rites of ordination DID come from the Church.**
Thank you for asserting your opinion—yet again. I see no need to repeat mine.
I have already provided a link to an essay which undertakes to show the alleged defect of the ordination (in the sacramental form). If you care to refute it, I shall be very interested to discuss it with you. We would be keeping on topic if we do.
bpbasilphx;6267900:
Says you, of course. If somehow you’re right, I’ll be content to make my exit from the Church, and will have to consider a dalliance with Freyja. I can take no part in a religion where God plays cruel tricks on his subjects. Were we given De Defectibus in order to conscientiously scrutinize doubtful forms, or was St. Pius V just kidding?
But seriously: what’s the point of having sacramental theology if it doesn’t actually apply?
We can discuss the black mass if you like, but I was trying to illustrate a principle which is far more important. Whether Protestant or Satanist, no heretical or blasphemous aspects should show up in the Catholic liturgy. For sheer hatred of the Mass, though, I’d say the post-conciliar reformers certainly give Lucifer a run.
Y
Yggdrasil
Guest
Neglected to respond to this point—and it’s too late to edit.
Lest we forget, modernism is a heresy. “The synthesis of them all.”
The pope need not teach heresy ex cathedra in order to be a heretic. The papal office is accorded the highest authoritative honor on earth, but the pope himself is a mortal with the free will to sin, and even to commit the sin of heresy. He is not an automaton. The same goes for bishops. Heresy is heresy, whether it is taught in an official capacity or otherwise.
Lest we forget, modernism is a heresy. “The synthesis of them all.”
A
AJV
Guest
De Defectibus does not say “does not mean” it says “does not signify”. The signification fo the sacrament of the Eucharist is accomplished in the consecration of the matter, for which as even the ‘long form’ adherents admit, “This is (the chalice of) my Blood” is sufficient.
Futhermore, “pro omnibus” is no necessarily wrong, if the right meaning is attached to it. Which is why even St. Thomas implicitly admits it in the Summa when he says:
Y
Yggdrasil
Guest
Indeed, those are the essential words of the form. De Defectibus even allows for a shortening of the form and, according to many saints and scholastics, “This is (the chalice of) my Blood” would effect a valid sacrament on its own. That is not in dispute.
What is problematic for us is that the Roman Rite uses a longer form. Concerning the words beyond the essentials, De Defectibus says that they must not be changed in such a way as to deviate from the proper signification. If they differ, they negate the sacrament. The long form must be pristine to be effective.
The essential words, in the long form, depend on the integrity of the other words for validity. The Catechism of Trent makes the distinction between the two, but it nevertheless insists that all of the words are the “very words of consecration.” There must be harmony in toto, else there is negation.
Not only do De Defectibus and the Catechism call the long form “the words of consecration,” but so do virtually all Tridentine missals. Forgive me for being suspicious of any argument that seeks to parse out a legalistic loophole. Shall we debate how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
What De Defectibus says is that if the words of the form (either “essential” or “integral”) are changed such as to alter the meaning (or signification, if you prefer), then “the priest would not be effecting a valid sacrament.”
It should suffice to use Pope Leo XIII’s summation: that the words of a sacramental form “ought both to signify the grace which they effect, and effect the grace which they signify.” The Novus Ordo (vernacular) clearly does not do this. Its form confuses Salvation with the Eucharist, thus failing to signify the sacrament. If they had merely shortened it down to the essentials, we probably wouldn’t be having this discussion. It should be noted as well that not a single Canon from East to West uses “for many.” Even Anglicans—who deny transubstantiation, no less—retain the obvious distinction between soteriology and Holy Communion.
I beg your pardon, but you are quoting the proposed objection to the proper form, not St. Thomas’ rebuttal. To call that an “implicit admission” is a stretch. The only thing it implies is that Aquinas considered the “pro omnibus might be okay” thesis to be the kind of thing to come out of the mouth of someone needing a tutorial on the form, not someone who understood it properly.
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
Define “protestantism.” You speak of these prayers being reduced to protestantism, and yet that’s a vague thing, the way you are using it. The Church cannot protest against itself. To not mention a saint in one prayer or several is not tantamount to abandoning the Church’s teachings on saints. And even as old as the Roman Canon is, all of the rites and liturgies of the Church are developmental, ie., they were not handed down in complete forms. Any rite promulgated by the Church will do what the Church purports that it will do (ie, confect the Body and Blood of Christ, consecrate a man with the fullness of the apostolic authority of the priesthood in his ordination as a bishop, etc.
Also, I think your assessment of De Defectibus is incorrect. The pope seems to rightly say that a priest may not alter the form of his own volition. He does not seem to be saying that the Church, the fount of authority for the discipline of the sacraments, may not do so. The Pope who promulgated the NO had that legitimate authority.
B
bpbasilphx
Guest
**No heretical or blasphemous aspects DO show up in the official rites of the Catholic Church, including the post-concilar ordination rites.
You are making an assumption that has no basis in reality. You simply want it to be true.
Deliberate violation of the rubrics are another matter, of course, but these would not occur of celebrants only did the red and said the black.**
Minor clarification: French bishops and archbishops are frequently styled Monsignor. So are Castillophone bishops. I’ve even seen Mexican Orthodox bishops called the Spanish equivalent “Monseñor.” Calling lesser prelates “monsignor” was to extend to them some of the insignia and other perogatives of a bishop.
M
malphono
Guest
Yes. The term monseigneur (generally abbreviated “Mgr”) is the proper reference in French. (Some new-wave Francophones use “Monsier l’éveque” (rather reminds me of monsieur le pompier, but I digress) but that is considered rather déclassé and was never heard in pre-conciliar times. Even now it is never used in traditional circles. And then we have Italian. No one addresses a bishop in Italian as “Signore Vescovo” but rather as Monsigniore.
Quite so.
Y
Yggdrasil
Guest
It’s not just “one prayer or several,” and it’s not just a matter of saints. The design alone of the Novus Ordo resembles no other rite in all of Christian history so much as it does the liturgies of Martin Luther and Thomas Cranmer. Almost every major feature of the Protestant rites was condemned at the council of Trent—vernacular language, versus populum, free-standing table, the Canon recited in a loud voice—and yet each of these is a recognizable feature of the Novus Ordo. All of the references to the propitiatory and mystical sacrifice that Abp. Cranmer deleted have likewise been deleted. And just as Lutheran churches do, the Novus Ordo calls the Eucharistic prayers an “institution narrative” for some inexplicable reason, since as far as I’m aware the Church teaches that the sacrifice of the Mass is actual and true, and not just a narrative or a commemoration. (At least the Lutheran title agrees with their own theology.)
If you require a thorough demonstration of how each and every orison and deletion in the Novus Ordo text resembles the Protestant schematic, I suppose I could furnish you with one. I’ll be away from my computer for the next week, so it would have to wait until I return. Hopefully, however, all of the above will suffice.
Yes, the liturgy develops. As I’ve mentioned before, no sedevacantist believes that the Tridentine Missal dropped from the sky on Pentecost to the accompaniment of a choir of angels. But the salient point about liturgical development is that it occurs slowly and organically. Change is made carefully and cautiously. And any alterations must conform and completely harmonize with the Catholic integrity of the Mass. Compare any two (or even several) liturgies of the Latin Rite—be they Ambrosian, Gallican, Sarum, Dominican, or whatever you please—and they will resemble each other far more closely than they do the Novus Ordo. Such is the mark of true development, and it betrays the obvious fact that the Novus Ordo is the relatively quick work of a committee, and is full of innovations as well as affronts to the Catholicity of the rite.
There is also the fact that the Council of Trent forbade letting any Protestant innovations creep into the Mass, and that Quo Primum advised in favor of perpetual deference to the codified Roman Rite as the universal standard. The Ordinary of the Mass remained untouched for four centuries until a vicious flurry of alterations were made within a single decade. Giving due consideration to the necessity of “slow and organic development,” something is horribly wrong with this picture.
“Any rite” depends upon the requisites: matter, form, intent, and minister. I have never heard that the validity of a rite depends on “promulgation” and “claim.” Obviously, the Church is Holy and therefore cannot dispense heretical and invalid rites, which is precisely why sedevacantists are doubtful as to the spiritual authority of the post-conciliar popes and hierarchy (as well as whether they qualify as “the Church.”) If the fruit is evil, should I not judge the tree?
Article 20 makes no mention of the priest’s volition in the matter, because that would pertain to intent, not form. The passage under discussion is concerned strictly with the words of consecration. It matters not whether the priest alters the words of his own free will or whether he alters them because the hierarchy has promulgated a deficient form: the result is the same.
Ecclesial office is not above the faith, and the pope’s authority ends at promulgating error. The hierarchy cannot just do whatever they please. They are stewards of the faith, not inventors, and in their official capacity they must safeguard both doctrine and the liturgy. They can’t ruin the prayers of the Mass and simply declare, “it’s lawful because we’re the hierarchy.” No: it is lawful only if it conforms to the disciplines and customs of the Church that she has already established. The primary gauge for lawfulness is accordance with tradition.
Y
Yggdrasil
Guest
Well, I laid out a brief summary of my case in my above response to JKirkLVNV, which hopefully will demonstrate at least several Protestant aspects manifest in the Novus Ordo. (Going out on a limb, I think Protestantism remains on the books as a heresy.)
For the ordination rites, the problem lies in the form. Again, I’ve already linked to a pertinent essay and you can refute the points therein if you’d like to. We could have an actual discussion! And I would appreciate that a lot more than you continually telling me that I’m wrong because you say I’m wrong—or that I “simply want my assumption to be true.” At this point you’re addressing my psychology, and not even the argument.
I’m sorry, but I don’t think I’ll feel obligated to continue if every response is going to be a brusque, three-sentence approximation of “talk to the hand!”
Thank you for the correction! I should really know better than to labor under the haughty chauvinism of the English speaker. Cheers to Cathguy for giving a French Archbishop his customary title, and my apologies for being deliberately nitpicky when I was actually being wrong.
P
Perplexity
Guest
I think Fr. Cekada’s article Abstolutely Null and Utterly Void along with his responses to the objections posed to this article are theologically conclusive. Without emotional appeals, strictly speaking, Catholic sacramental theology is clear on the effects of a substantial alteration in the form of a sacrament. It renders it invalid, just as if instead of saying “I baptize you in the name of the Father etc.” it was said, “I baptize you in the name of the Mother etc.” I doubt we’d have any trouble identifying such a baptismal formula invalid.
I understand technical arguments are largely regarded as semantics or as someone said, ‘looking for a fight’ but Roman Catholic theology is the faith that Jesus Christ revealed, and the Holy Spirit has passionately and valiantly protected from errors that could lead the sheep from safety. Therefore, these technicalities are not the product of a misplaced zeal but an aspect of truth which we cherish so dearly, namely that it cannot contain any admixture of error.
I highly encourage everyone to read that and take it to your parish priest, to inform your consciences, take it to prayer and strive conform every aspect of thought and belief to the life giving teachings of our Savior.
I understand technical arguments are largely regarded as semantics or as someone said, ‘looking for a fight’ but Roman Catholic theology is the faith that Jesus Christ revealed, and the Holy Spirit has passionately and valiantly protected from errors that could lead the sheep from safety. Therefore, these technicalities are not the product of a misplaced zeal but an aspect of truth which we cherish so dearly, namely that it cannot contain any admixture of error.
I highly encourage everyone to read that and take it to your parish priest, to inform your consciences, take it to prayer and strive conform every aspect of thought and belief to the life giving teachings of our Savior.
A
AJV
Guest
If they differ in the *signification *of the sacrament. Which is the conversion of the elements.
Now if you admit that the long form is partially integral, then the sacrament has to be valid. It is only invalid if the entire form is essentialiter.
I’m assuming you meant “for all”. The res sacramenti is found in the conversion.
I beg yours in turn, and I do assure you that I have read several books on the form, both in Latin and in English. The reason I put implicit is because it was an objection. As can be seen from reading it, Aquinas deals with whether the word “pro vobis” should be included. Now the objection says no, it should be “pro omnibus” in view of the sufficiency, or “pro multis” in view of the efficacy. The option pro omnibus is not excluded when understood according to sufficiency - in fact, St. Thomas comments on this in the Commentary on the words of Christ in the Gospel of S. Matthew. Otherwise, the objection would have been only concerned with the pro multis. There would have been no reaosn to stick pro omnibus in there. A similar statement is in a more developed form in the Commentarium in IV Sent.
Y
Yggdrasil
Guest
If De Defectibus is making any commentary on the integral words—because it isn’t making any distinction—it is saying that though they are not essential for the consecration, they are liable to invalidate the sacrament if their meaning (or signification) is changed.
Should it have intended to say anything otherwise, a clause or a footnote of some kind would have been necessary, since it is unambiguous in calling the entire form “the words of consecration.”
Yes—“for all,” and thank you. If “conversion” is all that matters, then it would be nothing short of pointless (and teetering on contradictory) for De Defectibus to offer all the words of consecration without specifying a few.
I’m still not clear on how including it in the objection implies St. Thomas’ endorsement. As you noted well, “the right meaning” would have to be attached, and his own answer to the objection insists on the words carrying the sense of efficacy.
Indeed. “For all” is certainly correct when applied to the sufficiency, but that isn’t in dispute. The Catechism of Trent contains an instruction (seemingly culled from the same Summa passage under discussion) explaining to us that Our Lord’s words refer especially to the efficacy of his sacrifice. It informs us that “the fruits of the Passion are alone spoken of” concerning the phrase “for many.”
- Status