Traditionalists not attending Novus Ordo

[tcraig]

I’d like to know what to do with my friend, she is a very close friend of mine, yet it makes me very sad because she disaproves completely of Vatican II and believes Novus Ordo is not a valid Mass, she sympathizes SSPX, she loves the Tridentine Mass and even refuses to go to Novus Ordo Mass, even in Ash Wednesday.
At my university they offer Novus Ordo Mass in Latin, and she only attends this on Sundays, and she doesn’t attend daily Mass simply because it is all Novus Ordo (even if it’s in Latin).
What am I to do or tell her to bring her closer to God and the Church?

It appears to me, given the fact that your friend does attend the NO Mass in Latin on Sundays, that she believes that a NO Mass in English is invalid (because of the words of consecration) and that a Latin NO is valid but inferior to a TLM. Therefore she will grudgingly attend on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation (and remember that Ash Wednesday is not a Holy Day of Obligation) but chooses to avoid it otherwise.

This is a very common attitude among many traditionalists that I have known, and while you may not agree with it personally your friend is doing nothing wrong and probably nothing you say or do will change her mind. While it is admirable to want someone to attend daily Mass, it is not a requirement of the Church and doesn’t mean that someone is lacking in their faith or needs to get “closer to God.”

 

[devotus]

It appears to me, given the fact that your friend does attend the NO Mass in Latin on Sundays, that she believes that a NO Mass in English is invalid (because of the words of consecration) and that a Latin NO is valid but inferior to a TLM."

If she is OK with the Latin but not english then i assume its the pro-multis mistranslation…

The HolyFather has resolved this issue an dhas corrected the translation…

Pro multis ==> For Many

remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/archive-2006-1130-pro-multis.htm

 

[bear06]

Argh! The Consecration was valid under either the english or the Latin Novus Ordo Masses. Please tell me where it’s fine to say otherwise. Even the SSPX doesn’t say that the english Novus Ordo is invalid. Can you guess why? Pro Multis isn’t part of the Consecration.

 

[devotus]

Argh! The Consecration was valid under either the english or the Latin Novus Ordo Masses. Please tell me where it’s fine to say otherwise. Even the SSPX doesn’t say that the english Novus Ordo is invalid. Can you guess why? Pro Multis isn’t part of the Consecration.

You are not following my point…

If a person ( his friend ) finds the Latin NO valid but the English not – it has to do with translation. The most “offensive” part of the mistranslation of Latin to English is Pro-Multis ==> for all. This smells of universalism.

However this is a non-issue as the translation problem has been resolved. A point that he should bring to his friend to show that the holy Father is making progress toward traditionalism and the English NO is valid.

If you take the stance that the non-biblical / mistranslation of pro-multis to “for all” is valid you will not win over his friend as you are just supporting modernist justifications for an intentionally mistranslated Latin that stood for 40 years

 

[elzoro]

I will not go to any Novus Ordo Mass ever. Not because I think it’s invalid, or that the See of Peter is vacant, or that V2 was not a real Council,no so don’t get excited all you Neo-Con’s. I won’t go because I cannot stomach it,It is so pathetic,I cannot bear through it…If I go it ruins my faith. Condemn me call be whatever you want but I won’t do it that’s it.

 

[bear06]

I will not go to any Novus Ordo Mass ever. Not because I think it’s invalid, or that the See of Peter is vacant, or that V2 was not a real Council,no so don’t get excited all you Neo-Con’s. I won’t go because I cannot stomach it,It is so pathetic,I cannot bear through it…If I go it ruins my faith. Condemn me call be whatever you want but I won’t do it that’s it.

So would this be true if you were, say, vacationing in an area on Sunday that didn’t have a TLM? I always have to ask when I hear these never, ever statements.

 

[devotus]

So would this be true if you were, say, vacationing in an area on Sunday that didn’t have a TLM? I always have to ask when I hear these never, ever statements.

Hate to but in:twocents: …

I have left NO Masses while on vaction and now i will only attend a TLM or eastern catholic …never a NO – too risky to scandlize my children with…

 

[paramedicgirl]

I will not go to any Novus Ordo Mass ever. Not because I think it’s invalid, or that the See of Peter is vacant, or that V2 was not a real Council,no so don’t get excited all you Neo-Con’s. I won’t go because I cannot stomach it,It is so pathetic,I cannot bear through it…If I go it ruins my faith. Condemn me call be whatever you want but I won’t do it that’s it.

If I were to use this logic, (even though I love the TLM and find the NO Mas an empty shell of the real thing), then I would never get to Mass at all. Please remember that many of us, especially in rural Canada, have no access whatsoever to a TLM or even a reverent NO. We go the the only NO in town, or we don’t go to Mass at all. Ever.

Not a good compromise. I’ll take a less than reverent NO Mass over no Mass at all. I want to fulfill my Sunday obligation out of love for God.

 

[MTD]

I myself have no problem accepting the validity of the Latin Novus Ordo (or even the Polish) Novus Ordo but I admit I do have a serious problem with the English Novus Ordo. Pray for me all you want but Christ did NOT use the words “for all” when He consecrated the bread and wine.

I find it interesting that you, a Traditionalist, think this way since it has always been expressly taught in pre-Vatican II religion texts that transubstantiation takes place at the words “This is My Body” and “This is My Blood.”

Maria

 

[BobP123]

I find it interesting that you, a Traditionalist, think this way since it has always been expressly taught in pre-Vatican II religion texts that transubstantiation takes place at the words “This is My Body” and “This is My Blood.”

Maria

Not exactly true. According to Fr. Trinchard’s one-time example to me, if a priest were to utter words like “This is My Body…only for those of German descent” that would obviously invalidate it, wouldn’t it?

And “for all” is a lie. How can Christ offer His Own Body and Blood to us that way? Are you saying the Vatican II guys know more than Christ in telling us what He meant to say?

Not to worry though, the gates haven’t prevailed. There is a directive to fix it from Rome.

 

[MTD]

And “for all” is a lie. How can Christ offer His Own Body and Blood to us that way? Are you saying the Vatican II guys know more than Christ in telling us what He meant to say?

You got two things wrong.

First of all, since the ICEL translation of the NO words of consecration were validly approved by the Holy See, it is a valid and licit consecration. You are forgetting that in virtue of negative and indirect infallibility the Holy See cannot approve or make a law contrary to the Divine Law. I suggest you read this article from the old, pre-Vatican II Catholic Encyclopedia on Church discipline; I call special attention to the words, “From the disciplinary infallibility of the Church, correctly understood as an indirect consequence of her doctrinal infallibility, it follows that she cannot be rightly accused of introducing into her discipline anything opposed to the Divine law.”

Secondly, the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council were not the ones who made or approved the ICEL translation of the NO Mass. Besides, the Latin NO has pro multis, so your claim against the Vatican II Fathers is doubly wrong.

Maria

 

[TNT]

I find it interesting that you, a Traditionalist, think this way since it has always been expressly taught in pre-Vatican II religion texts that transubstantiation takes place at the words “This is My Body” and “This is My Blood.”

Maria

**OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR!
**St. Pius V’s De Defectibus: “Now the words of the Consecration, which are the form of this Sacrament, are: Hoc est enim Corpus meum, and Hic est enim Calix Sanguinis mei, novi et aeterni testamenti: mysterium fidei: qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum. If the priest were to shorten or change the form of the consecration of the Body and the Blood, so that in the change of wording the words did not mean the same thing, he would not be achieving a valid Sacrament. If, on the other hand, he were to add or take away anything which did not change the meaning, the Sacrament would be valid, but he would be committing a grave sin.”

** But such in detail would need a new thread.
**

 

[bear06]

Hate to but in:twocents: …

I have left NO Masses while on vaction and now i will only attend a TLM or eastern catholic …never a NO – too risky to scandlize my children with…

So you skip a valid Mass and don’t go at all? Have I got that right?

 

[MTD]

**OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR!
But such in detail would need a new thread.
**

By all means, TNT; begin a new thread! Oh, and don’t forget to read my last post above.

Maria

 

[TNT]

By all means, TNT; begin a new thread! Oh, and don’t forget to read my last post above.

Maria

Been there done that years ago…it’s now boring.
One thing though, that makes for a sense of humor? is when
Matthew 26
28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins.
is part of the reading that the priest reads out loud, and then 10min later says “For all” in the consecration.

I love diversity in Christological quotes.

 

[MTD]

According to St. Pius X, the necessary words are “This is my Body” and “This is my Blood” and that’s it.

Could you provide us with the name of that document from St. Pius X so that we can have a look at it? I think it might really add to this discussion.

Maria

 

[MTD]

Been there done that years ago…it’s now boring.

What are you referring to by that? Making a new thread or my reasoning in post #30?

Maria

 

[TNT]

By all means, TNT; begin a new thread! Oh, and don’t forget to read my last post above.

Maria

I did read it attentively as the Easterns like to say.
It is scary in the sense that we could be looking at:

1. Either St Pius the V was sadly in error or
2. We have a pseudo-church that has no such guarantee as you indicate. And thus could play patty-cake with any established sacrament form.

 

[TNT]

What are you referring to by that? Making a new thread or my reasoning in post #30?

Maria

A new Thread. It’s been beat to death and only ends in the Trads getting banned, under review and nothing else comes of it. So why fuss about it.
I just go to a TLM and my doubts or quibbles vanish, as such was not at issue in the Consecration.

 

[MTD]

1. Either St Pius the V was sadly in error or

No, because, if I’m not mistaken, St. Pius V was talking about the Tridentine Rite, not all rites. Surely he wasn’t saying that the words of consecration in the Eastern rites are invalid because they don’t follow the exact formula of the Roman Rite. Do you see what I mean?

Maria