SSPX question

[Boulder257]

I fear upon starting this thread that it is going to turn into an argument rather than an answer to a question; however, I never get help from the apologists here and need an answer to this question. Thus, please keep responses to factual answers and not debatable opinions please…

We have a group of individuals at our parish who, I believe, are SSPX followers. At least, they seem to have a distaste for the Novus Ordo and those who attend. This concerns me because it is my understanding, and this is where my question comes in, that Novus Ordo falls under the infallability of the Pope and is most certainly as valid as Pre Vatican II. My question is this: Does Novus Ordo and Vatican II fall under infallability and shouldn’t it at least be recognized by all those who are Catholic as valid and "just as good (for lack of a better term) as the Latin Mass?

Thanks in advance,

Pax

 

[RoryMcKenzie56]

The position of the Society is that as with any Sacrament, the proper form, matter, and intention has to be present. Lack of these will invalidate any Sacrament. Abp. Marcel Lefebvre took the position that the Novus Ordo is valid.

As for whether it is because it is infallible, I don’t know. As for whether Vatican II is infallible, here is what the promugating pope said:

"There are those who ask what authority, what theological qualification, the Council intended to give its teachings, knowing that it avoided issuing solemn dogmatic definitions backed by the church’s infallible teaching authority. The answer is known by those who remember the conciliar declaration of March 6, 1964. In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided proclaiming in any extraordinary manner any dogmas carrying the mark of infallibility."

Pope Paul VI, General Audience of Dec. 1, 1966

 

[Cluny]

||This concerns me because it is my understanding, and this is where my question comes in, that Novus Ordo falls under the infallability of the Pope and is most certainly as valid as Pre Vatican II.||

The infallibility of the pope is limited to his teaching about faith or morals, and that only under certain carefully defined conditions–so carefully defined that there is no general agreement about which papal statements are, in fact, in fallible.

HOWEVER, the Pauline Missal (aka Novus Ordo or Ordinary Form) would come under the indefectability of the Church, who by her nature CAN NOT and DOES NOT promulgate invalid rites, including rites for Mass or the other Sacraments.

You might want to read this site about the Pauline Mass.

matt1618.freeyellow.com/novusordo.html

 

[iona_scribe]

I fear upon starting this thread that it is going to turn into an argument rather than an answer to a question; however, I never get help from the apologists here and need an answer to this question. Thus, please keep responses to factual answers and not debatable opinions please…

We have a group of individuals at our parish who, I believe, are SSPX followers. At least, they seem to have a distaste for the Novus Ordo and those who attend. This concerns me because it is my understanding, and this is where my question comes in, that Novus Ordo falls under the infallability of the Pope and is most certainly as valid as Pre Vatican II. My question is this: Does Novus Ordo and Vatican II fall under infallability and shouldn’t it at least be recognized by all those who are Catholic as valid and "just as good (for lack of a better term) as the Latin Mass?

Thanks in advance,

Pax

By “at our parish” do you mean that they attend the weekly Novus Ordo Mass with all the rest of the parishioners, or are they individuals who show up only for other sorts parish activities and ministries? I ask because I can’t say I’ve ever encountered an SSPX Catholic at my parish activities, let alone in our Novus Ordo Mass (I assume they’d be at a local SSPX chapel on Sunday), but I do know plenty of regular Traditional Catholics (and I lean that way myself) who attend both forms of the Mass available in our Diocese.

With the latter group, at least in my limited experience, there’s not so much disagreement on the validity of Vatican II as there is frustration about how it was implemented. A reading of the VII document Sacrosanctum Concilium (Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy) shows that what we experience in Mass on Sunday is quite a bit different from what this document probably intended, and therefore there is plenty of room for legitimate disagreement.

However, it’s inappropriate for anyone to voice disagreement or frustration over liturgy in a way that’s condescending to other parishioners or toward church authority.

 

[Boulder257]

Yes, they do attend both masses. They attend the tridentine on Sunday and then the Novus Ordo during the week. They appear to have a special affinity for the Tridentine, which I understand and respect, but at the same time a distaste and almost disrespect for the other. They appear to promulgate the idea that the Novus Ordo is a wrongful teaching and negative overall “change” for the Church.

Great answers all and I appreciate your (name removed by moderator)ut. I also appreciate the factual responses and respect for the question. I found a great number of my answers as well in the APOSTOLIC LETTER “ECCLESIA DEI” OF THE SUPREME PONTIFF JOHN PAUL II GIVEN MOTU PROPRIO.

Thanks again.

Dominus Vobiscum

 

[palmas85]

Yes, they do attend both masses. They attend the tridentine on Sunday and then the Novus Ordo during the week. They appear to have a special affinity for the Tridentine, which I understand and respect, but at the same time a distaste and almost disrespect for the other. They appear to promulgate the idea that the Novus Ordo is a wrongful teaching and negative overall “change” for the Church.

Great answers all and I appreciate your (name removed by moderator)ut. I also appreciate the factual responses and respect for the question. I found a great number of my answers as well in the APOSTOLIC LETTER “ECCLESIA DEI” OF THE SUPREME PONTIFF JOHN PAUL II GIVEN MOTU PROPRIO.

Thanks again.

Dominus Vobiscum

If they attend Mass every day and that mass is a Pauline Mass, I somehow doubt that they have a distaste for it. They may prefer theTraditional Mass, as do many of us, but they appear to accept the validity of the Pauline .,

As an aside, you won t find many SSPX supporters that will be attending a Pauline Mass, so I doubt these parishners are SSPX supporters.

I am interested though in how they seem to almost show disrespect for the Pauline. Could you enlighten us on that?

 

[Ace86]

The SSPX believes the Novus Ordo is valid per se, but there can be invalid Novus Ordo masses throughout the world if matter and/or form are somehow lacking or deficient. There are plenty of arguments you can read at sspx.org about why the Novus Ordo is not just as good as the TLM.

 

[Cluny]

The SSPX believes the Novus Ordo is valid per se, but there can be invalid Novus Ordo masses throughout the world if matter and/or form are somehow lacking or deficient. There are plenty of arguments you can read at sspx.org about why the Novus Ordo is not just as good as the TLM.

The same four things that would make a NO mass invalid would also make the EF or even Divine Liturgy of St. James invalid:

1. Lack of minister.
2. Lack of form.
3. Lack of intention.
4. Lack of matter.

You don’t have the possibility of these defects limited to the NO.

Would you like me to give a list of reasons why the TLM is just not as good as the Divine LIturgy?

Or would you find it irritating and condescending?

Well, don’t treat the NO that way.

Besides, the teaching of the Church is that all authorized rites are equal. You can’t say one “is not as good as” or “is better than” the other without violating her teaching.

 

[Ace86]

Like I said, there are many priests who have doubtful intentions. I know of one priest who doesn’t believe in the miracle of Jesus walking on water.

The issue is not as clear cut as you’d like to make it to be. You should read what the SSPX says about the Novus Ordo Missae, which even Cardinal Ratzinger pointed out was a banal, on the spot fabrication.

 

[AlanF]

I fear upon starting this thread that it is going to turn into an argument rather than an answer to a question; however, I never get help from the apologists here and need an answer to this question. Thus, please keep responses to factual answers and not debatable opinions please…

We have a group of individuals at our parish who, I believe, are SSPX followers. At least, they seem to have a distaste for the Novus Ordo and those who attend. This concerns me because it is my understanding, and this is where my question comes in, that Novus Ordo falls under the infallability of the Pope and is most certainly as valid as Pre Vatican II. My question is this: Does Novus Ordo and Vatican II fall under infallability and shouldn’t it at least be recognized by all those who are Catholic as valid and "just as good (for lack of a better term) as the Latin Mass?

Thanks in advance,

Pax

The SSPX teaches that the validity of the Novus Ordo is protected by the Church’s infallibility, so in itself the Novus Ordo is valid. However, that does not neccessarily mean they are equal. The SSPX teaches that the Novus Ordo is a protestantised liturgy, it does not reflect the Catholic theology as much as the TLM, is not as good at dispensing so much santifying grace, it is stripped and watered down, and also it is completely novel (a bad thing in itself).

Also that many in the “concilliar” Church may have doubtful intentions which invalidate the Mass. One must have the intention to offer the Holy Sacrifice to God, at least to “do what the church does” to offer a valid Mass, if one thinks one is offering merely a memorial meal (which the NO more resembles) one will not offer a valid Mass. And since the NO strips away much of the sacrificial theology present in the TLM it is much easier to have the wrong intentions. E.g. it is very hard to lift up the host to God saying “Accept, O holy Father, almighty eternal God, this immaculate Victim, which I, Thine unworthy servant, offer to Thee…” &c. without realising one is making some sort of sacrificial offering; on the other hand it is very easy to stand around a table (as it often is) saying “We have this bread to offer … it will become for us the bread of life” and not realise one is making a sacrificial offering.

So, “valid” does not neccessarily mean “equally good”.

 

[jfoges]

I fear upon starting this thread that it is going to turn into an argument rather than an answer to a question; however, I never get help from the apologists here and need an answer to this question. Thus, please keep responses to factual answers and not debatable opinions please…

We have a group of individuals at our parish who, I believe, are SSPX followers. At least, they seem to have a distaste for the Novus Ordo and those who attend. This concerns me because it is my understanding, and this is where my question comes in, that Novus Ordo falls under the infallability of the Pope and is most certainly as valid as Pre Vatican II. My question is this: Does Novus Ordo and Vatican II fall under infallability and shouldn’t it at least be recognized by all those who are Catholic as valid and "just as good (for lack of a better term) as the Latin Mass?

Thanks in advance,

Pax

First of all, I doubt the people in your parish are SSPX followers. Most SSPX followers would never set foot in a regular parish. Second of all, even the SSPX admits that the “novus ordo” is valid. They just think the liturgy is inferior. I think this is a position one can hold and still be a catholic. I put the term novus ordo in quotations because it is not an official term for the current mass.

 

[Cluny]

<<Like I said, there are many priests who have doubtful intentions. I know of one priest who doesn’t believe in the miracle of Jesus walking on water.>>

And just how many priests do you know who have no intention to accomplish the Mystery of the Eucharist? Please be specific.

If a priest goes to the trouble of putting on the vestments, saying the appointed prayers, and carrying out the appointed ceremonial, intention to confect the Eucharist is presumed unless there is POSITIVE evidence to the contrary.

Do you have such positive evidence about any particular priests or Mass?

 

[Timothysis]

The SSPX teaches that the Novus Ordo is a protestantised liturgy,

And the sspx is just plain wrong on this account. I have asked this time and time again and have always been ignored; show me any “protestant” elements in the Pauline missal.

it does not reflect the Catholic theology as much as the TLM, is not as good at dispensing so much santifying grace, it is stripped and watered down, and also it is completely novel (a bad thing in itself).

Tell me, how can the liturgy of the Mass, a totally and inherently Catholic form of worship, not “reflect Catholic theology” as much as any other valid liturgy? Any valid form of liturgy is equally Catholic, no matter what form or what rite. And how can one form be "not as good at dispensing so much santifying grace?" One is either sanctified or one is not; there is no just a little sanctified or a whole lot’a sanctified. It is most curious that you say the Pauline Missal "does not reflect the Catholic theology as much as the TLM" when this whole line of thinking does not even reflect Catholic theology. Can one be denied the Presence of God because he isn’t sanctified enough? Does one form of baptism baptize more so than another?

Also that many in the “concilliar” Church may have doubtful intentions which invalidate the Mass.

And yet, the same cannot be said for those priest who said the Tridentine Mass at break neck speed, who did not wait for the servers to finish the responses and who were known for their 20 minute Masses? This presumption of yours is out of place and downright unfair.

One must have the intention to offer the Holy Sacrifice to God, at least to “do what the church does” to offer a valid Mass, if one thinks one is offering merely a memorial meal (which the NO more resembles) one will not offer a valid Mass.

How many memorial meals have you been to where a host what lifted and declared that “This is My Body,” and “This is My Blood.” If those who are so anti-“Novus Ordo” would ever take the time to actually study the Eucharistic prayers in the Pauline Missal you will notice that the essential elements of a valid Mass are all present. If you cannot notice in the Pauline Missal the intention to *“do what the church does” to offer a valid Mass, " * then you are either woefully ignorant of the Sacrifice of the Mass or just patently dishonest.

it is very easy to stand around a table (as it often is)

Wrong again. Are you intentionally trying to be dishonest?

saying “We have this bread to offer … it will become for us the bread of life” and not realise one is making a sacrificial offering.

Only if one is ignorant of what the Mass is, which is, unfortunately, widespread among the faithful of today. This, however, has nothing to do with the validity of the Mass.

So, “valid” does not neccessarily mean “equally good”.

According to who, you??? Any Mass that is “valid” is very much just as equally good as another. Now, do you want to compare the illicitness of Masses? Would you say that a Mass that is “illicit,” that is “illegal” or “not allowed” by Canon law, is “equally good” to those that are celebrated by bishops and priests who are in full communion with the Holy Father and the Church? Would you say that it is “equally good” that bishops and priests who have been suspended of their duties and possess no faculties to celebrate the sacraments continue in disobedience to the Holy Father and Canon law of the Church? Would you say that it is “equally good” that a spirit of disobedience is being fostered in those people who knowingly attend these illicit Masses and who, over the course of time, will dedicate themselves not to the Holy Father and the Church but to the same bishops and priests who posses within themselves a disobedience against the lawful and legitimate authority of the Church?

 

[franklinf]

(1)And the sspx is just plain wrong on this account. I have asked this time and time again and have always been ignored; show me any “protestant” elements in the Pauline missal.

(2) Tell me, how can the liturgy of the Mass, a totally and inherently Catholic form of worship, not “reflect Catholic theology” as much as any other valid liturgy? Any valid form of liturgy is equally Catholic, no matter what form or what rite. And how can one form be "not as good at dispensing so much santifying grace?" One is either sanctified or one is not; there is no just a little sanctified or a whole lot’a sanctified. It is most curious that you say the Pauline Missal "does not reflect the Catholic theology as much as the TLM" when this whole line of thinking does not even reflect Catholic theology. Can one be denied the Presence of God because he isn’t sanctified enough? Does one form of baptism baptize more so than another?

…

1. Yes, God is made present. However, the Mass can also erode beliefs. Yes, the consecration is valid. But what about before and after? If the prayers aren’t fully orthodox (Catholic) and instead water down the message then the beliefs are eroded. Belief in the Real Presence declines. Belief in it being a memorial / supper instead of the Most Holy Sacrifice increase. The law of prayer is the law of belief.
2. The letter from Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci put it better than I ever could. The following are some excerpts, but please read the whole thing.

“…the Novus Ordo represents, both as a whole and in its details, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass…”

"…Let us begin with the definition of the Mass given in No. 7 of the “Institutio Generalis” at the beginning of the second chapter on the Novus Ordo: “De structura Missae”:

"The Lord's Supper or Mass is a sacred meeting or assembly of the People of God, met together under the presidency of the priest, to celebrate the memorial of the Lord. Thus the promise of Christ, "where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them", is eminently true of the local community in the Church (Mt. XVIII, 20)".

The definition of the Mass is thus limited to that of the “supper”, and this term is found constantly repeated (nos. 8, 48, 55d, 56). This supper is further characterised as an assembly presided over by the priest and held as a memorial of the Lord, recalling what He did on the first Maundy Thursday. None of this in the very least implies either the Real Presence, or the reality of sacrifice, or the Sacramental function of the consecrating priest, or the intrinsic value of the Eucharistic Sacrifice independently of the people’s presence…"

"…Note, too, the suppressions:

* of the genuflections (no more than three remain to the priest, and one, with certain exceptions, to the people, at the Consecration;
* of the purification of the priest's fingers in the chalice;
* of the preservation from all profane contact of the priest's fingers after the Consecration; of the purification of the vessels, which need not be immediate, nor made on the corporal;
* of the pall protecting the chalice;
* of the internal gilding of sacred vessels;
* of the consecration of movable altars;
* of the sacred stone and relics in the movable altar or upon the "table" - "when celebration does not occur in sacred precincts" (this distinction leads straight to "Eucharistic suppers" in private houses);
* of the three altar-cloths, reduced to one only;
* of thanksgiving kneeling (replaced by a thanksgiving, seated, on the part of the priest and people, a logical enough complement to Communion standing);
* of all the former prescriptions in the case of the consecrated Host falling, which are now reduced to a single, casual direction: "reventur accipiatur" (no. 239)

All these things only serve to emphasise how outrageously faith in the dogma of the Real Presence is implicitly repudiated.

1. The function assigned to the altar (no. 262). The altar is almost always called ‘table’, “The altar or table of the Lord, which is the centre of the whole Eucharistic liturgy” (no. 49, cf. 262). It is laid down that the altar must be detached from the walls so that it is possible to walk round it and celebration may be facing the people (no. 262); also that the altar must be the centre of the assembly of the faithful so that their attention is drawn spontaneously towards it (ibid). But a comparison of no. 262 and 276 would seem to suggest that the reservation of the Blessed Sacrament on this altar is excluded. This will mark an irreparable dichotomy between the presence, in the celebrant, of the eternal High Priest and that same presence brought about sacramentally. Before, they were ‘one and the same presence’…"

fisheaters.com/ottavianiintervention.html

 

[franklinf]

The same four things that would make a NO mass invalid would also make the EF or even Divine Liturgy of St. James invalid:

1. Lack of minister.
2. Lack of form.
3. Lack of intention.
4. Lack of matter.

You don’t have the possibility of these defects limited to the NO.
**
Would you like me to give a list of reasons why the TLM is just not as good as the Divine LIturgy?

Or would you find it irritating and condescending?

Well, don’t treat the NO that way.**

Besides, the teaching of the Church is that all authorized rites are equal. You can’t say one “is not as good as” or “is better than” the other without violating her teaching.

Completely different. If they replaced the Divine Liturgy with a new made-by-council liturgy - one that was stipped down and barren of authentic Catholic teaching, had a multitude of variations so that it almost became a show, allowed for a break in tradition (EMHC, female altar servers, etc) - then you would have a point. To compare the TLM / Divine Liturgy with the NO is ridiculous.

Out of curiosity, why do you feel the Divine Liturgy is superior?

 

[franklinf]

Also, a side by side comparison of the missals:

latin-mass-society.org/missals.htm

 

[RyanML]

It is my opinion that the majority of the problems with the Novus Ordo come with the many interpretations and options that are allowed in its celebration. Sure, one could argue that the prayers themselves were watered down and according to several protestants after the Council, they were. But if you’ve ever been to a Novus Ordo celebrated in latin, with Gregorian chant and the priest celebrating ad orientem, you can’t help but come away with a Catholic spirit.

Although the imprudence of some of the changes can be argued, I do not think that the problem is so much with the Novus Ordo itself, but with how it is celebrated. If priests would look to tradition as the standard for celebrating the Liturgy then we never would have had all these liturgical problems after the Council.

Just my :twocents:

 

[Timothysis]

1. Yes, God is made present. However, the Mass can also erode beliefs. Yes, the consecration is valid. But what about before and after? If the prayers aren’t fully orthodox (Catholic) and instead water down the message then the beliefs are eroded. Belief in the Real Presence declines. Belief in it being a memorial / supper instead of the Most Holy Sacrifice increase. The law of prayer is the law of belief.
2. The letter from Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci put it better than I ever could. The following are some excerpts, but please read the whole thing…

…All these things only serve to emphasise how outrageously faith in the dogma of the Real Presence is implicitly repudiated.

Since your bring up Cardinal Ottaviani, I will let him refute all that you have said. A little background first;

"*The Ottaviani Intervention is one of the most often peddled pieces of the so-called traditionalist movement. Cardinal Ottaviani expressed many concerns about the New Mass, and the so-called traditionalists have played this letter up very much. If you go to any site that rejects the Pauline Rite Mass, this letter by the Cardinal will probably be very prominent. Let us look parts of the letter and his most strenuous objection. This is tied into to objections to the Sacrifice of the Eucharist. Cardinal Ottaviani did have sincere problems with some of the changes, no doubt. He wrote this before New Mass was finalized: *

 ""*The Novus Ordo Missae - considering the new elements, susceptible of widely differing evaluations, which appear to be implied or taken for granted-represents, as a whole and in detail, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Holy Mass as it was formulated in Session XXIII of the Council of Trent. . . . Therefore, we most earnestly beseech your Holiness not to deprive us--at a time of such painful divisions and ever-increasing perils for the purity of the Faith and the unity of the Church--of the possibility of continuing to have recourse to the fruitful integrity of that Missale Romanum of St. Pius V, so highly praised by your Holiness and so deeply venerated and loved by the whole Catholic Church" (In Triumph. December, 1969). "*

"The first thing to note that this criticism was leveled before the final version of the Pauline Rite Mass was completed. However, few of those in the schismatic circles who circulate the “Ottaviani Intervention”, publish Cardinal Ottaviani comments on the final version of the Pauline Rite Mass AFTER IT WAS OFFICIALLY PROMULGATED. Pope Paul VI gave two general audiences in regards to the Pauline Rite Mass. Cardinal Ottaviani responded to this by writing: *

 *""I have REJOICED PROFOUNDLY to read the Discourse by the Holy Father on the question of the new Ordo Missae, and ESPECIALLY THE DOCTRINAL PRECISIONS CONTAINED IN HIS DISCOURSES at the public Audiences of November 19 and 26, after which I believe, NO ONE CAN ANY LONGER BE GENUINELY SCANDALIZED. As for the rest, a prudent and intelligent catechesis must be undertaken to solve some legitimate perplexities which the text is capable of arousing. In this sense I wish your 'Doctrinal Note' [on the Pauline Rite Mass] and the activity of the Militia Sanctae Mariae WIDE DIFFUSION AND SUCCESS." (Whitehead, 129, Letter from his eminence Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani to Dom Gerard Lafond, O.S.B., in Documentation Catholique, #67, 1970, pages 215-216 and 343) "*

And what of this? "As one of the most erudite Thomistic theologians of our time, Charles Cardinal Journet, in referring to the Pauline Rite Mass, writes:

• “Let me take care to say, there is no renouncing of anything essential. . . The substance of the Mass remains absolutely the same: there is the Offertory, the Consecration. . . And the Sovereign Pontiff has recalled expressly what was not expressed sufficiently in the rubrics of the new Ordo: that the Mass is a sacrifice. He has recalled that there is a change of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ. All these things, which are not Protestant, are truly Catholic- and also orthodox. Thus there is the reaffirmation of the classic Catholic doctrine on the Eucharist sacrifice.” (Whitehead, 131, from Cardinal Journet and the New Order of the Mass, in Documentation Catholique #9, May 1, 1977, pages 444-445). *

Apparently, Cardinal Ottaviani’s mind was changed AFTER he studied the Pauline Missal, in direct contrast to his opinions to the rumors of the missal before it was even promulgated.

The Mass is, in itself, a totally and intrinsically Catholic form of worship. To suggest that one form or rite is inferior to another is to show a fundamental ignorance of what the Mass is.

The Vatican II Council declared that :

*"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). *

All of your examples point to the discipline of celebrating the liturgy. It does not affect the the core practice of the celebration of Mass as the source and summit of true Christian worship. It was until the 1500’s that the Council of Trent codified the celebration of Mass to be conducted in such a way. Are you suggesting that pre-Trent Masses were somehow deficient because they did not conform to that particular discipline?

 

[franklinf]

1. Cardinal Bacci and the others who wrote that document never retracted their statement. Clearly, they still held to what they wrote.
2. Their is controversy whether or not Cardinal Ottavani actually retracted his statement, as at the time he was blind and would not have known what he actually was signing.
   en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottaviani_Intervention
   fisheaters.com/ottavianiintervention.html
3. “And the Sovereign Pontiff has recalled expressly what was not expressed sufficiently in the rubrics of the new Ordo: that the Mass is a sacrifice.”

“All of your examples point to the discipline of celebrating the liturgy. It does not affect the the core practice of the celebration of Mass as the source and summit of true Christian worship. It was until the 1500’s that the Council of Trent codified the celebration of Mass to be conducted in such a way. Are you suggesting that pre-Trent Masses were somehow deficient because they did not conform to that particular discipline?”

1. I don’t know how many times it has been said, but the Mass codified at Trent was essentially the same as the missal that preceded it and the missal that preceded that one. Trent was a codification, not a “fabrication, a banal on-the-spot product.” Clearly, I am not asserting that pre-Trent Masses are somehow deficient. Furtherore, I never said that the Novus Ordo is not a sacrifice. It is obviously a valid Mass.

What I am saying is that it is deficient in that it doesn’t fully convey Catholic teachings. The disciplines are vitally important. The Mass is a great source of teaching and instruction. If the prayers around the Consecration are protestantized / watered down, it spreads to the faithful. The law of prayer is the law of belief. Why do you think protestant “reformers” did away with the Mass and replaced it with their own services?

 

[Timothysis]

What I am saying is that it is deficient in that it doesn’t fully convey Catholic teachings.

Explain to me how the Mass throughout the centuries, long before the novelty of a dual language missal, conveyed Catholic teachings when the Canon of the Mass was silent with a general absence of congregational participation.

If the prayers around the Consecration are protestantized / watered down, it spreads to the faithful.

You say “if” in your hypothetical; do you believe that the Eucharistic prayers in the Pauline Missal are “protestantized?” If so, please show examples from the missal itself as evidence of this.

Why do you think protestant “reformers” did away with the Mass and replaced it with their own services?

Because they were very bad catholics who assumed a role of authority that they did not legitimately exercise. I hope that you are not comparing them to Pope Paul VI in union with the bishops of the Vatican II Council.