Tridentine issue

[Subrosa]

I just joined a discussion group on a social media site that is filled with anti-Novus Ordo Catholics. They are not sedevacantists, although they may as well be given their attitudes.

They are saying that the NO Mass has left out some very important theological content, but I can’t get them to point out exactly what it is.

Does anyone know what they’re talking about?

Subrosa

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

I just joined a discussion group on a social media site that is filled with anti-Novus Ordo Catholics. They are not sedevacantists, although they may as well be given their attitudes.

They are saying that the NO Mass has left out some very important theological content, but I can’t get them to point out exactly what it is.

Does anyone know what they’re talking about?

Subrosa

Possibly they are referring to ideas that may well be summarized in the book being reviewed here.

Curiously the reviewer, who is himself quite conservative, disputes the claim that the Novus Ordo teaches heresy.

 

[DavidFilmer]

The only part of a Mass that is theologically required (as valid form) is the Consecration. It is not necessary for valid Eucharist to have the Creed, or the Lord’s Prayer, or hear any readings, homily, etc.

There is certainly theological content that was in the Triditine Mass which is not in NO. The Last Gospel is an obvious example. But it’s not Sacramentally necessary, so it makes no difference.

Since NO obviously contains the Consecration, it is Sacramentally valid. Since it is approved by the Magesterium, it is licit. I don’t understand why people quibble about this and that when the required form is clearly present.

Ask them what they think is the required form for Eucharist. Ask them if we have to recite the Creed for Eucharist to be valid.

Oh, and by the way - a lot of people don’t like the priest facing the congregation. But this is not required by NO. There is no reason why the priest could not celebrate with his back to the congregation if he wished to do so.

 

[christus_vincit]

Oh, and by the way - a lot of people don’t like the priest facing the congregation. But this is not required by NO. There is no reason why the priest could not celebrate with his back to the congregation if he wished to do so.

True, but the “dialogue” format of the NO would certainly make this awkward.

 

[thistle]

I just joined a discussion group on a social media site that is filled with anti-Novus Ordo Catholics. They are not sedevacantists, although they may as well be given their attitudes.

They are saying that the NO Mass has left out some very important theological content, but I can’t get them to point out exactly what it is.

Does anyone know what they’re talking about?

Subrosa

They seem to forget that the Form of the Mass is a discipline, not a doctrine and so everything can be changed except the consecration and priest receiving.

 

[tabycat]

I think, in some cases, some people just need some thing to point to and say it is wrong and should be stopped…

 

[crumblymunky]

I don’t think there is anything wrong with a priest facing God, and the people responding with their parts of the Mass. Altar boys have done it for 2,000 years. It just makes sense.

The only people who would find this weird are novos ordo Catholics.